The State of the Union: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly and the WYTBW
January 28, 2010, Matthew Cochrane
| |
Due to a strange work schedule this week I was not able to watch the State of the Union speech live. When I did get home, I watched the entire thing so you wouldn’t have to. You can thank me later.
So, my overall impression? I thought Obama did what he does best: Promise the moon and skip the check. It was also waaaay too long. Then again, the State of the Union (SOTU) is my least favorite American political tradition. I liked George W. Bush but never cared for any of his SOTU’s after 2003. A president should be able to deliver this speech in 40 minutes, 45 tops. Tonight’s SOTU clocked in at one hour and ten minutes; at least 30 minutes too long. (My friend and I have this discussion all the time: Movies that could be good aren’t because they’re too long. Political speeches are the same way: Short and to the point is usually the way to go).
Before cuing up the speech I grabbed a notebook and jotted down four categories: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly and the WYTBW (What-you-talkin’-bout-Willis?). The first three are fairly self-explanatory; the last category was for things that just didn’t seem to make sense. As I watched the speech I jotted down each corresponding Obama talking point into the appropriate category. Obviously, not every minute item was scored. Here’s my scorecard (links and quotes were added later):
The Good
· Nuclear power plants?!?! Yes, President Obama just outflanked the Right on a crucial energy issue. Nuclear energy is the cleanest, safest way to produce mass power while simultaneously reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Like the National Review editorial summed it up, “Anyone could find something to agree with in an endless speech, and we will dutifully applaud the president’s professed desire for new nuclear plants.” Of course, the smart money probably has Iran building a new nuclear reactor before we do, but it sounds good.
· Drill, baby, drill! Stealing an issue out of Sarah Palin’s playbook was genius. After Obama’s sharp pivot to the right on energy issues, I half-expected him to say we should open up the ANWR to drilling too.
The Bad
· President Obama’s duplicity was readily apparent. First, he stated we needed a new stimulus jobs bill. (“Jobs bill” is the new term for “stimulus bill”). The stimulus bill, if you remember, was the $787 billion budget buster passed shortly after Obama took office last January. When passed, he promised it would keep the unemployment rate under 8%; instead it surpassed 10%.
Later in the speech, he emphasized the need for fiscal discipline…next year. While talking about fiscal discipline, Obama rightly stated if the budget deficits continue to soar, it will jeopardize our future prosperity and economic potential.
Well, which one is it? Is fiscal discipline important? If so, cancel the remainder of the stimulus bill, nix the upcoming “jobs bill,” and use TARP repayments toward paying off the deficit. If government spending is important (it’s not, but Obama believes it is), then continue with job bills ad infinitum, with nary a thought towards fiscal responsibility. By choosing both paths, Obama effectively chose neither. Instead, it just sounded like he was trying to please everybody by making promises impossible to keep.
· Gays in the military? This year? Repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law? And Republicans are accused of bringing up cultural wedge issues.
· Perhaps the worst idea of Obama’s SOTU was the proposal to forgive all student loan debts for college graduates who decide to become a “public servant.” That’s right kids! Who wants to enter the work force and create wealth when you can become a bureaucrat instead!
· In case you didn’t know, everything bad is Bush’s fault. The economic recession? Bush’s fault. Muslim extremists trying to kill Americans? Bush’s fault. The bubonic plague? Bush’s fault.
While explaining the budget deficit Obama cited Bush’s track record on fiscal irresponsibility. All well and good. That was definitely Bush’s weakness. Yet Obama managed to dramatically increase the budget deficit in his first year. Obama stated his fiscal irresponsibility was necessary because of the difficult times he inherited. I assume he was talking about the recession and the bank bailouts. Yet Bush had to deal with both of those the previous year too. Bush also had to deal with 9/11 in his first year in office. While I refuse to defend every Bush policy, it is disingenuous to suggest Bush presided in “normal times.” Compared to Bush’s first year, Obama has had a cakewalk. Most of his troubles have been self-inflicted.
Mr. Obama's major contribution to deficits has been a record spending spree. In 2007, before the recession, federal expenditures reached $2.73 trillion. By 2009 expenditures had climbed to $3.52 trillion. In 2009 alone, overall federal spending rose 18%, or $536 billion. Throw in a $65 billion reduction in debt service costs due to low interest rates, and the overall spending increase was 22%.
