Just like his previous State of the Union speeches, Pres. Bush’s address last night was nothing but a rosy painted picture of what’s going on in our country, all references to reality removed to protect the not-so-innocent.

The bottom line is that our nation is in considerably worse shape than it was when Bush took office. Do you want to know how bad? Check out this chart on “The Legacy of George W. Bush’s Presidency” prepared by the House Democratic Caucus.

Dan Brown at The Huffington Post showcases some of its lowlights:

• The number of Americans living in poverty has jumped from 31.6 million to 36.5 million.
• The uninsured population has grown from 38 million to 47 million.
• The annual total premium cost has nearly doubled from $6,230 per family to $12,106 per family.

What we saw last night was an address filtered through “BushVision®”, lacking any meaningful references to the mortgage and credit crisis, the trade deficit, or the rising cost of gasoline. Bush chose instead to trumpet his proposed economic stimulus package, the same deal that AFSCME Pres. Gerald W. McEntee has called “a band-aid, half-hearted solution to the economic crisis we’re facing.”

We don’t need more empty rhetoric. What we need is concrete measures like state fiscal relief to help states and local governments maintain health care and other vital public services.

With unemployment approaching 5%, families losing their homes due to the mortgage crisis and oil at record highs, George Bush decided to speak the truth… somewhat. He acknowledged that the U.S. economy is facing some challenges.

Kudos, George. Bush still refused to acknowledge the economy might be heading towards a recession despite predictions by some of the country’s leading economists.

Of course, less than a month ago, Bush was noting the strength of the economy and crediting it to his tax cuts for the wealthy:

“And [my economic] plan worked. If you think about where we were coming out of 2001 and where we are today, you can’t help but say the plan worked; cutting taxes helped stimulate economic growth.”

You might think that his change of mind on the state of the economy would merit a change of mind on the solution. Not so. He’s expected to propose yet more tax breaks for the wealthy.

Democratic leaders in Congress are ready to fight Bush for an economic stimulus package that works for working families. Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, sums it up: “This is going to be a battle over doing more of what George Bush has done for the past six years, or doing more for the middle class.”

President Bush has already vetoed health care for 10 million kids through the Children’s Health Insurance Program. And he vetoed the health care, education, veterans and cancer research programs contained in the Labor-Health and Human Services-Education (Labor-HHS) appropriations bill. Now Bush is refusing to sign any appropriations bill that invests more than he requested – which is less than what’s needed — in critical funding for millions of hardworking Americans.

The following is a good synopsis from the Emergency Campaign for America’s Priorities on Bush’s budget. In short, the American people got scrooged:

The U.S. House of Representatives passed an ‘omnibus’ appropriations package that funds the 11 appropriations bills that have yet to pass for fiscal year 2008. The bill adheres to President Bush’s requested domestic funding levels, but shifts funds to better reflect our priorities as a country. The omnibus takes important steps to reverse cuts to the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), housing programs, and the President’s plan to cut $654 million in grants to community action agencies that help lower-income Americans. But the bill falls far short of funding the critically needed programs so many Americans rely on.

President Bush may have gotten his way on the spending levels in the omnibus bill, but he shouldn’t declare victory just yet – not unless victory means fewer children with health care, less funding for schools and teachers, less investment in cancer and disease research, and lower investment in our country’s infrastructure.

Have you ever heard the argument that cutting taxes can lead to greater government revenue? It’s sort of like having your cake and eating it too — the argument is too good to be true, and this article from TIME Magazine provides the proof.

Pres. Bush has just vetoed another bill that provides the vital services that strengthen America’s middle class. The 2008 Labor, Health and Education appropriations bill provides funding for education, health care, medical research and workers protections but apparently none of that is on Bush’s top list.

As Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said:

“The same president who is asking us to spend another $200 billion on the misguided war in Iraq and is insisting on providing $60 billion in tax cuts next year to folks who make over a million bucks a year, is now pretending to protect the deficit.”

The bipartisan bill was supported by 50 Republicans and passed on a solid 274-141 vote last week.

According to Robert Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in order to meet Bush’s funding cut demands, “Congress would have to cut from the vetoed bill $1.4 billion for medical research, $1.3 billion for K-12 education, and $254 million for Head Start, among other items.”

“Tax cuts for the rich, health and education be damned” seems to be the motto guiding Bush’s scale of priorities. After all, this is the same guy who vetoed health care for kids and, more recently, a crucial water projects bill to help numerous localities across the country. The latter was overridden after Congress mustered enough votes to enact it.

There will be a vote to override Bush’s latest veto. Congress can and must do so. As stated by AFSCME President Gerald W. McEntee, “This bill is needed to get America back on the right track. Congress needs to say no to the President’s wrong priorities.

It’s time to veto the veto.

There is no need to finger point and assign blames in times of a tragedy such as the ongoing fires in Southern California. And yet, there is also no need to deny that a lot more could be done to ensure people’s safety in times like these.

