THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. I just finished a Cabinet meeting. One of the things we discussed was the terrible situation there in Minneapolis. We talked about the fact that the bridge collapsed, and that we in the federal government must respond and respond robustly to help the people there not only recover, but to make sure that lifeline of activity, that bridge, gets rebuilt as quickly as possible.That's it. That is the extent of what the president of the United States has to say about the collapse of a major interstate highway bridge that sent dozens of cars plunging over 60 feet into the Mississippi River.
To that end, Secretary Peters is in Minneapolis, as well as Federal Highway Administrator Capka. I spoke to Governor Pawlenty and Mayor Rybak this morning. I told them that the Secretary would be there. I told them we would help with rescue efforts, but I also told them how much we are in prayer for those who suffered. And I thank my fellow citizens for holding up those who are suffering right now in prayer.
Kyle Moore at Comments From Left Field nails it:
The question I pose to you is, what would you expect to read following this headline; "President Bush Offers Sympathies and Assistance to Minneapolis and Calls on Congress to Act Before Recess"?Here it is:
You would think it would be one of Bush's heartfelt speeches filled with his "trademark" empathy on behalf of those who have suffered the recent catastrophic bridge collapse in Minneapolis, right? We would hear a long litany of those things Bush was enacting to help those poor folks, along with some particularly touching words about loss and hope, right?
Sadly but not shockingly, the president disappoints again. His list of actions in regards to the tragedy is short, his words of sympathy, perfunctory at best. At this point one gets the feeling that the man isn't even trying anymore. He simply just couldn't give two shits.
What he does care about, however, is his continued jihad against the Democratically led congress, as is evident by the bulk of the speech[.]
We also talked about -- in the Cabinet meeting talked about the status of important pieces of legislation before the Congress. We spent a fair amount of time talking about the fact that how disappointed we are that Congress hasn't sent any spending bills to my desk. By the end of this week, members are going to be leaving for their month-long August recess. And by the time they will return, there will be less than a month before the end of the fiscal year on September the 30th, and yet they haven't passed one of the 12 spending bills that they're required to pass. If Congress doesn't pass the spending bills by the end of the fiscal year, Cabinet Secretaries report that their departments may be unable to move forward with urgent priorities for our country.Note the buck-passing in the sentence I've emphasized above, as well as the implied lack of expertise or interest in "the needs of our nation," and the stunningly low standard Bush sets for meeting those needs. I really don't have a clue, he is saying in effect, what the needs of our nation are, or how much money is needed to meet them -- nor, truth be told, do I really care all that much. But my Cabinet Secretaries "assure me" that the amount I've allocated is enough to meet those needs "adequately."
This doesn't have to be this way. The Democrats won last year's election fair and square, and now they control the calendar for bringing up bills in Congress. They need to pass each of these spending bills individually, on time, and in a fiscally responsible way.
The budget I've sent to Congress fully funds America's priorities. It increases discretionary spending by 6.9 percent. My Cabinet Secretaries assure me that this is adequate to meet the needs of our nation.
Unfortunately, Democratic leaders in Congress want to spend far more. Their budget calls for nearly $22 billion more in discretionary spending next year alone. These leaders have tried to downplay that figure. Yesterday one called this increase -- and I quote -- "a very small difference" from what I proposed. Only in Washington can $22 billion be called a very small difference. And that difference will keep getting bigger. Over the next five years it will total nearly $205 billion in additional discretionary spending. That $205 billion averages out to about $112 million per day, $4.7 million per hour, $78,000 per minute.
Put another way, that's about $1,300 in higher spending every second of every minute of every hour of every day of every year for the next five years. That's a lot of money -- even for career politicians in Washington. In fact, at that pace, Democrats in Congress would have spent an extra $300,000 since I began these remarks.
There's only one way to pay for all this new federal spending without running up the deficit, and that is to raise your taxes. A massive tax hike is the last thing the American people need. The plan I put forward would keep your taxes low and balance the budget within five years, and that is the right path for our country.
Steve Benen reads the president's speech very differently:
As a student of politics, I can’t help but notice that the Bush White House, scarred badly by the Hurricane Katrina fiasco, seems anxious to show it’s on top of things. Here’s the president this morning after a cabinet meeting:I'm completely flummoxed by this. I don't understand how Steve can take that meaning from what Bush said.“Good morning. I just finished a Cabinet meeting. One of the things we discussed was the terrible situation there in Minneapolis. We talked about the fact that the bridge collapsed, and that we in the federal government must respond and respond robustly to help the people there not only recover, but to make sure that lifeline of activity, that bridge, gets rebuilt as quickly as possible.In other words, the administration is on the case. No fiddling this time around, even First Lady Laura Bush is heading to the area tomorrow (though, apparently, she was scheduled to give a speech at the Republican National Committee summer meeting in Minneapolis this weekend anyway).
“To that end, Secretary Peters is in Minneapolis, as well as Federal Highway Administrator Capka. I spoke to Governor Pawlenty and Mayor Rybak this morning. I told them that the Secretary would be there. I told them we would help with rescue efforts, but I also told them how much we are in prayer for those who suffered.”
All of this sounds encouraging, inasmuch as it sounds like public officials doing what they’re supposed to do after a tragedy like this.
I do, however, agree with Steve on this point:
The AP, however, quoted Tony Snow saying something interesting — and far less encouraging.Neither would I, and in fact, when I read that quote (I had already seen it before reading Steve's piece), my first thought was that Snow -- remembering Hurricane Katrina -- was doing some preemptive blame-shifting.The Interstate 35W span rated 50 on a scale of 120 for structural stability, White House press secretary Tony Snow said.Now, to be fair, I didn’t hear the whole context of Snow’s comments, but given the AP account, it sounded a bit like he was already trying to pass the buck. Bush emphasized that the “federal government must respond, and respond robustly,” but Bush’s spokesperson emphasized shortly thereafter, “[T]he state is responsible for taking corrective actions” on deficient bridges.
“This doesn’t mean there was a risk of failure, but if an inspection report identifies deficiencies, the state is responsible for taking corrective actions,” he said.
I really hope Snow was taken out of context here, and that he’s not reflexively shifting the blame onto state officials. But given what we’ve seen of Snow, I wouldn’t be terribly surprised.