In one year.
CBO confirms that Democrats have taken federal spending to a new and higher plateau: 24.7% of GDP in 2009, 24.1% this year, and back to an estimated 24.3% in 2011. The modern historical average is about 20.5%, and less than that if you exclude the Reagan defense buildup of the 1980s that helped to win the Cold War and let Bill Clinton reduce defense spending to 3% of GDP in the 1990s.
As for the deficit, CBO shows that over the first three years of the Obama Presidency, 2009-2011, the federal government will borrow an estimated $3.7 trillion. That is more than the entire accumulated national debt for the first 225 years of U.S. history. By 2019, the interest payments on this debt will be larger than the budget for education, roads and all other nondefense discretionary spending.
The Ugly
· Obama defended the indefensible Cap-and-Tax bill by stating: “Because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy.” Riiiight.
· Obama finally owned up to making a mistake: Not explaining the healthcare bill enough. Yep, that was the one mistake he made. Maybe he should have appeared on a late night talk show, performed a record number of television interviews during his first year, made a special primetime speech to the joint chambers of Congress, and held a few press conferences. That would have helped. Oh wait…
· Obama claimed he was the first president in history to have “excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions.” Uh no. Redstate breaks down the many, many lobbyists who have held high positions in this administration.
What You Talkin’ ‘Bout Willis?
These are the things I didn’t understand from Obama’s SOTU:
· Obama stated he wanted to double U.S. exports in the next five years. Sounds great. How does he propose to do it? By “launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports.” And I’m going to double the GDP! How? I’ll launch a National GDP Initiative to help!
· Obama finally explained why healthcare reform was so urgent: To bring relief to the middle class! Huh?
These are my initial thoughts. I doubt many Americans made it all the way through this hour long snooze fest. It’s late and definitely time to go. I’ll try to weigh in later on Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell’s response (really good, but too much applause killed his momentum at times).
| |
|
| Comments |
" . . . I watched the whole thing so you wouldn't have to. You can thank me later." - Matthew Cochrane
Thank you very much! Definitely appreciated.
I liked the parts of his speech dealing with energy. We truly need more nuclear plants to come on line and we must start drilling sooner, rather than later for fossil fuels. We will know soon enough if he was serious; drilling permission could theoretically start immediately even if the actual drilling can't. If he was telling the truth on this we could see serious initiatives in a few months.
If the spending spree in Washington doesn't end soon, like now, then nothing else will matter; we will really be in trouble at that point. Hopefully, relief is on the way in November . . . - Steamboat Willie
|
|
" Obama finally explained why healthcare reform was so urgent: To bring relief to the middle class! Huh?"
Medical bills are the #1 cause of bankruptcy. And even if you don't believe those studies, you have to at least concede that it's a major burden on the middle class. If you are lucky enough to be healthy, you can be sheltered from this, if not you know this all too well. My uncle went bankrupt trying to save my aunt's life.
I'm surprised you put this under "WYTBW" when it's pretty obvious what he meant. - TLM
|
|
"Somewhere along the line, the White House lost its way. Instead of focusing on solutions to help America's families wade through the wreckage of the worst economic crisis since the 1930s, Washington has wasted valuable time wrestling with partisan politics in an effort to rush through drastic reforms that do not directly address our most immediate needs." - Representative Ike Skelton - Dem-MO
|
|
TLM, those stats are from 2005-2007. The most recent study that I've found have been from home foreclosures.
The argument is pretty silly though. There are things that we can do to prevent that 78% from going bankrupt... pass simple legislation that allows tort reform (to lower costs) and prevent organizations from dropping patients. None of that requires socialized medecine.
I mean this with no dissrespect, but I've often found that this is the root of the problem I see with the ideology in the "liberal" view. Most Democrats have often been charged with wasting 99% of their resources on 1% of the problem. I have found that Democrats tend to apply the majority of their solutions based on emotion, while at the same time many Republicans focus strictly on logic. I mean this from a purely fiscal sense.
If you had a massive number of homeless, and the homeless shelters were packed and unable to provide any additional support.
The immediate solution by the Democrats would be to build and subsidize dozens more homeless shelters at the taxpayer's expense. They would do this without batting an eye.
