Bush plans education proposal tonight (`Pell Grants for Kids', termination of many fed. programs)

WASHINGTON - President Bush, in his last State of the Union message Monday night, will call anew for patience on Iraq, propose a $300 million initiative for children trapped in struggling inner-city schools and suggest termination of scores of federal programs.

Previewing some highlights of Bush's primetime speech to Congress, a high-ranking White House official also said the president will announce plans to have the United States host the next hemispheric summit in hurricane-ravaged New Orleans. The administration earlier Monday said that Bush was to use his nationally broadcast address to attack the so-called "earmarks," special projects lawmakers often insert into Congress's spending bills.

White House counselor Ed Gillespie, describing Bush's plans for a new school initiative, said Monday afternoon that Bush "has some concerns about the declining number of faith-based and parochial schools in inner cities around the country and low-income neighborhoods." Because of this, Gillespie said, Bush is ready to "urge Congress to enact a program he calls `Pell Grants for Kids.' "

The money would "provide alternatives for children now trapped in struggling public schools," Gillespie told reporters.

Also, Bush was announcing that an annual meeting involving the leaders of the United States, Canada and Mexico will be held in New Orleans — a move designed, according to Gillespie, to "demonstrate how this great American city of New Orleans is rebounding."

On spending, Bush plans to announce his desire to reduce or eliminate some 150 federal programs that Gillespie deemed "wasteful or bloated." Bush's final budget proposal to Congress is due shortly, and lawmakers for the most part decide which programs are trimmed or scrapped.

On Iraq, Bush will seek to remind the country that the battle-scarred nation is the "central front on the war on terror," Gillespie said.

The president planned to press Congress — particularly the Senate, where he senses trouble — to finish an economic stimulus package fast.

And he will pledge to veto any spending bill that does not cut earmarks in half from levels spelled out in the current budget. The White House said that Bush planned to sign an executive order on Tuesday directing agencies to ignore any future earmarks that are not actually written into law, but rather tucked into obscure "report" language. The White House also said such a move will force Congress to make its spending more transparent. However, that plan leaves untouched the more than 11,700 earmarks totaling $16.9 billion that Congress approved last year.

White House press secretary Dana Perino said Bush decided to restrict earmarks going forward — not backward — because Congress first deserved "a very clear indication of what he was going to do."

The final State of the Union of the Bush presidency will be roughly split between domestic and foreign matters. Expect few surprises and no big initiatives. To the degree the speech favors the pragmatic over the bold, the White House offers a two-word explanation: Blame Congress.

Bush's efforts to overhaul Social Security and immigration died on Capitol Hill, but not just because of Democratic opposition. He also ran into walls put up by members of his own party. Heading into the speech, White House press secretary Dana Perino said it is unrealistic to expect Congress to take on big problems.

The White House strategy now is to go after what's left of that elusive common ground; Bush has 12 months remaining, and an even shorter window for legislation this election year. So he will push Congress to pass some short-term economic aid and make permanent his first-term tax cuts, which are due to expire in 2010.

He also will call for housing reform, better health care and veterans' care, alternative energy development and renewal of the No Child Left Behind education law.

The domestic section of Bush's speech will also remind the nation of his ideas on climate change, faith-based programs and stem cell research. When he pivots to foreign matters, Bush will emphasize progress in Iraq, and repeat that troop withdrawals will happen when they won't undermine Iraq's success.

Bush also does not plan to turn the speech into a retrospective look at his time in office.

"I can understand how many people, especially those that cover the president in the press, could see that the president would approach this as his legacy speech," Perino said. "But no, not at all. This is a very forward-looking speech."

A pervasive current of the address will be trusting and empowering Americans. It is a theme Bush has wanted to emphasize in a speech for months.

As long as he commands the military and retains veto power, Bush remains relevant. Yet his clout is slipping. That is the political reality given his approval ratings, which are near the worst of his presidency, and his outsider role in the campaign for the 2008 presidential nominations.

The top Democratic contenders, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, will be on hand. Those two alone will draw most of the reaction shots shown on television. A leading Republican candidate, Sen. John McCain, is staying in Florida, where Tuesday's Republican primary will shorten Bush's news cycle.

"As we await President Bush's final State of the Union address Monday night we know one thing for sure: that cherished faith in America has been greatly diminished, and with it, our ability to respond to the critical challenges that threaten our security," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Bush's language is expected to be tougher when it comes to something else he wants from Congress: the extension of a law that allows surveillance of suspected terrorists. The current eavesdropping law, which allows government surveillance of phone calls and e-mails involving people in the United States, expires Friday. Bush is clashing with the Senate leadership over safeguards as well as legal immunity for telecommunications companies that helped the government spy on American citizens.

The Senate is expected to take a key vote on the bill just hours before Bush speaks, so the White House may adjust the speech on the fly. Otherwise, the address is essentially locked down at roughly 40 minutes long, not counting interruptions for applause.

That’s not true and you know it. Until the ‘06 election he had majorities in both houses of Congress.

