On Tuesday, President George W. Bush delivered his next to last State of the Union address. National Review Online asked a group of experts to react. Here's how Roger Bate and Veronique de Rugy responded:

Resident Fellow Roger Bate

The president says that “American foreign policy is more than a matter of war and diplomacy.” He is partly right. His administration has done more to support development ‘in nations where democracy is on the rise and corruption is in retreat’ through the Millennium Challenge Account, and improve health through direct interventions to fight HIV and malaria, than any previous President or other World leader.

Half those treated (800,000) for HIV around the world are paid for by U.S. taxpayers, and his initiative on malaria is blazing a trail for better policy--notably the adoption of DDT spraying. His call for Congressional support for these programs (about $5bn per year) is warranted.

However, his administration’s diplomacy often undermines this development work. I am not qualified to judge whether U.S. support for Ethiopia’s recent invasion of Somalia was warranted. But I know that Ethiopia’s president is a thug, and expanding support (even for malaria and HIV control as is planned) to this Marxist regime sends an unfortunate mixed message to other countries of Africa.

For 40 years, U.S. involvement in Africa is replete with failure; examples of where yesterday’s realpolitik is today’s idiocy. His administration must endeavor to only support those countries which will use that support wisely, rather than temporarily useful allies, or more billions of dollars and millions of lives will be wasted.

Roger Bate is a resident fellow at AEI.

***

Resident Fellow  Veronique de Rugy

The president talked about balancing the budget without raising taxes, but was silent on avoiding the automatic tax increase that will occur when his tax cuts expire at the end of 2010. He mentioned his intention to impose fiscal discipline in Washington without mentioning any specific spending cuts, or even any reductions in planned increases. He was correctly critical of the culture of earmarks that cost American taxpayers up to $18 billion a year. Yet, earmark reform is akin to putting a band-aid on a compound fracture. Total outlays in 2006 rose by 7.4 percent ($182 billion) and, measured as a share of the economy, reached their highest level since 1995--20.3 percent of GDP. Under President Bush’s watch, total outlays increased from $1.8 trillion in FY2001 to $2.7 trillion in FY2007.

Bush acted as if the reduction in the budget deficit was good news, but it only happened because American taxpayers sent more money to Washington and not because spending went down or was curtailed. If America continues on this path, we can eventually be like Sweden--a slow-growth welfare state with a balanced budget. To be sure, recent increases in tax revenue show that the supply-side 2003 tax cuts were successful, but no amount of Laffer Curve revenue feedback is sufficient to alleviate the looming fiscal crisis, particularly with the baby-boomers about to retire.The president did put forth a good proposal to reform the tax treatment of health insurance. If implemented, it would represent a modest step in the right direction and compensate slightly for the giant step he took in the wrong direction with the expansion of Medicare.  The speech was notable for what wasn’t said. In apparent surrender to the Democrats, the president didn’t mention making his tax cuts permanent. Also absent from the speech was his commitment to Social Security reform. Not that what he said was very impressive. The president showed utter disdain for the free market with his energy proposal. The scheme is based on the idea that the free market doesn’t work, and he renewed his endorsement of massive intrusions into energy markets in clean energy research and development; and the development of ethanol and of fuel made from the waste of plant crops. But if these technologies had real promise, the private sector would make the investments. There is no reason for taxpayers to subsidize biofuels that are not cost-effective. Many studies have shown that they cost more than the current alternative.

Yet as bad as some of the president’s proposals were, they didn’t compare to the absurd response of Senator Jim Webb (D-Va.). On the economy, he described a growing divide between rich and poor during the Bush presidency. "In short, the middle class of this country, our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future, is losing its place at the table," he said. At a time, where inflation and unemployment are really low, while the data shows that by most standards the middle class is getting richer--whether they feel it or not--the senator shows he doesn’t care about the facts, or the truth, but he would rather propagate lies about the economy.

Veronique de Rugy is a resident fellow at AEI.