Reflections on the State of the Union

Last night, President George W. Bush delivered the State of the Union Address that the Constitution requires him to give "from time to time." (Hat Tip: WorldNetDaily for its transcript.) It was arguably the best time in a century for any President to be delivering a SOTU address--after soldiers of the United States Armed Forces stood guard as a newly liberated nation held elections for the first time in half a century. And while the rest of the country was celebrating (and rightly so), that group of people whom we sardonically call "the loyal oppposition" could do no more than carp from the sidelines--and in some cases, on the floor of the House itself.

I'm not even going to bother analyzing the unbecoming remarks of Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) and Representative (of herself, perhaps?) Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Of half their remarks, I would say, "Where have you been since 9/11/2001?" Or maybe, "We're doing it already; pick up your feet!" And as for the rest, the nation didn't tune in to hear My Life by Harry Reid (didn't we get a whole forgettable book by that title from Bill Clinton?) or yet another canard about "occupying forces."

Instead, I'd like to tell you all what this reminds me of--something that happened long, long ago, but not in a galaxy far, far away, but right here on this earth.

51 BC--or, by the dating convention of the time, anno consulatium Lucii Aemilii Pauli et Gaii Claudii Marcelli (literally, "in the year of the consulships of Lucius Aemilius Paulus and Gaius Claudius Marcellus"). In that year, one of the greatest generals that Rome ever knew, Gaius Julius Caesar, had just concluded a war against the Confederation of King Vercingetorix on stunningly victorious terms. Yet Caesar's opposition in Rome was proposing to remove him and charge him with treason--on totally trumped-up grounds. The tribune-of-the-plebs Gaius Scribonius Curio would successfully stop the Senate of Rome from relieving Caesar of his command for another year--but in the next year the Senate would actually expel the then tribunes-of-the-plebs Mark Antony and Quintus Cassius from the Senate, after which they and Senator Curio would take flight and join Caesar. Of Caesar's famous crossing of the Rubicon ("Let the dice fly high!") and of his civil war with Pompey, others have told the story far better than I can. Let it suffice that at the end of it, only Caesar stood at the head of Rome, eventually celebrating one of the greatest triumphs that Rome ever saw.

All right. Let's assume, just for a moment, that every half-baked thing that the Democrats (and some Libertarians) have been saying about Bush were true, and that Bush was another Caesar, and just as dangerous as he to republican governance. (Let's even assume that Caesar was as dangerous as his detractors charged, which itself is debatable--but I digress.) What sort of scene do you think would have played out? Would Bush have been content just to deliver a speech, like a CEO reporting to the annual shareholders' meeting of a public joint-stock corporation? As good--as great--as that moment was, I would like to put all this loose talk about Bush being a dictator into perspective.

The forces of the Third Infantry would assemble on the parade ground of the Marine base at Quantico, Virginia. On a certain day, they would form into a marching column and start marching straight up Interstate 95, toward Washington. All traffic would be blocked, of course. Eventually they would make rendezvous, on the Virginia side of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge that spans the Potomac River, with the rest of the procession.

And here is how that procession would march or drive into Washington:

1. First you would see a lengthy motorcade of the entire United States Senate, all in their limousines.
2. Next would come tank trucks laden with crude oil--or maybe just with gasoline, heating oil, and kerosene, the most common oil by-products. These would represent the spoils of war. And maybe you'd also see some big flatbed trucks carrying gold ingots and precious gemstones.
3. Next would come float after float after float, each representing a major battle in the War in Iraq. Basra--Mosul--Tikrit--Fallujah--finally Baghdad. (Actually, the order matters little in this context.)
4. Next would come the parade of prisoners--Saddam Hussein, Tariq Aziz, "Chemical Ali", and maybe those of Al-Zarqawi's lieutenants that the Iraqis have already captured. Nor would these be presented with bags over their heads--you'd see Saddam in full military regalia, strutting like the bantam rooster that he is, and probably made more of than he deserves--because the whole idea of the triumph is to show that you defeated a worthy adversary.
5. Next, a company of MP's.
6. And next, riding in a specially modified Humvee that would be a cross between a Humvee and the Pope-Mobile, would ride the President, waving to the crowd, with some flunky standing next to him, whispering, "All glory is fleeting, and this, too, shall pass."
7. Next, Laura and the Bush girls, all decked out in their finery. (When is the last time you saw Laura Bush decked out like some gaudy grandee's wife?)
8. And finally, the whole Third Infantry Division, marching in lock-step, looking for all the world like an army marching in to capture a city, not to be greeted with joy by its residents.

Now that is what a Roman triumph would look like, were Bush megalomaniacal enough to stage one. Instead, President Bush makes his report to a joint session of Congress--and when he mentions the parents of a fallen soldier, a spontaneous display of emotion takes place, and the next morning, at least two Members of the Main-Stream Media have to ask whether that event was staged.

Now we've come to expect that behavior from scurrilous scribblers. Dan Rather set that low standard last year. But to hear it come from United States Representatives and Senators is beyond the pale.

Which brings me to the two occasions in which I--and not only I but the worthies at NewsMax.com--caught Members of Congress booing, hissing, and catcalling while the President was laying it on the line about Social Security's vulnerability. Here is what the President said:

So here is the result [of getting down to three, or even two, workers per beneficiary in the system]: Thirteen years from now, in 2018, Social Security will be paying out more than it takes in. And every year afterward will bring a new shortfall, bigger than the year before. For example, in the year 2027, the government will somehow have to come up with an extra 200 billion dollars to keep the system afloat - and by 2033, the annual shortfall would be more than 300 billion dollars. By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt. If steps are not taken to avert that outcome, the only solutions would be drastically higher taxes, massive new borrowing, or sudden and severe cuts in Social Security benefits or other government programs.

Now sportsfans, if any private company concocted a pension scheme, or even an insurance policy, that paid present benefits out of present premiums, with no cash-on-hand to earn income to keep those benefits coming, that person would go to jail, and rightly so, on a charge of fraud. Any student of famous frauds will recognize this as a Ponzi scheme. And as for the facile defense that Social Security's "trust funds" are in specially issued and trackable US Treasury instruments, I say the same thing: any company that funded its pension plan from its own commercial paper would be shut down, and its assets turned over to a government receiver, for such insolence and contempt of the law. And yet we have put up with this system for seventy years, because the government invented it. Sovereign immunity...!

And all that the Democrats can do, as I say, is carp from the sideline, or even boo and hiss from the floor of the House right during that speech. They can deny the facts, of course--if they want to continue to look like fools, and prove that their mascot is aptly chosen. But they can't fight the truth forever, whether that truth is about a misbegotten and actuarially unsound program, or about themselves and what we laughingly call their platform.