The Republicans on the other hand, would focus eclusively on creating new jobs to provide a means of escape for many of these people. IE: Workforce innovation, or tax breaks to local businesses that would encourage new growth and new hiring.
Understandably, it's not always fair to take the extremes. There has to be something in the midddle. We obviously don't want people to starve and die in the streets, but building ADDITIONAL homeless shelters is not the solution either.
This REALLY is the fundamental ideological difference between Democrats and Republicans. There needs to be a little something in between. I always refer back to a quote by Benjamin Franklin:
“I am for doing good to the poor, but... I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed... that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."
— Benjamin Franklin
- Todd
|
|
Todd, I already know how you feel on this. It still doesn't make any sense to have it marked under the last category as defined as, "the last category was for things that just didn’t seem to make sense."
It does make sense. Even if foreclosures are #1 right now, it's still a very large burden on the middle class. - TLM
|
|
Dang, I just complimented your write up and got CAPTCHA'd. Looking fwd to the Republican response.
Rush just said that the last five minutes of Obama were bizarre but he didn't say why. - c
|
|
Rush also said he was uncomfortable when Obama criticized SCOTUS and he says Alito has been criticized for mouthing a criticism. Rush wonders why can Obama dis SCOTUS and Alito can't even mouth it. What was Alito mouthing? - c
|
|
TLM, I understand your argument, but with respect to the comment made by Ike Skelton, I have to agree with Matt on why this doesn't make sense. That PARTICULAR bill that existed, assuming for a second that it did what they were saying it would and that would be to lower the cost of insurance for everyone... in this case it wouldn't have served ANY purpose on resolving the problems we have RIGHT NOW.
Remember that the bill wouldn't even take affect until the year AFTER Obama's current presidential term. BUT... remember that the taxes to PAY for it would start almost IMMEDIATELY. I don't know if you were immediately aware of this. I know you've been really busy, but as far as I'm concerned, this is a HUGE problem and serves to only deepen the recession.
If you're talking about generally speaking, the "idea" of health care reform, then perhaps. But honestly, I'd like to see government focus on getting things out of the way that we can ALL agree on.
- Todd
|
|
TLM, the reports that medical bills are the #1 cause of bankruptcies have been completely debunked. Megan McArdle, a fiscal libertarian who voted for and endorsed Obama before the election, completely destroyed this myth. Not only that, but McArdle discovered that bankruptcies caused by medical bills were decreasing, not increasing. Specifically, medical bankruptcies from 2001 to 2007 fell by more than 220,000 - cutting the number of medical bankruptcies in half. This just seems to undermine the urgent nature of how this healthcare reform was being pushed through Congress. I thought I had sent you this information before, but might be wrong.
With this information now prevalent, it doesn't make sense to claim health insurance reform is being pushed to relieve the middle class. - Matthew Cochrane
|
|
I'm guessing but those 220K in 07 weren't all middle class - c
|
|
I agree that Don't ask Don't tell need to be repealed. Though I do not see President Obama making this, or anything else happen during his Presidency.
And what was the deal with him chewing out the Supreme court?
That alone seemed very childish.
Brad - Brad
|
|
Brad, honestly... realize this is going to get a lot of flack from my fellow conservative constituents, but honestly... I don't really understand what the point of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" decision is.
Ok, so I know that many of our soldiers are young, and the harassment that might ensue from hetero soldiers towards homo soldiers might increase... but what other possible reason could exist for this policy?
What does it matter if the other solider know you're gay? Will they just not want to bunk next to you? (by the way, I don't mean YOU in particular). I guess maybe I don't understand the issues surround it. So... what happens if tomorrow the policy was overturned. What then would change between today and tomorrow? Would every homosexual soldier then start parading around a huge announcement that they're gay?
Or... more realistically... life goes on, and no one gives a crap?
