President Bush said an important piece of American defense was the missile defense system.

Let’s hope he’s not putting all of our defense eggs in that basket. The missile defense system has cost $130 billion so far and is scheduled to tally $50 billion more over the next five years. And it still doesn’t work. Indeed, President Bush’s recently released budget includes a request for $8.8 billion in funds for missile defense, despite his pledge to cut programs that weren’t “achieving results.” (President Bush’s 2005 budget included nearly twice as much funding for the ineffective missile defense system as it alloted for the Department of Homeland Security to spend on customs and border patrol.)

In related news, Business Week quotes a defense expert who reports that “Russia has tested a ballistic missile that would render the United States Star Wars scheme useless.”

The President continues to criticize how “political” Washington is and that people need to put aside their politics for the greater good. Maybe he should give the same speech to his Secretary of State:

“Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told her senior staff she was disappointed about the stream of allegations and said she did not want any information coming out of the department that could adversely affect the [John Bolton] nomination.”

The President suggested that we go to some of the states where American employers are given personal accounts. Senator Barbara Boxer not only took that trip but also wrote up a report on it. Its conclusion:

“By examining the actual system in place in Texas, this study shows that Americans are worse off with privatized accounts – not in theory, but in reality.”

President Bush said, “I think everyone should have ownership over their [Social Security] accounts.”

FACT: Bush’s Social Security plan is a far cry from the private ownership he’s touting, however. For example, instead of private plans that let Americans control their own investments, there are tight restrictions on which conservative stocks and bonds the public will be allowed to buy. And, as the New York Times reports, “the more restrictions there are, the harder it would be for people to achieve the outsized returns the administration has generally promoted to sell the public on private accounts.” [NYT, 2/6/05]

The President likes to believe that his judicial nominees are being opposed because the candidates are individuals who believe in the philosphy that a judge should simply interpret the law rather than make the law from the bench. However, Judge Priscilla Owen — who may be the judicial nominee that Senate conservatives use to trigger the nuclear option — is widely opposed because of her judicial activism. Upon her nomination, several Texas papers weighed in. Here are some excerpts:

Austin-American Statesman, 4/29/03: “[O]wen is so conservative that she places herself out of the broad mainstream of jurisprudence. She seems all too willing to bend the law to fit her views, rather than the reverse.”

The Houston Chronicle, 5/12/03: “Owen’s judicial record shows less interest in impartially interpreting the law than in pushing an agenda…a justice who has shown a clear preference for ruling to achieve a particular result rather than impartially interpreting the law. Anyone willing to look objectively at Owen’s record would be hard-pressed to deny that.”

San Antonio Express, 7/21/02: “Once competency is established, the most important qualification for a judge is commitment to following the law as it is written – regardless of personal philosophy. Justice Priscilla Owen is clearly competent, but her record demonstrates a results-oriented streak that belies supporters’ claims that she strictly follows the law…The Senate should not block a judicial nominee simply because he or she is more conservative or more liberal than the Senate’s majority party. It also should not engage in petty personal attacks. But concerns about Owen go to the heart of what makes a good judge…When a nominee has demonstrated a propensity to spin the law to fit philosophical beliefs, it is the Senate’s right – and duty – to reject that nominee.”

President Bush tonight:

Too often the temptation in Washington is to look at a major issue only in terms of whether it gives one political party an advantage over the other. Social Security is too important for politics as usual.

We agree. We only wish White House officials felt the same way:

“Bush and his aides rarely reveal the political underpinnings of their policy agenda. But their ambitions were evident last month, when a memo by a senior White House strategist concerning the emerging Social Security plan was leaked to the media. The memo, written by Peter Wehner, director of the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives, put the stakes in grand political terms, saying there would be enduring benefits for Republicans if the president’s plans succeeded and Democrats came out of the debate as the ‘party of the past.’ ‘For the first time in six decades, the Social Security battle is one we can win — and in doing so, we can help transform the political and philosophical landscape of the country,’ Wehner wrote.” [Los Angeles Times, 2/2/05]

“My administration is doing everything we can to make gasoline more affordable. … I applaud the House for passing a good energy bill.”
– President Bush, 4/28/05

“An energy bill wouldn’t change the price at the pump today. I know that and you know that. … I wish I could simply wave a magic wand and lower gas prices tomorrow.”
– President Bush, 4/20/05