A recent report shows that chronic underfunding of public safety services may have left the San Diego area needlessly vulnerable to the destruction. The Center on Policy Initiatives (CPI) study shows how in San Diego the number of firefighters per 1,000 residents is the lowest among large cities in California. Likewise, the city has failed to implement many of its own official recommendations for increased funding following similar fires in 2003.

Adequately funded and appropriately staffed public services are of critical importance to the nation’s well-being. It shouldn’t take a natural catastrophe to remind us of this.

Click here to read the full CPI report.

Why did the AFSCME delegation to Oregon’s AFL-CIO convention walk out just before Gov. Ted Kulongoski (D) arrived to address the union members? Because they were protesting salary increases that the governor approved for all state managers that were, in some cases, triple what rank-and-file employees – members of Council 75 – are scheduled to receive under a recent settlement with the state. Learn more at the Oregon AFSCME site.

AFSCME has launched an ad campaign targeting members of Congress who voted against the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

Although the bill was passed in Congress, Pres. George Bush vetoed the legislation, showing once more how out of step he is with the country. As a matter of fact, that is exactly what a recent ABC News – Washington Post poll says: 7 out of 10 Americans favor expanding coverage for low income children.

Why are these legislators so intent on following the President off the cliff? We are trying to save them from following this path but, most of all, we are trying to save health care for our children.

See all the ads here.

AFSCME President Gerald W. McEntee reacts to efforts by Bush supporters to discredit 12-year-old Graeme Frost and his family.

The allies of President Bush who back his veto of bipartisan legislation to provide health coverage to children in low-income families took the politics of personal destruction to a new low this week. Front page stories in the Baltimore Sun and New York Times tell the story. They reveal the behind-the-scenes wheels of a smear campaign, based entirely on falsehoods, to destroy the credibility of a Baltimore family that stepped forward to speak out in opposition to the President’s veto.

The parents of 12-year-old Graeme Frost, and his younger sister Gemma, used the Maryland State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) after their children were seriously injured in an automobile accident. After the accident, Graeme lay comatose, with severe brain trauma. His younger sister was in even worse shape. Both parents in the Frost family work, making a combined income of less than $50,000 a year. On that income, they raise four children. But they could not afford private health insurance.

Thanks to SCHIP, Graeme and Gemma got the emergency medical care they needed. They, and their parents, know the SCHIP program works. Graeme said so publicly, at a press conference with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and in a front page Baltimore Sun story. Later, Senator Harry Reid selected him to give the weekly Democratic Radio Address, and he told a national radio audience about the medical care he received:

Three years ago, my family was in a really bad car accident. I was in a coma for a week and couldn’t eat or stand up or even talk at first. My sister was even worse. I was in the hospital for five-and-a-half months and I needed a big surgery. For a long time after that, I had to go to physical therapy after school to get stronger. But even though I was hurt badly, I was really lucky.

Graeme and his family made a powerful case that SCHIP funding saves lives. So, the President’s allies set out to destroy them. Right wing blogs went into overdrive, questioning the cost of the family’s home, the family income and even the cost of the private school the children attend. Now it turns out, these smears were all unfounded. Yes, Graeme goes to a private school, but his tuition is largely paid through a scholarship.

By targeting a family for speaking the truth about a program the President wants to dismantle, the Bush’s allies crossed the line. Instead of debating this vital program on the merits, they thought they could win by Swift-boating a working-class American family. By mounting a disgusting campaign to smear the Frost family, the President’s backers have gone too far. Their efforts should and will backfire.

President Bush should call this smear campaign off. He should tell Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin and Senator Mitch McConnell to call off their dogs and leave this family alone. The brave Frost family has been through enough and doesn’t deserve this for speaking out about a vital program that helped them. The President’s allies have brought Bush-era gutter politics to a new low.

With the stroke of a pen, Pres. Bush has shattered the hopes of millions of low-income children to get the medical care they need.

By vetoing a bipartisan bill to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) he has turned his back on kids from low-income families who might either lose or never get the health care they deserve. Not only that, but he is ignoring the fact that 7 out of 10 Americans favor expanding coverage for low-income children.

SCHIP provides health coverage to children whose parents do not qualify for Medicaid, but can’t afford private insurance. The vetoed bill would have preserved coverage for 6.6 million kids while allowing an additional 4 million children into the program over the next five years.

Apparently, Pres. Bush thought that was a bad idea even though only two days ago he was proclaiming “Child Health Day” and, in his own words, recognizing “the important role the State Children’s Health Insurance Program has played in helping poor children stay healthy.” Talk about selective memory… and brazen hypocrisy.

As Pres. McEntee said: “If we can find billions to spend on the never-ending war in Iraq, we can find the money to protect the lives and health of low-income American children. President Bush’s veto is callous and immoral. Congress should waste no time in overriding him.”