{ED. NOTE: Click here for SOTU Recap, Part II or here to the Rebublican Response}
In an effort to review all parts of the State of the Union, we have split the address into three parts – conveniently it works, since there are 3 Conservative Bros. In Part I, I will focus on the beginning of the speech that covered most of the jobs bill, economy, and personal financial issues. MacGregor will cover the second part of the speech that included topics such as Health Care Insurance Reform, Campaign Financing, Defense, Budgeting, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and much Republican baiting. Finally, Timmy will recap the Republican Response by Gov. Bob McDonnell and look forward.
In general, I found Obama’s first State of the Union address to be very unbalanced, without a centralized message. He was very condescending in most parts, some light-hearted jabs, others, hooks to the jaw. There was minimal to no outreach towards Republicans or apologies for boxing them out of the process in the first year, but many times blame was thrown at the feet of Republicans. It showed the lack of leadership by the man claiming the Republicans were showing no leadership that rather than focus on the failures of his record majority, although it was mentioned, he threw most of the blame at the minority party who had no say in his health bills or most of the 2009 Congressional happenings.
He took some of populist angst towards the economy and made it his own, but also stuck a foot in the sand on some liberal policies that he wants to see passed right away. While many, including myself, expected him to come to the center in this speech like Clinton before him, I found generally he was still looking to pass unpopular policies in the cover of the “for the people” banner. The same policies that have led to defeats in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. Some contradictions, some mea culpas, some off the cuff laughs and a LOT of ego.
After starting off with a college lecturers’ introduction, he re-emphasized the progress he believes has been made since he took office. He mentioned the stimulus and action of his administration have right-sized the economy and “the worst of the storm has passed.” But despite his great efforts, he understands the people are “angry”…and in the first of many attempts, he spins the populist angst towards his policies. He wants to maintain his standing as a Washington outsider, despite whats occurred in his first year of office. He understands the people. He wants to fix Joe Q. Publix challenges. A curious move to claim success when millions are losing money.
Next, he mentions the unpopularity but the necessity of the bank bailouts and how he promised to do what was necessary, not what was popular. Despite the unpopularity, they have stabilized the industry and nearly all the bailout funds have been repaid. So kudos to Obama for creating this program…oh wait, I forgot…Bush did this. In Obama’s speech he even says himself, “So I supported the last administration’s efforts to create the financial rescue program. And when we took the program over, we made it more transparent and accountable.” So kudos to Obama…for making it more transparent?
Then, the President got on his tax cut high horse. Keep this in mind, for when later in the speech he blames the deficit partly on Bush tax cuts. Here is a cheat sheet: Bush tax cuts = Bad. Obama tax cuts = Good. Obama gave misleading info on his refundable rebates (these aren’t tax cuts, wait til you do your taxes), but the most important moment during this part of the speech is when he spontaneously made a comment to the right of the room (stage left, politically right) that he expected more cheers from the Republicans over the tax cuts. Of course, they know a lot of the tax cut talk is lip-service, but this highlights two things Obama is very good at. 1) He is able to think on his feet. It is endearing I think to the independent voter to see a natural laugh and smile with less reference to talking points. 2) He led the Republicans into applauding many topics that will naturally be attributed to him. If they didn’t applaud they would look out of touch.
When 3/4 of the American public said last week that the stimulus is a failure, apparently that information didn’t get to Obama or his speech writers. The President showed some grit by announcing the stimulus was a success and that it “saved” 2 million jobs. This stat is speculative at best; the agency in charge of tracking the numbers all but failed to accurately count job creation, so they switched to a make-believe “saved” number. If someone challenged the President to prove this number, he wouldn’t be able. It seems quite audacious to claim to save 2 million, when the nation lost 4 million last year, they claimed the stimulus would stop unemployment at 8% and we have climbed over 10%, and they are now talking about passing a second stimulus off the success from the first one.
