The Challenging State of the Union
President Obama delivered his first State of the Union address this past Wednesday, a lengthy but eloquent speech, filled with both firm declarations and statements of resolve as the country faces enormous national challenges, but also replete with contradictions and frank populist rhetoric.
The focus of the speech was the economy and “jobs, jobs, jobs”, which all of Washington and every U.S. citizen recognize as the paramount concern in 2010. The ironic part of it all, as Peggy Noonan points out, was that the President, after one year of overseeing the government max out its efforts in an ultimately failed attempt to fix the economy, offered only more of the same going forward:
The central fact of the speech was the contradiction at its heart. It repeatedly asserted that Washington is the answer to everything. At the same time it painted a picture of Washington as a sick and broken place. It was a speech that argued against itself: You need us to heal you. Don’t trust us, we think of no one but ourselves.
The people are good but need guidance—from Washington. The middle class is anxious, and its fears can be soothed—by Washington. Washington can “make sure consumers . . . have the information they need to make financial decisions.” Washington must “make investments,” “create” jobs, increase “production” and “efficiency.”
At the same time Washington is a place “where every day is Election Day,” where all is a “perpetual campaign” and the great sport is to “embarrass your opponents” and lob “schoolyard taunts.”
The Turbulent Times of 2009
The speech began with references to past challenges that faced the country: World War II, the Depression, the Civil Rights movement. As the President, a former community organizer, delved into the current, ongoing economic problems, he skillfully channeled viewers’ memories of last year’s bailout of AIG et. al into a bank-baiting session, focusing the anger and resentment of the populace at the Wall Street “fat cats”, whilst at the same time defending his administration’s actions which were in his view painful but necessary, and of course, only a continuation of “the last administration’s efforts.” He remarked, “I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal.”
Yet again, as with the whole political establishment, the President omitted the underlying facts and the destructive government policies while attempting to explain the causes of the financial meltdown.
“Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway.”
Not a word is uttered about Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored entities (GSEs), the quiet, behemoth catalysts at the foundation of the crisis, which will both be costing taxpayers in the hundreds of billions of dollars to stay afloat over the next 10 years. (By the way, the costs for these “private” companies, subsidy engines for the housing lobby, are kept off the official budget, keeping the true costs hidden from sight.) Nor is the Federal Reserve ever mentioned, the existence of which is part of a much broader, more fundamental issue of monetary policy that libertarians have been arguing for decades.
The President’s Perception
It was almost unbelievable to listen to the President’s interpretation of the recent Massachusetts election of Republican Scott Brown. After not uttering a word about health care for nearly half an hour, Mr. Obama rehashed all of his original arguments for the Democratic health care reform plan, and asked that everyone “take another look at the plan we’ve proposed.” People were “frustrated” and “angry” and wanted to know “why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems.” Discussing the destructiveness of partisan politics, he said, “To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills.”
Huh? Voters are “angry” and disappointed that Washington hasn’t “solved” problems such as health care, and yet they elect a Republican as the very person who is the deciding vote on the Senate health bill? The sole individual who will determine the fate of the year-long (and in a broader context, century-old) debate and even signs his name, Scott “41″ Brown?
Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became.
The longer health care “reform” was debated, the more the citizenry learned of the details of the plans, beheld the absurdity of the incomprehensible legislation which almost no person had completely read, let alone understood, witnessed political deal-making and “horse-trading” at its lowest and most contemptible level, and watched in disbelief as the Democratic party made it’s unrelenting, take-no-prisoners March to the Sea of their flawed utopia of nationalized health care.
The President’s perplexing rhetoric was also pointed directly against the Republicans, the “Party of No”, at several times during the speech.
From some on the right, I expect we’ll hear a different argument – that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts for wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, and maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is, that’s what we did for eight years. That’s what helped lead us into this crisis.
I see. Government “spending” is not actually spending, it’s “investment.” Tax cuts should not go to those dastardly “wealthier” Americans, the ones who actually provide jobs. The extensive cronyism and political distortion of the markets and the housing sector weren’t causes of the crisis, it was actually deregulation, a favorite culprit embraced by Democrats. And of course, jacking up the already increasing costs and lowering the quality of health care is far superior to maintaining the “status quo.”
Some Ideas Going Forward
The proposed “spending freeze”, which was actually brought up before the speech, was rhetorically laudable, but factually laughable. The three-year freeze “would affect $447 billion in spending, or 17% of the total federal budget, and would likely be overtaken by growth in the untouched areas of discretionary spending.” Even better, the freeze would only go in effect starting in 2011, conveniently after the fall midterm elections.
To be fair, the President provided several applause-worthy ideas to foster economic growth, with a surprising amount of talk about tax cuts and credits, and a focus on small businesses. He also reinforced his education reform ideas, which are a welcome and intelligent alternative to the mantra of “more money” that school administrators and teachers’ unions perpetually shout.
This year, we have broken through the stalemate between left and right by launching a national competition to improve our schools. The idea here is simple: instead of rewarding failure, we only reward success.
But one curious part of his jobs discussion was that clean energy jobs were being “put on hold” by a Washington that “has been telling us to wait for decades”, saying that other countries like Germany and China are “not waiting to revamp” their economies and “aren’t playing for second place.” No environmental advocate ever likes to discuss the prohibitive costs and inefficiency of windmills and solar panels, and few politicians have the guts to stand for removing the massive restrictions on domestic drilling, which would actually be the fastest and most effective way of reducing the United States’ dependence on foreign oil. Mr. Obama even made a bold statement regarding the “climate change” science that is increasingly losing all credibility:
I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.
The Final Analysis
All things considered, the speech had its merits, and several of the President’s pro-job ideas were definitely worthy of recognition and serious consideration. Although the contradictions were glaring, there were a lot of good solid points that came out clear and made real sense. But the underlying themes were the same, age-old Leftist mantras and philosophies, pointing to the fact that Mr. Obama will regrettably be “staying the course” in his health care crusade and green revolution. Sadly, the projected trillion-dollar deficit for 2010 is still an ominous giant that seems currently insurmountable.
One unforgettable moment took place when Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito reacted directly to the President’s public scolding of the Court regarding its recent ruling on campaign finance laws regarding corporations.
The most surprising yet disappointing aspect of the more than 60-minute speech was the almost unnoticeable blurb about the fight against terrorism. In fact, the word “terror” was mentioned a mere three times, compared to “green” and “clean” and “energy” which appeared in the dozens. It seems the failed Christmas bombing attack was simply the result of “unacceptable gaps” in airport security. And not even a passing reference was made to the devastating Fort Hood massacre. Windmills are apparently more important than Islamic terrorism.
Similarly, as MSNBC points out, domestic terrorism wasn’t the only forlorn subject.
But he made no mention of other contentious issues, including conflict in the Middle East or his delay on fulfilling his promise to close the U.S. detenton facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Granted, no President is expected to emphasize or elaborate on their faults or failures, but these are critical issues that are vital to American security at home and abroad.
Peggy Noonan quotes a “friendly acquaintance of the President”, summing up Mr. Obama’s decision to “stay the course”:
“I don’t think he can do a Bill Clinton pivot, because he’s not a pragmatist, he’s an ideologue. He’s a community organizer. He mixes the discrimination he felt as a young man with the hardship so many feel in this country, and he wants to change it and the way to change that is government programs and not opportunity.”
The real and immediate problem now, he says, is debt, something to which the President and Congress have been oblivious:
“To heal our country we need to get the arrogance out of the White House and the elitists out of the Congress. We need tough love. We need a real adult in the White House because we don’t have adults in the Congress.”
