GW: Is he stupid or evil? (Notes on the gas tax and Democrats' "priorities")

No, this is not a rhetorical question.  I do have a point, and it's one that we'll need to discuss seriously as the 2008 election draws near.

On Thursday, August 9th, GW had this to say with regard to the $0.05 per gallon gas tax proposed to fund desperately needed infrastructure improvements:

Before we raise taxes, which could affect economic growth, I would strongly urge the Congress to examine how they set priorities.

For once, I agree with GW.  Let's examine our priorities.

The President was referring to the House Transportation Committee's practice of earmarking certain projects before distributing the remainder of budgeted funds through state grants.  These projects account for approximately 8% of the Federal transportation budget, according to the AP.  The portion of the budget we're talking about, coupled with the fact that these "pet projects" are, in fact, bridge and road projects, hardly makes a persuasive case that the Committee's priorities are the source of the problem.  It's amusing that this is being put forward as a serious argument while we are spending, according to the National Priorities Project, 40% of our tax dollars on war:

In 2006, according to the National Priorities Project, current military spending accounted for 27 cents of every income tax dollar paid.  Additionally, NPP determined that nine cents of every federal income tax dollar paid today could be attributed to borrowing to pay for past wars and military build-ups.  Finally, disability payments, health care and other benefits accrued to veterans made up a little over three cents of the federal income tax dollar, bringing total military spending up to close to 40 cents of every tax dollar.

That's academic, though.  We all know that GW was insinuating his way towards a much larger issue, one that is likely to become the center of debate in the '08 election: social programs and the "tax and spend" liberals who support them.

After the tragic bridge collapse in Minneapolis, the finger pointing has begun.  The Democrats have their priorities (peace, public health and safety, economic justice, etc.), the Republicans have theirs (endless war, protecting corporate profits, maintaining a permanent economic underclass, etc.), and each party is blaming the other for neglecting infrastructure development in favor of their own agendas.

Though I am a partisan Democrat, I thought I would try my hand at an impartial, objective, data supported analysis of this issue.  Let's see if we can figure out who's in the right, and who needs to "examine how they set priorities."

ISSUE ONE:  The President's top priority, the war in Iraq, according to the latest CNN poll, is supported by only 33% of Americans.  The Democrats' priorities seem to have broader support, to say the least.  According to a November 2006 Gallup poll, 71% of Americans characterized our health care system as having "major problems" or being in a "state of crisis."  More importantly, 69% of respondents said they felt it was "the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have health care coverage."

If it is, in fact, the duty of a freely elected civilian government to obey the will of those people they were elected to govern, our legislative priorities should be quite clear.  This leads me to the following conclusion:

President Bush is either unaware of, or does not care about, the priorities of the people he was elected to govern.

ISSUE TWO:  The core principle upon which the Republican Party operates is the limitation of the role of the federal government in domestic affairs, i.e. social programs.  This argument is usually made on a Constitutional basis: "The Constitution doesn't say anything about funding social programs, therefore we shouldn't fund them."  Aside from the rather obvious counter-argument that the Constitution does not preclude these programs, and that they are, therefore, quite legitimately within the purview of our State and Federal legislatures, this is incorrect in point of fact.  The Preamble to our Constitution, bold type mine (obviously):

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Founders of our nation decided a long time ago what are government's priorities should be.  GW seems to be ok with the notions of justice and defense, but his mind tends to wander when he gets to the "welfare" and "liberty" bits.  This leads me to my second conclusion:

George Bush is either unaware of, or does not care about, the basic principles of the Constitution he has sworn to protect and defend.

That's the question, though, isn't it?  Is he unaware of these things, or does he simply not care?  In other words, is GW stupid, or evil?

It may seem academic, but the way we answer this question determines, in large part, the course we must chart as a party and as a nation.  If our President is merely stupid, that means our government's structures and processes are essentially sound.  Our focus should be on stronger communication between the government and the governed through increased civic involvement, educating Americans about the issues in order to win the centrists to our side, and using the Democratic process to effect necessary change.  In other words, voting out the dimwit and putting someone in the White House who shares the people's priorities.

If, on the other hand, our President is evil, the landscape of our immediate future is quite different.  It suggests that a shadow power structure has hijacked our government and our priorities are being set aside in favor of the sinister and largely unknown objectives of that power structure.  That situation calls for a stronger brand of activism.

So, I ask you all to answer the following poll with the same deliberate, considered attention with which is it offered.

We all know that the two biggest issues in the '08 election are likely to be National Health Care and the War on Terror.  What we need to remember is that these issues are going to be pitted against each other.  It is time for all voters, as GW says, to "examine how they set priorities."  Let's make sure the victors in '08 have been subjected to the same examination.