The President then stated his main priority for 2010: a renewed focus on Job Growth. Of course, the Republicans and more importantly, the American people have been saying he should be focusing on jobs for the better part of 2009. So will this new populist turn be too little, too late for the Democrats in 2010 elections or do they have enough time to react? It will definitely be interesting to see what type of job plan are created and agreed upon. This was one of the few areas of the speech where he gave some details of his policy. I agree with many of them, but a few I will be skeptical of until I see more details to understand their significance. Some of the highlights he pointed out were:
- Take $30 billion of repaid bank bailout funds and give them to community banks to provide loans to small businesses. Ignoring the comedy that he has already earmarked money repaid to the government to spend again, I’m not sure where the $30 billion number comes from or if it is enough to be helpful. And why do we assume small community banks don’t need these funds to be profitable like every other bank?
- A small business tax credit to companies that hire new workers or raise wages.
- No capital gains tax on small business investments.
- Tax incentives to companies that invest in new plants and equipment.
- Continue to finance improved infrastructure and clean energy solutions.
- Tax rebates for homeowners who use clean energy solutions supporting these jobs.
- Slash tax breaks for companies who ship jobs overseas/Additional tax breaks those who keep them in the United States.
After briefly hitting on financial reform and innovation, the focus moved to energy solutions. In a pivot to conservative policies, before mentioning the cap & tax plan that has become a point of contention over the past year, he discussed needing to be more productive and efficient in nuclear energy, offshore drilling, investment in biofuels and clean coal energy. All of the above are the focus of the Republican energy strategy to help reduce the costs of energy rather than increase costs as the cap & tax plan suggests. His next sentence though he spun it back to needing “a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.” (NOTE: It was at this point that may favorite moment in the entire speech happened. Nancy Pelosi nearly threw her face out she jumped up so quickly to applaud at the mere mention of clean energy.)
I’ll quote the next part from Obama himself: “I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future – because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation.”
Now the preceding comment evoked hisses and laughter when he mentioned the questionable “overwhelming scientific evidence” about climate change. Now I disagree with his intent to take a crack at the back of the knees of Republicans. And I feel his strategy of goading those Americans who disagree that they should still want to lead the global economy in clean energy is ass-backwards. But I don’t disagree with investing in clean energy if we can find agreement on lowering costs on other resources and make it a part of a bigger plan. We all should want to conserve the environment, but not based on skeptical data and without a long-term plan. Just doing something to say we are first doesn’t make sense to me.
Obama went on to vaguely discuss his plans for expanding export markets to new business. I agree with him about enforcing our trade agreements and working out new deals to expand our sales efforts, but he had no details about what he was intending to do and gave no answer about how he would advance trade agreements that have sat on his desk for the previous year.
To end the first half of his speech before finally digging into health care insurance reform, the President discussed education. He emphasized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and its importance to expand to all 50 states. Obama wants to get rid of taxpayer subsidies to pay for student loans and instead give a $10,000 credit to families for 4 years of college. He would like to revitalize our community colleges – which I’m not sure what they entails and what needs rejuvenated. I thought community colleges were pretty profitable.
I am all far reducing the cost of higher education but the part I disagree with is his strategy to make college students irresponsible towards their debt. Why are the lenders the bad guys? It’s not a surprise, seeing our budget deficit continue to grow – if our government can’t take responsiblity, we might as well not ask our college graduates to either. Obama would like to cap payments at 10% of their income following graduation. Also, he wants all debts to be forgiven after 20 years OR 10 years if you work in a field of public service. Another slight by the Obama administration against the private sector. A man that has shown so much contempt towards the private sector will be the one fashioning a jobs bill in 2010 as his top priority. Hooray.
Very Nice Part I!
I can only add that one year ago yesterday Obama’s number one priority was creating jobs, that soon went to the way side for the new focus….a nationalized health care plan that after they found out even their own would not pass it we had the great buy offs of Nebraska, the Louisiana Purchase etc. Here we are 365 days later still wondering where the year went and how nothing was really done with his record majorities in both chambers and still he had the guts to blame it on the Republicans…wow.
Quote of the day –
“Arbeit Macht Frei”
Thanks Nick.
