State of the Union promises often go unfulfilled

If recent history is any guide, President Bush will say something Tuesday during his State of the Union address about the need to strengthen the long-term financing of Social Security and Medicare, add prescription drug benefits to Medicare and pass a "patients' bill of rights."

But eager listeners should not get too excited: He mentioned all the same stuff last year. And-despite partial action on some things-none of those proposals were enacted.

Every year, presidents deliver a State of the Union message describing their hopes, goals and plans for the nation. Millions of Americans tune in to the televised speech and listen attentively, believing the chief executive will succeed in all his aims. Many are certain it will happen.

But they are bound to be disappointed. Just because the president mentions a proposal does not mean it will be enacted-or even that he will really push it.

Sometimes, presidential promises are just pep talk-declaring what the president thinks should be done someday, but not what he intends to do right now. He sounds as if he favors strong action, but nothing happens. Sometimes the promises are even less than that, lip service to popular policy notions far down on the president's real agenda or not on it at all.

Often the president does make promises he tries to keep, but falters because of congressional or public opposition or changes in the economy or world affairs.

When Bush addressed the nation a year ago, he proposed diverting some of the funds that finance the basic Social Security program into private stock and bond accounts for U.S. workers. "We must make Social Security financially stable and allow personal retirement accounts for younger workers who choose them," the president said.

He did not specifically ask Congress to take up a Social Security overhaul bill during the 2002 session, however. Nor did he send Congress a specific legislative proposal to do it-lest Democrats savage the GOP in the 2002 elections with accusations that private accounts with money diverted from the basic Social Security program would be too risky.

Also in last year's message, Bush proposed "to enact a 'patients' bill of rights' [and] to give seniors a sound and modern Medicare system that includes coverage for prescription drugs." Partial action ensued in Congress on these proposals-but Democrats called GOP versions inadequate, and none became law.

Bush is not the only president whose State of the Union proposals have ended up unfulfilled.

For example, President Clinton in his 1999 State of the Union message proposed to "commit 60 percent of the budget surplus for the next 15 years to Social Security, investing a small portion in the private sector just as any private or state government pension would do. This will earn a higher return and keep Social Security alive for 55 years." It never bore fruit. Nor did Clinton's proposals to use a sixth of the surplus for the next 15 years to keep Medicare sound, and 11 percent to help workers set up personal savings accounts without diverting funds from Social Security. All these plans flamed out.

Among other domestic initiatives Bush highlighted in his 2002 State of the Union address, many were advocated but few were chosen. For example, the president called for:

• Declining budget deficits "so long as Congress restrains spending and acts in a fiscally responsible manner." The fiscal 2002 deficit alone was $157 billion, significantly above the $106 billion the administration first estimated. Even if Congress curbs spending, the economic slump, higher defense and homeland security needs, plus scheduled tax cuts-all have guaranteed the persistence of higher deficits.
• Extending unemployment benefits and direct aid for health insurance coverage. Disagreements over the scope of the jobless benefits between the GOP-controlled House and Democratic-controlled Senate left nearly 800,000 unemployed workers high and dry by year's end, despite the administration's call for action. Early this year, Congress finally agreed on a scaled-down package, but extended aid will be needed if the economy continues to lag in 2003.
• A bipartisan effort to reform the way federal aid to elementary and secondary education is provided. A major bill was enacted, but now the president and Congress are quarreling over the amount of additional money needed to implement the new law. The president agreed to $1 billion in extra money; but Democrats and some Republicans say $4 billion to $7 billion is needed.
• A production-oriented energy bill that called, among other things, for opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil exploration. A stalemate between the administration and Senate Democrats has stalled that legislation-although Senate Republicans, now restored to power, are talking about trying to insert ANWR drilling in this year's budget reconciliation package to avoid a threatened Democratic filibuster.
• A new trade bill giving the president authority to negotiate free trade deals with other countries. That bill was enacted into law.
• Making permanent, beyond 2010, the president's $1.7 trillion tax cut law enacted in 2001. Senate Democrats blocked that effort, contending the tax cut would chiefly benefit affluent taxpayers and add to future deficits.
• Passage of a new economic stimulus package, consisting mainly of more tax cuts, to prod the sluggish economy. The administration held back on that effort until this month, when the president urged the new Congress to pass a $674 billion stimulus bill.
• Cracking down on corporate fraud by insisting on "stricter accounting standards and tougher disclosure requirements." Congress passed a reform bill, but the powerful accounting lobby, which opposes tough new rules for accounting firms, has impeded its implementation.
• Extending federal aid to churches and other faith-based organizations to provide social services for the poor, the mentally ill and the physically disabled. Both "separation-of-church-and-state" liberals and conservatives fearful of government intrusion put up a wall of opposition to obstruct that particular initiative.