Posted by Mark Silva at 2:05 pm and updated at 2:51 pm CST
President Bush plans to push for the conservation of oil tonight with a State of the Union address proposing a "20 in 10'' plan to cut American fuel consumption by 20 percent in 10 years, and he will press for tax incentives for health care, immigration reform and a continuation of his education reforms.
But the president plans to save for the second half of his nearly hour-long televised address to a joint session of Congress and the nation starting at 8 pm CST any mention of the controversial war in Iraq or a broader war against terrorism, fields in which the White House acknowledges Bush will break "no new ground.''
By focusing on new initiatives in health care and energy conservation, in addition to renewing his call for immigration and education reforms, the president hopes to present the new Democratic-run Congress with an agenda which both parties can work together on in the coming year. Bush also plans to make no direct mention of resolutions that congressional leaders are preparing to oppose his new deployment of troops.
"We go into this process with no illusions about the atmosphere we're working in,'' said Dan Bartlett, counselor to the president, insisting that the public wants leaders in Washington "to find common ground.''
"Obviously, there is an emotional and highly charged debate when it comes to Iraq,'' Bartlett said, but the White House is billing the president's agenda as "the basis for bipartisan outreach.''
With his address, Bartlett said, the president hopes to "demonstrate that the power of ideas can transcend partisan ideas in Washington… the American people, regardless of what the polls say that day, will say, 'This is worth studying… This is worth engaging the Democratic congress on….' These are areas where we think we can find common ground.''
"If we peel back all the rhetoric…. Americans expect to see progress made by leaders in Washington.''
Most notably, the White House says that an address devoted roughly "50-50'' to foreign policy and domestic matters will save discussion of the war for the second half of the speech. "The back half of the speech will be on Iraq'' as well as the broader war against terror, according to White House spokesman Tony Snow.
"The president had an opportunity to lay out his new approach, his new strategy, for Iraq two weeks ago,'' National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said today, alluding to a televised speech that the president made from the White House on Jan. 10. "As a consequence, he is not going to plow new ground tonight.''
The president "won't break any new ground on Iraq,'' Hadley said. Bush plans to "remind Americans that Iraq is part of the struggle against terrorism, an ideological struggle of two different views." He will talk about "the consequences of failure in Iraq… and also about the consequences of failure in the Middle East and beyond.
Acknowledging that the president continues to confront a problem that the public does not draw the connection between the war in Iraq and the broader war against terror that Bush has been making for some time now, Hadley said: "I think you'll find it's a very good statement about the consequences in the region. One of the things we've heard is that Americans don't understand the connection between the war on terror.
"The security of the American people is very much tied up in how the situation in Iraq plays out,'' Hadley said of a speech focusing on the consequences of failure. "It will be a lot about what is at stake.''
"The key issue'' is that "security in Baghdad is the key for success in the region,'' he said.
With his health care and energy initiatives, says Joel Kaplan, deputy chief of staff for policy, "the president is going to lay out a positive, comprehensive vision for addressing real problems.''
The president plans to address the problem of global warming, but largely from the point of view of what the U.S. can do to limit the emissions of atmosphere-damaging emissions -- calling on Americans to cut their consumption of gasoline by 20 percent in the next 10 years:
Bush will propose to achieve his energy savings in part by asking Congresss to give him authority over Corporate Average Fuel Consumption standards to demand demand tougher standards for automobiles as well as light trucks.
Bush proposes to reach 5 percent of the fuel savings that he proposes in his "20 in 10" plan this way - cutting auto fuel consumption by 8.5 billion gallons of gas by 2017.
He has asked for this authority before and hasn't gotten it, however.
He proposes to reach 15 percent of the savings with a boost in consumption of alternative fuels - such as cellulostic ethanol. This is to offset 35 billion gallons of gas. The government already has a goal of averting 7.5 billion gallons of gas consumption by 2012, with the Bush administration suggesting that "a technology push'' for development of alternative fuels can achieve a much greater savings.
This follows up on Bush's call for conservation in last year's State of the Union, in which he warned about the American "addiction to oil."
The president will propose a new standard tax deduction for everyone who has health insurance, exempting the first $7,500 of an individual's income from either income or payroll taxes and exempting the first $15,000 of a family's income from income or payroll taxes. In addition, anyone receiving health care benefits at work would have to report this as taxable income from their employers.
The net effect, the White House maintains, is that 80 percent of those receiving health coverage at work would see a savings in taxes – about 80 percent of all those now insured in the workplace. For the average family with an income of $60,000 a year, the White House projects a $4,500 tax savings.
Yet, for those with more "generous'' and costly policies at work – about 20 percent of all those now insured through employers – the plan poses a tax increase, according to the White House.
The White House also acknowledges that this could encourage more employers to shed their health insurance plans, as employees are encouraged to find coverage on their own.
