Well, our TV time was again interrupted for another State of the Union Address last night. Here are just a few key points directly impacting manufacturing workers, about which President Bush addressed, as well as some responses from the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM).

Retirement Security
Social Security occupied nearly a quarter of last year’s State of the Union address — this year it barely rated a mention.

Said President Bush (transcript):

This year, the first of about 78 million baby boomers turn 60, including two of my Dad’s favorite people — me and President Clinton. This milestone is more than a personal crisis — it is a national challenge. The retirement of the baby boom generation will put unprecedented strains on the federal government. By 2030, spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid alone will be almost 60 percent of the entire federal budget.

On this domestic front, as the Washington Post made mention, Bush “might have untied his own hands by thinking freshly about the nation’s central challenge: the budgetary consequences of the baby boomers’ retirement. Although the president invoked this problem, he did not offer new ideas. Having already convened one commission on Social Security and then failed to secure reform, Mr. Bush had the temerity to propose, yes, another commission on entitlements — as if people are still waiting to be told that they are unsustainable.”

So tonight, I ask you to join me in creating a commission to examine the full impact of baby boom retirements on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This commission should include members of Congress of both parties, and offer bipartisan solutions. We need to put aside partisan politics and work together and get this problem solved.

Conceding defeat for now, Bush proposed a bipartisan commission to figure out how to rein in the spiraling costs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Likewise, while he promised a year ago to rewrite the U.S. tax code to make it fairer, he made no mention last night of the dead-on-arrival plan ultimately crafted by the commission he appointed.

• Americans working in private sector who can rely on a defined pension as of 2004: 6 percent (The New York Times, Jan. 16, 2006)
• Baby Boomers who believe they’re very prepared to meet living expenses of retirement as of 2005: 24 percent (AllState, Oct. 4, 2005)

“American Competitiveness Initiative”
Focusing on more manageable goals, Bush called for an “American Competitiveness Initiative,” which would double research in physical sciences in the next decade, train 70,000 teachers to lead high school Advanced Placement math and science classes, hire 30,000 scientists and engineers to work as teachers, and make permanent current tax breaks for research and development. The White House said the plan would cost $5.9 billion next year and $136 billion over 10 years, reported the Washington Post.

Though by no means is calling for more spending on math and science a new idea, the president’s support is welcome. The nation’s role in innovation and productivity continues to be challenged, as it has been never before, and so the president’s proposed commitment to increase funding for R&D is pleasantly awaited for. “Technology advancements are derived primarily from R&D and the tax credit is a proven incentive,” NAM President John Engler noted in NAM’s response to the Address. “Also, the doubling of funding for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy’s Office of Science will enable more professors to chase knowledge rather than dollars.”

Surely, investing in science is both desirable and a clear government responsibility.

Meanwhile, Engler also applauded Bush’s focus on education:

We are already facing a critical shortage of skilled manufacturing workers. The public schools are not preparing our young people for careers in modern manufacturing. A well-trained work force is critical to our economic future. As we improve education and training for our own workers, we appreciate the President’s recognition that we also need access to the best and brightest from around the world, many of whom have been educated in U.S. colleges and universities.

NAM has promised “wholehearted support for the President’s new American Competitiveness Initiative.”

Energy & Fuel
As he has in every State of the Union Address, Bush said the nation must reduce its reliance on foreign oil.

Bush, a onetime Texas oil industry executive, declared that “America is addicted to oil” and attached himself to a lofty goal/vow — “to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025.”

To do so, he called for 22 percent more federal funding for research into alternative fuels, highlighting the prospect of cars running on hydrogen and ethanol fuel made from corn, wood chips, stalks or switch grass. (Of note, he made naught mention of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).)

Since Bush took office, “net imports have risen from 53 percent to 60 percent,” the Washington Post said. “But by focusing on his goal of reducing the use of oil from the Middle East by 75 percent, he singled out the share that is not rising. Oil from the Persian Gulf now represents 11 percent of U.S. oil consumption, less than when Bush became president.”

On the subject of energy, NAM expressed “disappointment in the President’s lack of specific near-term solutions”:

We had hoped the President would come out strong and clear for development of oil and natural gas resources. The emphasis on conservation and alternative fuels is all well and good, but manufacturers have long since tested the limits of conservation and the payoff in alternative fuels is far off in the future. Solar power, wind power and a new generation of battery technology may provide a significant part of our energy needs 10 or 12 years from now. Even construction of new nuclear power plants will take many years. Manufacturers must operate in the here and now.

“Congress has enacted several laws that encourage manufacturing to rely increasingly on natural gas, but now it obstructs every effort to bring more natural gas to market,” NAM’s Engler said. “As a result, manufacturers in the U.S. are paying the highest energy prices in the world, compromising our ability to compete. We have vast resources of oil and natural gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in the deep water coastal areas that we can obtain without disturbing the environment. We had hoped President Bush would forcefully address this fundamental contradiction in our energy policy, and were disappointed that he did not.”

• Average price of a gallon of gasoline in 2000: $1.51
• Average price of a gallon of gasoline in 2005: $2.28
(December 2005 Monthly Energy Review, Energy Information Administration, Dec. 22, 2005)

• Percentage increase in the price of a gallon of gasoline since 2000: plus-51 percent (Energy Information Administration, Dec. 22, 2005)
• Percentage increase in the price of a gallon of home heating oil since 2000: plus-94 percent (Energy Information Administration, Jan. 2006)

These are only a few major issues directly affecting manufacturing and which were addressed in last night’s State of the Union. For additional points, read the transcript or view the video at C-SPAN.

What did you think of the State of the Union Address 2006? President Bush cover what you hoped to have covered in his sixth ‘Address? You happy with his proposals and convictions? You think he’ll follow through on them? Please tell us, dear readers. Or did you find it all to be simply more familiar rhetoric, and you rather would have watched House or Scrubs?