Im not surprised to find a CNN poll showing that 78% were favorable towards the speech. He is a great orator and obvlious the State of the Union is much more a sales pitch as it is an informative summary to the nation. But when you look inside the rhetoric, there is a little substance there in many areas. And like you suggest, we have gone nowhere in a year with most of his largest policies despite having a full basket to work with.
I saw Rep. Ryan on the news this morning, and he mentioned that even though the President made it his point to say the Republicans have not brought him new ideas, they he has sent his proposal to the President 3 or 4 times, and he will send it again. I hope the Republicans keep talking about this and put the pressure back on the President to say why he is against this excellent budget strategy:
http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/
[…] on January 28, 2010 at 9:27 pm | Reply State of the Union Recap: Part I « Three Conservative Bros […]
[…] 28, 2010 by MacGregor {ED. NOTE: Click here for SOTU Recap, Part I or here for the Republican Response} State of the Union Recap Part II In last year’s unofficial […]
Nice summary,
I like how you pointed some of his inconsistencies (clean energy) and slight of hand (taxes, jobs saved).
With all the speculating about Obama we have done over the past two years, did this speech convince you that he is more of an ideologue than a pragmatist?
Since I was not able to watch it, I am left wondering if there was any significant point that stuck out in the speech? From what I’ve read and heard that point would be the economy and jobs, right? Is there is a specific piece of legislation out their that he could hang his presidency on to turn the economy, that he highlighted?
Mac will disagree with me, but I always thought he’d prove to me pragmatic once in office – he thought idealogue. So far, he’s right if this speech was any indication. There was a certain stubborness to the whole speech. Jon Stewart did a pretty good job satrizing it last night…he blamed the right alot, the left a little, and some self-deprecating on himself. But you didnt get the sense it was real blame. Like he would say, “I didnt do a good job explaining the health care bill”. Not, “I dont understand what would truly help reform health care for the people.”
The speech definately focused on the economy first. I think this jobs bill and his tour of America the next few weeks is what we will hear about until Spring. No legislation out there yet, but he highlighted what he’d like to see. All the small business tax credits and elimination of cap gains tax would be a great step.
But what will stick with me is all the ego in the speech. Blaming the right for lack of leadership when he is in fact THE Leader of the free world that got nothing done last year but a bloated budget and an expansion of the Afghan War. Blaming the judges using sketchy, if not, incorrect data. And his insistance of pushing policies that are unfavorable in public polling.
[…] From the ThreeConservativeBros […]
WOW – I did a good job raising you!
Let all be candid, there isn’t anything Obama can do that will satisfy you. He could flip his whole agenda around to a more “right-wing” ideology and most would continue-on bashing his policies without ever noticing. Does this attitude stem from religious view, bigotry, partisan politics? It’s never clear. Obama isn’t the savior to this nation but do you not realize that the GOP and the fiscal policies they align with are favorable only to the wealthy in this country?
It’s been 1 year – ONE FUCKING YEAR. You (and the rest of the world) endured 8 years of Bush (because you voted him in) and you expect Obama to solve everything in a year? Stop complaining.
I can’t understand why you’d criticize the “shot” he took at the Supreme Court. Corporations are not individuals, and government should not be for sale. Shame on the Supreme Court. It’s unclear to me why any citizen would support that decision. Then again, you’re so brainwashed into thinking that the Republican Party has your best interest at heart that you’ll allow them to do anything as long as it works against Obama’s agenda.
Bush entered office with a $230 billion dollar surplus. There was actually hope that we would be paying down our debt, and living well within our means. I understand that 9/11 was damaging to our fiscal situation but the tax cuts he passed were irresponsible, especially in the face of 9/11 and the beginning of 2 wars. Also, Medicare Part-D was miscalculated and misguided. I mean, I support prescription drug benefits for Medicare recipients which is why I would be willing to pay for them, instead of putting them on credit. And, the defense spending was also incredibly irresponsible. Again, I think most of us understand that we had a greater need for defense post-9/11. But we also needed to pay for it, not put it on credit.