Maybe there's more to this that I'm just missing. - Todd
|
|
Todd, gay marriage is inevitable but this one is sort of like when I noticed my first semester college roommate staring at me when I'd get dressed. You don't mind that? Call me old fashioned, but how can non vets like Obama figure this one out? Ask Cochrane about 18 year old sailors, shipboard living, ie berthing compartments and showers and being deployed for 6 months in close quarters and unit cohesion. Gay man's dream? Straight man's nightmare? It's not like college where you pick your roommate and if you have disagreements, you are encouraged to work things out, except now the Navy says" sorry it's the regs. Answer: aren't you at least going to kiss me first? Joint Chiefs are discussing implementation in Congress next week. If I was Mullen, my plan would be:start searching for my replacement. - c
|
|
Well... that's a good point you make "C". Since I've never been in the military, I'm one of those non-vets. I did go to boarding school (middle school) though, and we had group shower rooms. I don't know if that's the right term... hahah... there were huge showers where everyone just took a shower in the open (it was a locker room). Anyway if I caught any kid looking at me in a way he wasn't supposed to, he'd get his ass kicked. Never happened though. Although, there was a really awkward moment when Cameron Dougless (Michael Douglas's son) was looking at me while I was changing (my gym locker was next to his one year) and he said... "Woah... you've got a lot of hair down there." He quickly realized just how terribly gay his comment was, and I was just like... "WTF???"
TMI... I know...
- Todd
|
|
Todd, my point, my friend. In the military, you can't get a fellow sailor's a** due to concerns about unit cohesion. But if repealing don't ask includes a clause that allows kicking a**, I'm all for it! - c
|
|
btw, was Cameron talking about your Hobbit feet? - c
|
|
Todd, C is absolutely right about allowing gays in the military. The logistics make it near impossible to carry out without forfeiting unit morale and cohesion. Speaking just about the Navy, the close living quarters allow for no privacy.
It is not uncommon for ships to be out to sea for months at a time. Our Naval ships are manned mostly by 18-22 year old males. We already ask them to do so much, and now we're going to say that gays must live in their midst? It's unrealistic to think this is a good idea. Morale would plummet. - Matthew Cochrane
|
|
Speaking of low morale, Don't talk to me about Naval tradition! It's nothing but rum, sodomy and the lash.
often attributed to Winston Churchill - c
|
|
Here's a question for you, Todd. Sexual predators prey on same sex and opposite sex already in the military, will they gain an unfair advantage if sexual orientation is no longer disqualifying? The military will have to deal with it and they will if Obama requires it, but is that really fair? Are young recruits, male or female, age 18 ready to deal with it? I don't know. - c
|
|
You guys really do put this into a very unique perspective. I'm certainly against special provisions for homosexual soldiers, certainly... it puts things into a costly and unnecessary scenario.
I guess this really is a more difficult situation than it would seem to be. Did you guys ever hear that song "In the Navy"?
I'm sorry, I shouldn't joke... my grandfather was in the Navy... - Todd
|
|
"YMCA....." - c
|
|
On a more serious note...
Dont you think if men are allowed to declare openly their homosexuality that you will see a significant drop in the number of heterosexual men signing up. If even a hint of a scandal gets out, even mere rumors, straight men and women will likely not be volunteering in the same numbers we see them now. - Michelle
|
|
I like the Captain Jack rendition myself . . .
I agree with Michelle. Not to mention all the people that enlisted/signed their lives away when the army still had a strict "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Policy. Repealing it would be the biggest "Bait and Switch" scheme ever. It wouldn't be fair to those already serving to repeal the policy without giving them a chance to revoke their contract with honorable discharge. - Stephen
|
|
While researching abortion history, I stumbled across the following which is kind of interesting when you consider it in terms of how Obama blames Bush. Is it like the Soviet Union blaming the Czars?
The first soviet abortion decree, issued in 1920, was cast solely in terms of public health. Calling abortion a necessary "evil," the proclamation alluded to the pervasiveness of illegal abortion in a country torn by famine and civil war and suggested that abortion was a symptom of the social illnesses that lingered from the Czarist regime and for which Socialism would soon find a cure (Tribe 1990). Those opposed to legalized abortion argued not in terms of the right to life of the unborn child but in terms of the duty of the mother to perform her "natural" role in society, that of bearing children. The socialist state, they believed, had a right to the "natural" increase in the labor force occasioned by this role. - c
|
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/26/marine-general-says-hed-gays-separate-rooms/?test=latestnews
I can't believe they are telling the most senior Army general in the Pacific to be quiet about policy changes that directly affect the troops.
Commandant Marine Corps talking about it in a more acceptable way. He's saying that the impact is that the Corps will have to build more Bachelor Enlisted Quarters so that everyone has their own room. That ain't cheap. The same will go for the other services and the ships. Speak up Chief of Naval Operations.
Time for Mullen to step down. - c
|
|
|
