President Bush’s State of the Union address highlighted many policies for the next two years of his presidency, but what those ideas mean for the future of America is up for interpretation.
Many in Congress have expressed a lack of support for Bush’s Iraq strategy, and a Senate committee said yesterday they would not support a build-up of troops in Iraq. Bush has asked for 21,500 more troops to be sent to Baghdad to protect the city from civil unrest, indicating the country would descend into chaos if the U.S. were to step back.
Political science professor Eric McGhee said Congress has only a few choices in their opposition to Bush’s strategy.
“They could cut off funding, but there doesn’t seem like there’s much support for that idea,” he said. He added that another option could be to put a cap on the number of troops the U.S. would supply.
“At this point it’s unclear whether that’s going to happen. Neither option is very attractive to a lot of Democrats, but there are many Democrats that feel something needs to be done,” he said.
University sophomore Carol Pecorilla, along with 115 other democratic supporters, attended the College Democrats’ “State of CONfusion” party Tuesday night. The part of the speech that stood out most to her was the president’s call for an increase in troops.
“It was one of the most controversial parts of the night, I think,” she said.
Bush also emphasized the need for the U.S. to stop its dependence on foreign oil. He encouraged Congress to authorize a build-up of U.S. oil reserves, to invest in ethanol production and to increase regulation of fuel efficiency and emissions in the U.S. by 2017.
Ronald Mitchell, a political science professor who specializes in environmental politics, said Bush’s policies are a “step in the right direction, but fall short of both what most climate scientists view as necessary first steps and of what other countries are doing.”
Mitchell said that while a build-up of oil reserves would increase U.S. energy independence, it does little to address the broader problem of climate change.
President of the College Republicans Andrew Hill said he felt Bush’s U.S. energy policy was a good step.
“I thought it was a good direction to take to reduce the dependence on gasoline. I think that’s a realistic goal. I think it’s something we can do,” he said.
Some critics have suggested that U.S. production of ethanol, a corn-based alcohol used as a fuel additive, is not capable of keeping up with growing U.S. demand, and with the president’s incentives, production will not be able to meet the goals he has set.
Mitchell said the proposal is not intended to address whether the U.S. produces enough corn right now, but instead will encourage the market to increase production.
“There do appear to be limitations on how much corn-based ethanol can be produced,” Mitchell said. “That said, other cellulose-based sources of ethanol, including from switchgrass, provide alternatives that, at present, are uneconomical but, with appropriate incentives and investment, might provide valuable solutions in the longer term.”
Fuel efficiency standards in many countries surpass those of the U.S., and Bush last night called for an increase in regulations of fuel economy in U.S. vehicles.
Mitchell said he would have liked to see more from the president’s proposal.
“A major element that Bush might have considered adding to his agenda is a carbon tax on all use of fossil fuels that, if set at the right level, would quickly make several alternative, environmentally-friendly sources of energy more economically competitive,” he said.
The president also addressed the continuing issue of securing America’s borders and the influx of illegal immigrants.
His guest worker program, which has been met with differing views, was introduced to the new Congress, but McGhee said although the idea has seen a more positive response on the Democratic side, there are plenty of Democrats who oppose it.
“The politics of it are so complicated and damaging to the president that he hasn’t been willing to go much further,” McGhee said.
Whether the plan is implemented depends solely on Congress, McGhee said.
“With the president, his whole domestic agenda is a little dead in the water. It’s up to the Democrats, because he’s so unpopular. It’s hard to push a domestic agenda when you’re as unpopular as he is,” he said.
With the president’s very low approval rating, McGhee said the president’s popularity rides on one thing.
“His chances of becoming more popular are entirely determined by Iraq,” he said, adding that if things don’t turn around there, the president can expect to remain unpopular.
Contact the news editor at [email protected]