President Bush’s last budget (2009) had a projected $611 billion deficit (and I’m being nice using the projected instead of the actual). And that did not include the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (paid for by appropriations, $190 billion).
So in 8 years, we go from having a $230 surplus to having (effectively) a $800 billion deficit. These decisions will bankrupt us, unless someone can turn them around. I think that’s why the GOP has worked so hard to paint Obama as fiscally irresponsible. Because they know most people don’t realize how absolutely screwed Bush left us (fiscally), and they don’t want that blame. So far, Obama has not turned these numbers around. I’m willing to give him some time, because I realize he took office under “less than ideal” financial circumstances. I see some promising moves (healthcare bill reduces the deficit a bit), but I’m withholding judgement.
If for nothing else (and there are other things). I will not forgive Bush for the budget situation we are in.
Please stop watching Fox News. Do you realize that what they spew on a daily basis is completely twisted rhetoric? Do you know that the largest shareholder outside of Rupert Murdoch is? (google it) The information you base most of your arguments on has been purposely spun by the media companies you seem to completely trust.
Excerpt from a story via Google News:
“This week, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal al-Saud of Saudi Arabia — the largest shareholder of News Corp outside the Murdoch family — endorsed Rupert Murdoch’s son James to succeed the elder Murdoch when he retires.”
Dan, Thanks for stopping by our site, and for taking the time to respond. I can’t speak to everything on this post as I wrote Part II, but I would like to tackle a few of the issues you brought up.
1 – This is an analysis of President Obama’s State of the Union, not a rehashing of George Bush’s tenure, don’t know exactly why opposition to Obama’s policies are somehow a full promotion of his predecessors. Bush did a slew of things wrong and that’s an entirely different argument. But, you are wrong about his tax cuts, they were simply tax cuts for EVERYONE, and after his cuts were put in place, tax revenues steadily increased in the years following, your logic doesn’t jive with facts. We can debate fair levels of taxation, but not facts.
2 – No one said they expect Obama to fix everything in one year, if anything his newfound opposition are the very independents who voted him in, now jumping ship as they get to see his real policy decisions.
3 – If you do not think the Supreme Court comments were wrong, that’s your opinion and I respect it. But please realize whether you agree or not with the decision, they defied precedent and were actually factually inaccurate. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/01/28/obama_picked_odd_time_and_place_to_jab_high_court/
4 – Just because someone holds Conservative views doesn’t make them a Fox News junkie. I actually only watch a few hours per week, normally a few of the Orielly factor and a few panel discussions, maybe. The rest of my media intake comes from the books I read, The NY Times, Wall St Journal, Local Papers, various talk radio shows, Meet the Press, Face the Nation, This Week, MSNBC, CNN, Yahoo, Magazines, discussions like these, etc. Fox is actually pretty low on my list, and I see about as much Olbermann as I do Orielly.
5 – “He could flip his whole agenda around to a more “right-wing” ideology and most would continue-on bashing his policies without ever noticing. Does this attitude stem from religious view, bigotry, partisan politics?”
Please don’t buy the MSNBC view that ANY opposition to Obama’s far left policies are the manifestation of racism or intolerance. That doesn’t advance any argument of yours and quite frankly pisses people off, as evidenced by the recent elections and polls.
6 – We reviewed President Obama’s Address, all you did is incorrectly stereotype us, our views and our motives, you bashed Bush and FoxNews, and justified bad behavior by pointing to bad behavior. I understand that the President inherited a mess, and deserves time and respect in sorting some things out, but from day one he went right to work to push as many liberal pipe dreams as he could. And with this address he effectively doubled down on his HUGE agenda to overhaul Education, Healthcare, Climate Change, and now he wants a second stimulus. Is that not the way you see it?
Dan –
I wont rehash all the points Macgregor made in his reply to your comment, but will just point a few other things out. I am not looking for Obama to become “right-wing”, I am looking for him to be responsible. And I assure you that despite how the left-wing wants to portray all dissent against Obama as having racial undertones, mine does not. In fact, full disclosure – I voted for Obama in his 2004 Illinois Senate race. I was more independent at the time, but my current dissatisfaction with him is based solely on policy disagreement. Dont fall in that leftist trap that everyone thinks about race first.