Democrats strong armed him into Prescription Drug Benefits?
What was his motivation for not vetoing CFR? Oh that’s right, the lame “I thought the Supreme Court would find it unconstitutional” bit.

If that’s so, then he obviously didn’t take seriously the part of his Oath to defend the Constitution huh? Say what you will about Reagan, but he always took his job seriously.

As for Amnesty “at all costs”, parroting the “jobs Americans won’t do” line, and insinuating that conservatives are racists for not towing the White House line; I don’t remember Reagan insulting his base in such ways.

Calling the Minutemen vigilantes? Maybe he doesn’t understand the meaning of the word?

The mistakes that Reagan made should have been learned from. I never claimed the man was perfect. But he could articulate conservative principles and knew why they work. I don’t know what exactly Bush understands or believes in, because he really doesn’t know how to articulate it.

That said, I’m glad we had him at the helm during and after 9/11. If there’s one thing he takes seriously it is the safety and security of our country (except for the border!!!). His appointment of judges to the SC have been far superior to Reagan’s as well.

But just because he’s OUR big government spender, doesn’t make him immune from criticism. But just because you have an (R) next to your name doesn’t make you a small government conservative either!

That’s a lesson we should keep in mind during future election cycles IMHO.

Well I guess I’m no “true” conservative either! I thought I was, but not. I suppose it all depends on what one is conservative about, isn’t it? It’s in the eye of the beholder, just like beauty.

I guess I’m naive, because I’ve never seen so many people turn so violently against him. I read these long lists of things he has done right, but just because of a few slights, people have forgotten so soon all the good things he did, or tried to do.

It’s not just mere criticism that bugs me, no, it’s the blatent hatred not only coming from the left. It seems to be coming from the right also. That’s all right. No president is perfect. Some criticism is due here and there. But surely he doesn’t deserve the name calling and nasty comments coming from his own side.

So, oh yeah,I just hope you find the pure, true conservatives wherever you can find them. I pity the ones you do find. One false step, one slip of the tongue, and you’ll all turn against him/her just like you did Pres. Bush (Notice I called him “Pres. Bush”, because he still is) when he does something you don’t like. Or doesn’t do you want when you want it. Some of you will slice and dice them, and turn against them in a fury, no matter what they do!

I am not around FR much any more, and it is for exactly this reason. Apparently the one-senator majority the GOP had (and that was when you counted Lincoln Chaffee, the two ladies from Maine, and McCain) was supposed to make it possible for Bush to grant every "perfect conservative's" wish.

Nevermind political suicide or common sense, he should have just waved that magic wand and granted their every wish.

I was skimming the threads for some idea of the reaction here to the SOTU, but I see enough to know I had better go elsewhere and not waste my time.

I am proud to have worked for and supported George Bush, I STILL support George Bush, and I will always think the nation should look at him with gratitude for his leadership.

I should also say that I live in a very Republican district in central Indiana and I know NO Republicans who complain like this. The only people I know who are so dismissive and contemptuous of him are democrats.

No president is perfect.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I wasn’t expecting a perfect conservative president.

A perfect true conservative would have abolished the Department of Education and returned ALL education matters to the states ( including college Pell Grants).

At the very least a NON-perfect **true** conservative president would have done nothing at all! The federal government should NOT be in the education business and a president who expands federal involvement is NOT a conservative!

If Bush really wanted to help on the voucher issue, he would have flown to Utah and helped campaign for them in that state. A true conservative would have done that. A true conservative president would have been in that state educating the people on why it was a good idea.

I would like to see tax credits for government school children as much as anyone( I am less in favor of vouchers) but I am NOT in favor of the federal government doing it.

Are there some issues that I think Bush as done a good job? Yes! Of course! But, on the issue of education, I am disgusted with him.

You wanted the President to fly into Utah and campaign for a STATE issue? Indiana is in the middle of a property tax reform argument...should he fly in here, too?

You are welcome to your opinion on education. The fact is that NCLB has made schools ACCOUNTABLE and test scores have gone UP. Those are the results.

Conservatives have lost the argument on keeping the feds out of schools. They lost this because individual districts spend way too much money with poor results, mostly because of the influence of the Teachers' Union. What Bush did was gave the local districts clout to withstand the unions, by having the backing of the feds. You can think this is a bad idea, but the fact that the union wants the program abolished is pretty telling to me.

Why can't you disagree without being "disgusted?"

Shut down the Dept of Education. Shut down Pell Grants and all other Federal assistance to students and educators. No more Federal standards, tests or no child left behind. None. Cut taxes for the difference. The new rule for education should be that parents pay for what they get and get what they pay for. I.e. competition.

Thank you. I heard that "pell grant" business, and my eyes about rolled up backwards into my head. It is NOT the business of the federal government to prop up inner city parochial schools (which are being closed because Catholics and others, Lutherans etc. are moving OUT of the inner cities.)

So my district has to suffer ("teaching to the test," less time for art, music, etc.) because of the problems of other districts. We don't even HAVE teachers' unions in my state. Teachers aren't allowed to collective bargain here. Yet we still have massively dysfunctional city districts. But other districts have to be sacrificed on the altar to fix those dysfunctional ones.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.