"The current tax code discriminates against those who purchase health insurance on their own,'' Kaplan said today. The president "wants to eliminate that bias.''
In education, the president will call on Congress to renew the No Child Left Behind Act that he won during his first year as president – and call on Congress not to "water down'' that law requiring annual testing of students in public schools to ensure that schools are making "adequate yearly progress.''
In immigration, the president will be seeking congressional action on a proposal that he has made for years: Enabling millions of undocumented workers already living and working in the U.S. to remain, pay fines, learn English and eventually seek citizenship. The Senate passed a version of this proposal last year, but it died in the House, where Republican leaders opposed what they consider "amnesty'' for illegal immigrants.
This time, Kaplan says, the White House will be asking Congress "to engage in a serious and conclusive debate on immigration.'' Asked what's different about the president's proposal this year, Kaplan said, "What's new ground is that we've got a new Congress.'''
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
20 in 10? That's 30, ain't it Laura?
Posted by: gwb | January 23, 2007 2:32 PM
20 in 10 = too little, too late.
Posted by: Leo T | January 23, 2007 2:57 PM
I wish - just one time - the president's sincerity about tackling an issue matched his rhetoric.
If he really embraces alternative fuel use as he says he does, why has funding for cellulosic ethanol research decreased every year since 2000 while the dollars made available for coal and nuclear energy research have increased?
http://www.energycommission.org/files/finalReport/IV.4.c%20-%20Cellulosic%20Ethanol%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf
Please Mr. President, do yourself and the country a huge favor.
Pick a relevant and important topic, and come to the table ready, willing, and able to tackle it with some measure of credibility.
I know the public would appreciate it far more than you could ever imagine.
Posted by: johnf | January 23, 2007 3:03 PM
What does Halliburton think about this?
Posted by: John E. | January 23, 2007 3:09 PM
Only Jehovah can bring about peace.
Posted by: Joe Garcia | January 23, 2007 3:43 PM
"Yet, for those with more "generous'' and costly policies at work – about 20 percent of all those now insured through employers – the plan poses a tax increase, according to the White House.
The White House also acknowledges that this could encourage more employers to shed their health insurance plans, as employees are encouraged to find coverage on their own."
Gee, Thanks Mr. President! We always need to encourage business to provide us with fewer benefits.
Posted by: Tony | January 23, 2007 3:50 PM
For those of you unaware of companies who offer High Deductibe Insurance...it's coming to your company soon. Get ready to pay the full negotiated rate your insurance carrier would normally pay, including the co-pay you used to have.
For example...
BEFORE: a procedure that costs $3,000...you only paid a $25 co-pay....your insurance company paid the rest.
HIGH DEDUCTIBLE INSURANCE: You will pay the $3,000 dollars out of your pocket.
Posted by: JD | January 23, 2007 3:52 PM
George Bush will deliver us from the Axis of Evil. He's the best president ever and I will vote for him in 08'!!!!!!!! U.S.A Forever!!! God Bless our Troops!!!!!!!!! Republican Rule is here to STAY!!!
Posted by: Mike McCabe | January 23, 2007 3:53 PM
20 in 10?
Impressive indeed when pinhead wants to talk numbers, isn't it?
But here's some numbers all you Bushites should consider instead:
2900 Dead in WTC
3000+ Dead American soldiers in Iraq
10,000+ Wounded in Iraq
300,000+ Iraqi dead
1300+ Dead in New Orleans
20,000 More targets on the way to Iraq
1 Man responsible for all this. You voted for him and gave him untold billions to spend on it all.
Was it worth it?
Posted by: mg | January 23, 2007 4:04 PM
Looks like Bush is reduced to borrowing policy goals from movies now: "The American President"'s main storyline dealt with a lobbyist's effort to get a bill with *exactly* those specifications passed. Guess they'll start watching reruns of "The West Wing" next. I suppose they could do worse...
Posted by: Ana Sedai | January 23, 2007 4:07 PM
"The president will propose a new standard tax deduction for everyone who has health insurance, exempting the first $7,500 of an individual's income from either income or payroll taxes"
Let's look at this a little closer, shall we?
The amount of tax a person filing singly pays on the first $7,500 of income is: $753.00.
The White House admits this plan will encourage employers to stop offering health insurance benefits to their employees.
So more people are going to be forced to buy their own insurance.
How many of you believe you can get health insurance of any quality for $753.00 a year?
The bottom line: More people will be getting less coverage, for more money out of pocket.
Thank goodness this plan has no chance of Congressional passage.
Posted by: Tony | January 23, 2007 4:32 PM
Mg, your hyperbole is useless. Or do you really believe that George W. Bush is responsible for the deaths at the World Trade Center?
I guess "W" personally directed the hurricane towards New Orleans too.
Go back under your rock you nut case.
