Number 67 does it again. On, February 15, 2006, President George W. Bush spoke to the executives and employees of Wendy's Incorporated, in Dublin, Ohio, outlining many of his principles and initiatives. Here, thanks to the efforts of Number 67, the Conspiracy provides much of the text of Mr. Bush's speech, with commentary on important principles and facts in parentheses. The speech is an excellent example of what "Compassionate Conservatism" really is. The text follows, with commentary on the ideas, but without commentary on, or correction of, Mr. Bush's malapropisms, syntax, or grammatical errors. The Conspiracy mentions this without malice towards the President, but to acknowledge the minor glitches left in his speech.

President George W. Bush, speaking to Wendy's Incorporated in Dublin, Ohio, on February 15, 2006:

"The fundamental question is, how do we remain a leader in the world economy. (You allow people to work unfettered by the government, and stop coming up with plans to 'better' their lives. Productivity is driven by individauls making their own decisions with their own money, not government deciding for them. By doing so, it automatically pulls money out of the market system that is driven to fulfill peoples' wants and needs in ever more efficient ways). You know, there's uncertainty in this economy of ours. People are changing work a lot -- that kind of creates a sense of uncertainty. People see China and India out there looming as competitors and the reaction with some is, let's don't compete, let's just kind of shut her down, let's get protectionist, or, why don't we isolate? I have a different point of view. (As shown during your first administration, when the US imposed tariffs on Japanese steel?) My attitude is, we shouldn't fear the future, we ought to shape the future. (Mr. Bush might want to define 'we'.) My attitude is, the United States of America must continue to be the leader in the world economy, for the good of our people.

"And so here are some ways as to how to make sure this economy remains strong today, and remains strong for years to come. First, in order for us to be a leader in the world, we've got to remain a leader when it comes to technological developments. So I'm proposing to the Congress an American Competitiveness Initiative, which will double the basic research in basic sciences over the next 10 years. (And will pull just that much and more out of the dynamic market where people drive productivity with their own decisions and expand the economy geometrically.)

"And secondly, I recognize most research is done in the private sector (A suggestion: how about: 'I recognize that true productive research without unchosen opportunity costs is done only in the private sector'?), and yet the incentive for companies to invest in research, which yields technologies, which increases standard of living and makes sure our economy is on the leading edge, is through the research and development tax credit. It expires on an annual basis. It is very difficult for the private sector to plan when a tax code is uncertain (true). And so, Congress, in order to make sure that we invest in the future, should make the research and development tax credit a permanent part of our tax code. (Why not do what is preferable: lower all marginal taxe rates or adopt a head tax, and stop manipulating Americans with a tax code that rewards certain governmentally approved behaviors?)

"Finally, in order to remain competitive, we've got to have kids who understand math and science. And so I laid out an initiative -- I spent some time talking about it last week, I'm going to continue talking about it. I'm looking forward to working with -- this is an issue, by the way, where we can put aside needless politics, which tends to dominate Washington, D.C., and focus on the good for the future of this country. (In other words, this is the typical ploy of 'we needn't disagree, and if you do, you are being partisan, not working towards the good of the people'.) I'm confident we can get something done on this very important education, as well as research and technology issue. (Please don't. It is unconstitutional for the federal government to be involved in education in any way, and has damaged local control over the already inefficient local government schools.)

"In order to make sure we're competitive, we've got to be wise about your money. (Based on your behavior, one has to question if you really think it belongs to the people who earned it.) The tax relief we passed is working. In order to make sure America is the most competitive nation in the world, we've got to keep your taxes low and be wise about how we spend your money, which means we've got to learn to set priorities in Washington, D.C. (The US Constitution can help you there.) We can't try to be all things to all people when it comes to spending your money. We're on the way to cutting this deficit in half by 2009, and I intend to keep us on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009. (How about this as an added idea to cut the deficit: CUT GOVERNMENT. Mr. Bush's tax cuts are welcome, in that they will let more people keep more of their money, and by people spending their money to fulfill their own needs and desires, the economy will become more productive. However, it should be noted that Mr. Bush is not going to decrease aggregate federal spending. With the expanded economy, more workers will be paying taxes, thus bringing more money into the federal coffers. But the government will use most of the money to increase its size and influence in our lives. This is mistake. With talk of tax cuts, and the increased 'revenue' they will provide to the government, there ought to be discussion of government cuts as well.)

"To be wise -- to be competitive in the future, we've got to get off being hooked on Middle Eastern oil. In order for us to grow -- I said something in the State of the Union that probably surprised some of you. I said, we have a serious problem -- we're addicted to oil. (This is false. Mr. Bush does a disservice to his listeners by not explaining that oil is still the energy source which provides the best bang for the buck. We rely on it because it is most cost-efficient, not because we are locked into a false paradigm. When the price of oil increases to a level at which alternative fuels can be more productive than oil, those alternatives will attract the investment they will deserve. Until that time, any government redistribution of wealth from the private sector, which reflects peoples' true desires, into government plans to produce 'alternatives' will be, by its nature, a less productive use of that capital. Elitism is bad, in all forms.) But I meant what I said. I fully understand that an economy that requires oil from parts of the world that -- where some countries may not like us puts our economic security at risk and puts our national security at risk. And I'm serious about working with members of both parties to advance technological research that will enable us to drive cars by using switch grass, a base stock of ethanol, or wood chips, as well as the corn and soybeans we use today. I can't wait for the day, and I know future Presidents can't wait for the day, when somebody walks in with the farm report, and says, Mr. President, the crops are up, and we're less dependent on Middle Eastern oil. And it's coming, it's coming. (For more on this kind of 'new energy-economy' nonsense, please refer to this link: http://209.217.49.168/vnews.php?nid=5254)

