Tonight, Gov. Gary Locke (D-Wash.) will deliver the Democratic response to President George W. Bush's second State of the Union address. Here is what he should say:
Mr. President, last January we stood with you as you delivered the first State of the Union after the September 11 attacks -- and all Americans joined with you in hoping for a safer, stronger America based on our common values, beliefs and principles. Since that day, you have had the task of leading our country through a new era of global crises and domestic challenges. We know that yours is not an easy task. But we must question whether your domestic policies during the past year have truly made our people safer, or our nation stronger.
You are undoubtedly aware of the fiscal crisis that states such as my own state of Washington now find themselves in. It is estimated that states are now facing budget deficits in the range of $70 billion to $85 billion for the fiscal year 2004, which begins July 1, 2003. These deficits are deeper than they have been at any time during the last half-century. As a former governor yourself, you are no doubt aware that -- unlike the federal government -- state laws forbid us the luxury of keeping unbalanced budgets. We must therefore make unfortunate but necessary cuts in vital state programs and funding. Such cuts will probably have to be coupled with tax increases, the burden of which will fall mostly on middle- and low-income families.
The programs that will be cut are basic services such as health care, child care, education and aid to local governments. Currently, 1 million people are likely to lose health insurance as a result of these cuts. This number will surely grow as additional state budgets are approved -- and slashed -- across the country. Tuitions for public universities throughout America have risen dramatically. Child-care eligibility has been further restricted, and parent fees for that service have increased.
Mr. President, your economic policy over the past year has not made running a state much easier, and you can take it from me, because I run one. Your phasing out of the federal estate tax, a tax that falls on the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans, will only be a further drain on state economies. You see, most states share in federal estate tax collections, which provide a significant amount of revenue. In 2001, states collected a total of $7.5 billion in estate taxes. By getting rid of the estate tax, you leave us no choice but to cut important programs -- and as a result, the cost of living for middle- and low-income families is bound to rise. And because your tax cut only affects the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans, it's not much of a stimulus for the economy as a whole, either. Mr. President, let's be honest: This tax cut is a handout to the people who need it least.
But let's not dwell on the past. You recently released a stimulus package that is aimed at creating growth in our sluggish and weak economy. The "centerpiece" of this package is an elimination of the dividend tax on investors. This story goes much like the previous one. Most states link their tax systems to the federal taxation of dividends. The elimination of this tax will cost states about $4 billion a year -- and this money will go, again, to the very wealthiest Americans. But that's not all. In this plan, you could have included fiscal relief to states, as is customary in such a crisis. You chose not to.
Interestingly, state aid would probably be the best way to boost the economy. By easing our fiscal crisis, fewer people would lose their jobs, state taxes wouldn't need to be raised as much, child care would be cheaper, school tuitions wouldn't rise to such high levels, health care would be less expensive and state governments would be willing to spend and invest more in the private sector.
Mr. President, you call yourself a compassionate conservative, and that's why I am so confused: Your budget is certainly not compassionate, for it will leave millions without access to health care and child care, and countless others struggling to pay rising tuition bills. But your budget isn't conservative, either, for not only does it raise spending at a time of ballooning federal deficits, it also forces unprecedented budget deficits on the states. While your administration has spent liberally on tax cuts, you have all but forced the states to increase taxes just to balance our budgets.
Of course, the nation's economic health is only the second-most important issue on the minds of most Americans tonight. We must think first and foremost about our country's security. This is especially true for governors like me, and for local leaders across the country who will be responsible for implementing the new homeland-security measures and requirements you have put in place.
During the coming weeks, we fully expect you to make a convincing case for the connection between Iraq and our security at home, but, in the meantime, there is much work to be done on our very own soil. If we are to rid the world of Saddam Hussein, surely we must first secure our nation against any type of retaliatory attack terrorists might launch. Unfortunately, you have done little to help us in this regard. City mayors across the country have complained of your failure to adequately fund homeland defense. Firefighters, police officers and health workers are still without the proper equipment, training and funding. Cities that are drained of funds because of your tax cuts are now unable to properly equip their first responders for any type of security crisis. In a time of war, our nation's first priority should be to increase funding for the security of our cities. Quite to the contrary, you have initiated a $2.5 billion cut for homeland security, and congressional Republicans have cut an additional $1 billion.
Mr. President, you have long been a believer in empowering state and local governments -- rather than the federal bureaucracy in Washington -- to make important decisions that can improve people's lives. Yet tonight state governments find themselves in a position where they are unable to provide essential services for their citizens and, most importantly, unable to defend Americans against attack. And you and the federal bureaucracy in Washington have taken for yourselves the power to make decisions that will constrain the way states choose to govern themselves for years to come.
Our country is at war, but wars are expensive, and your irresponsible fiscal management is endangering our ability to fight. To be sure, one component of the war on terrorism is being fought on foreign shores; but another, equally important component, will be fought at home. Success in that second piece of the war will be measured both in how well we prepare to defend our homeland against attack and in how well we prove to the world the superiority of Western democracy and market capitalism -- by making America a showcase for compassionate government that responds to the needs of all its people.
Mr. President, we will stand by the decisions you make in defending our freedom abroad, and we hope those decisions will make us proud. But we governors and mayors must be given the resources to protect our freedom and way of life at home. Those are things we cannot do on the cheap, but they, like freedom itself, are worth the price.
Shant Mesrobian is a writer living in Washington, D.C.