Posted by: Anonco Ward | January 23, 2007 6:17 PM
Anonco:It's not that he intentionally is respossible for the WTC and Katrina,but rather in my opinion,g.w.did nothing during Katrina and attacked the wrong country regarding the WTC.According to bush himself,Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.The ignorrant fool knows nothing of what he's doing.He's
,g.w.is better off staying in the bottle and leave the U.S. to someone that understands the situation.The question remains,Why did we(he) attack
Iraq,and why are we still there?
Posted by: gordon | January 23, 2007 7:17 PM
So the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01 were due to "faulty intelligence" on the part of the president's administration but that same faulty intelligence that led to the Iraq invasion was "lying?" BTW ethanol is a boondoggle and scam to gain subsidies,not a real solution to the energy problems we face.
Posted by: Barry | January 23, 2007 7:43 PM
20 in 10? maybe 10 to 20.
Posted by: bill r. | January 23, 2007 7:50 PM
Mg, your hyperbole is useless. Or do you really believe that George W. Bush is responsible for the deaths at the World Trade Center?
I guess "W" personally directed the hurricane towards New Orleans too.
Go back under your rock you nut case.
Posted by: Anonco Ward | Jan 23, 2007 6:17:33 PM
You and your kind are truly the proven nut cases in this country, but your delusions have blinded you that that of course. Can you logically absolve your "popular wartime president" from complicity or criminal negligence in any of these events. I doubt it.
Posted by: mg | January 23, 2007 10:49 PM
mg,
I'm not going to argue with you about Iraq. However, I think it is a dangerous precedent to set to call any president or other leader "complicit" or "criminally negligent" for deaths that occur from natural disasters or malicious, murderous actions that are beyond his control. To demand that presidents be superhuman is too stringent a requirement for my taste.
Posted by: JB | January 24, 2007 9:18 AM
"or malicious, murderous actions that are beyond his control. To demand that presidents be superhuman is too stringent a requirement for my taste."
JB, the Iraq war was always in Bush's control. He chose the timing. This war was not forced on us.
I don't expect the President to be superhuman. I expect at a minimum for him to show the level of care, concern and prudence that any competent person would show when dealing with issues of such import. He has fallen far short of that standard.
Posted by: Tony | January 24, 2007 10:25 AM
jb,
If you're disputing the fact that Bush's response to Katrina or his willful disregard of warnings issued prior to 9/11 are anything less than criminally negligent, you're missing the point.
It's all about accountability. Bush acts as if he has no responsibilities in these events other than to pretend that he is some great leader, courageously leading a nation out of danger. These events, all represent failures by the system he is charged to preside over. Avoidable failures equate to constitutional, if not criminal neglect at his level.
And by the way, regarding precedent, wasn't Clinton was accused of far worse by republicans during his term?
To know that a president is simply another flawed human being goes without saying, but to get Bush to admit to any of those same fallibilities is quite another matter. If anything, Bush encourages his blindest followers to overlook his obvious faults and regard his his worst decisions as divine.
Posted by: mg | January 24, 2007 4:41 PM
As far as i understand the plan, Bush intends to cut the projected gasoline use of 2017 by 20%. So this isn't a cut at all -- it's a 20% reduction of the *projected* numbers. In plainer words -- a slight reduction of the projected increase. But still an increase.
Posted by: Hans Martin | January 25, 2007 8:10 AM
Gentlemen, GWJr is not responsible for WTC. Let's look back to "Zipper Bill" oh I am sorry, Mr. B. Clinton, who in fact did not want to listen to any of the CIA/SService's recommendations and wrnings regarding the Arab Bad Guy who in fact was trained and educated in the USA. And for this bad guy, to denounce captializm that's OK but did anyone know that he "shorted" the stock on the main insurer Llodys of London just a few days prior to the bombing? No one wants to hear about that. Unfortunately I have to agree with the consenus of the group "why are we in Iraq." I was involved in Tricky Dicks private war in 1973 to 1976 and frankly at that time it was the right move. But now, I cry everytime I see and read about another US Soldier, Seal, GB SS,Contractor go down. All for what. To dispose of a dictator that could have been done with 1 shot! It would have saved a great many lifes and saved a great many more with ware disabilities. But we must understand that we as Americans are a proud and relentless people when we have been violated. WTC violated the US People. maybe a knee jerk reaction by GWJr, but he acted. We can micro manage any body. This president has been thrown into a fire fight when he didn't even know it since the former president never fully explained the whole situation. Gentlemen, remember 1 thing. Only in the great USA can we openly speak about all political matters while in other parts of the world we would all be in jail. By the way I believe that there are many Vets if given the chance to serve again they would! I'm not a Vet,But I would go as well to protect the all the freedoms including Freedom of speech. That includes positive and negative opinions. Thank you for reading my excerpt.
Posted by: James | January 4, 2008 5:21 PM