"To keep this country competitive, we need a health care system that provides Americans with high-quality care at good prices. And that's what I want to talk about today. The health care costs are rising sharply in America. (Why? Because of government manipulation of, and direct participation in, the market, beginning with FDR's wage and price controls on businesses, to the tax favors granted companies that get HMO coverage, to Medicare and Medicaid.) If they continue rising the way they are, that will make us less competitive. Many Americans are worried that they're not going to get the treatments they need. Small businesses, in particular, are struggling to pay health care for their employees. If two-thirds of the new jobs in America are created by small businesses, and your small business owner is struggling to keep their employee base because of health care, then we've got to do something about it. Workers have lost good coverage because they're changing jobs. I've told you, there's uncertainty in the marketplace because people are changing work. And if you fear about losing health care when you change work, it creates even more uncertainty.

"More than 45 million Americans have no health insurance at all (this statistic is misleading. It includes people who may only be without insurance for a few weeks while changing jobs, and also includes many Americans who voluntarily, without regret, choose NOT to get insurance coverage), and this is unacceptable for our country. We've got the best health care system in the world, make no mistake about it. The question is, how do we keep it that way. And I've got some ideas for you.

"First of all, we've got to choose between two competing philosophies when it comes to health care. Behind all the rhetoric in Washington, and all the proposals, there's really a philosophical debate. On the one hand, there's some folks who -- good-hearted folks, good, decent folks, who believe that government ought to be making the decisions for the health care industry (can you say, Medicare Part D?) And there are some of us who believe that the health care industry ought to be centered on the consumer. (This is interesting. Mr. Bush here will attempt to depict himself as a free-marketeer. In fact, he has expanded domestic spending faster than any president in the past fifty years, even Johnson. His
'prescription drugs for seniors', aka Medicare Part D, plan will cost more than one trillion Dollars over the next ten years. As he begins to describe his devotion to 'choice', just remember that he has not given the taxpayers choice to use their money as they wish, and instead has created a new government entitlement that will cost more and more as the years pass and more people discover that they can get something off of the productive labor of someone else. It seems that choice for Mr. Bush is choice within a government-run system, not true choice.)

"I think as we kind of make our minds up about what philosophy works, it's important to look at the world health care systems. Other nations have adopted government control of health care for centralized decision-making when it comes to health care, which has created long waiting lines and quality of care not as good as the American system, and a significant lag in technological development.

"We've done a different path up to now in our nation's history. We believe in private medicine that encourages innovation and change (unless you actually look at US government history from the time of FDR on). That's been the cornerstone of American public health up until now. And we have a choice to make. I made my choice -- I'm going to lead the Congress to make sure that our health care system preserves America's system of private medicine (see earlier comment on Medicare Part D), that we strengthen the relationship between doctors and patients, and that we make the benefits of private medicine more affordable and accessible for our citizens. That's our strategy.

"Obviously, government has a role to play. (Really? The US Constitution stands in contrast to this view, sir, and economics has shown that the more government has become involved the worse the system has become.) We have made a commitment to the poor and the elderly in the United States, and it's a commitment we're going to keep (unless you actually look at government budget projections over the next two decades). When I got to Washington, I took a look at the Medicare system. It's a very important part of our nation's health care system, and that is Medicare, except it was old and tired, and hadn't been changed. It was a centrally-controlled system. (And it's... What, now?) I'll give you an example of what I meant by old and tired. This is a system that would pay $28,000 for ulcer surgery - - when you've got an ulcer, you check in the hospital, Medicare would write you a $28,000 check. It wouldn't pay the $500 necessary to prevent the ulcer from happening in the first place. In other words, medicine had begun to change, and Medicare didn't change with it. One reason why is because it's centrally controlled; all decisions had to be made by people out of Washington, D.C.

"And so I worked with members of the United States Congress to modernize the system. (ie. expand it to get votes, and couch that expansion in supposed free market "choice" rehetoric.) I said, if we've got a commitment to our elderly, let's make the commitment a good one. We're not going to make the commitment and have it be a mediocre commitment, it ought to be a good, sound commitment. And we did. We added the prescription drug benefit to Medicare that modernizes the system.(Love that term!) And at the same time, we gave seniors more options from which to choose. See, part of making sure a health care system works, seems like to me, the consumers ought to have more choice. (Which consumers does Mr. Bush mean? The ones at the end of the government plunder chain, or the ones at the start?) In a centralized system, the government makes the choice. In a private system that focuses on kind of the market (interesting slip of the tongue), people ought to have a choice. People ought to be able to be given different options from which to choose.

"And so we did modernize the system. It's tough sledding up there in Washington to get things changed. People like the status quo at times. Twenty-four million Americans have now signed up to the new Medicare plan since January 1st. That's a lot of folks, 24 million. Hundreds of thousands are enrolling each week. (Are we to be PROUD of this rising dependency?) Now, needless to say, when you have a change that size there's going to be some things that need to be adjusted in the system. And you probably read about kind of the dual- eligible problem. I don't know if you've had that problem here in Ohio, Governor. We're dealing with it. Our job is to solve problems when they arise. When you have that big a shift, you can imagine there's going to be glitches. But, by far, the vast majority of people are signing up to a program that's making a big difference in their lives."

There you have it. "Compassionate Conservatism": nothing more than socialism with rhetorical icing on top. For many conservatives, their mothers and fathers taught them the principles of the philosophy. George W. Bush experienced the same. But his parents have already, abundantly shown that they do not understand the tenets of conservatism.

Like father and like mother, like son.