My main point is that in this half of the speech there are a lot of contradictions and rhetoric that will need a whole lot more explanation if they were ever coming to fruition. His continued comments on transparency have so far been nothing but empty promises. How is he going to take us to energy independence and look seriously at off-shore drilling, nuclear, and clean coal, then still come out the next day and say the federal government will cut emissions by 28% by 2020, and national emissions will reduce 17%? If a student isnt responsible for their own school debt (which they accumulate going to school so they can make MORE personal income), does he seriously think the taxpayer should foot the remainder of the tab? The lender is not just going to go unpaid. How does that make any common sense – something he said the Republicans were lacking?
Personally, I agree with you that I dont like the Supreme Court decision. But what I disagree with is his statement that foreign companies will be able to spend without limit in our elections, which is trivial and unproven at best. And, despite my disagreement, many liberal constitutional lawyers such as Glenn Greenwald have said the justices correctly intrepreted the law. I dont agree with all laws, but that doesnt mean the President should have called out the Supreme Court. We have a post on it, and read my comments here: https://threeconservativebros.wordpress.com/2010/01/22/special-interests-now-rule-washington/
And as far as the budget goes, Im well aware what he inherited. But how does that excuse continuing the same broken path? His spending freeze is an absolute joke – 83% of the budget isnt even eligible – and the largest entitlement programs and security departments are in the most need of reform. Are you aware that if we are going to pay for our Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid without reforming them, we will need to double the tax rate? And that doesnt even take into account what happens if a health plan is passed that add more people to these programs. Government spending needs to be curtailed immediately – not next year or later.
You are absolutely correct, that Bush’s worst moment is he didnt properly budget his spending and his tax revenue no matter the circumstances that brought them on. But why is Obama following the same model? I dont think we need more tax cuts, we just need to hold our tax rates. Did you realize that in the last century, tax revenues have grown the most during periods of tax cuts by Coolidge, Kennedy, and Reagan? The burden of tax revenue hits the middle and lower classes HARDER when tax cuts are raised. People get rich because they are lucky or smart. And a smart guy is going to know how to invest his money to limit his exposure to increased taxes. Whereas middle/lower class has all there funds exposed because we need it to be more liquid. How would you react if someone told you they were going to take a greater share of your earnings? Probably hide it (legally) from the tax code, right? Read this and check the charts for more information: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1086.cfm
Here is a quote from JFK:
“Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. Surely the lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions and any new recession would break all deficit records. In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.”
Im asking questions because I dont believe what he is proposing is realistic when you look at it with the “common sense” that Obama talked about. I think he will continue to be exposed until he moves his plans to the center just like President Clinton did. Maybe you want to give him longer than a year — I want to see us get back on track now. Im hoping the Dems run off of Bush again in 2010, because the peope are sick of hearing about it. Bush’s faults dont excuse Obama from making any – its time to fix the shit that is holding us back from prospering again. If I saw him support budgetary proposals such as those by Paul Ryan – I guarantee I would support him, like I did in ’04.
Everyone,
Considering I missed the State of the Union Address because I was on a plane with George Clooney, this recap was amazing. There are certain political traps that some people seems to grab onto to support their views, although I don’t agree with the Fox News comments, nor do I like the fact that Fox News takes about 5 minutes each show to tell you that they have the best ratings. The support for Fox News is mirrored by that of MSNBC with GE and their political contributions to the Democratic Party.
I believe that Obama is back in “Campaign Mode” to push his agenda. I find it disheartening that public opinion is so easily ignored, but I hope that Obama moves back to the center to address our financial and budget concerns, but at the cost of ailenating some people on the left.
The fact that the 2 wars we are currently in wasn’t discussed, our measures to fight terrorism were minimized, I don’t think pointing the finger or political positioning will solve anyone’s concerns. Good Comments and fantastic historical and factual insight, by far the best collection of posts to date!