Ok, I'll start with a few line-by-line critiques, then give a general impression...
This recession has also compounded the burdens that America's families have been dealing with for decades — the burden of working harder and longer for less...
Common liberal refrain. Vague enough to not technically be a lie, but what it is intended to convey is false for the vast majority of Americans.
They are tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness.
A lesson Obama (hopefully, he really has) learned last Tuesday. Up until Tuesday, with the filibuster-proof majority, there was no need for bipartisanship and with an adjenda very far to the left, no place for it in his administration.
But when I ran for president, I promised I wouldn't just do what was popular — I would do what was necessary.
Riiiiiiiight.
As a result [of TARP], the markets are now stabilized, and we have recovered most of the money we spent on the banks.
To recover the rest, I have proposed a fee on the biggest banks. I know Wall Street isn't keen on this idea, but if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need.
Well, except for the fact that most of the biggest banks have already paid back their TARP funds (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#Participants ) and the money that is at risk is in banks not paying it back...so what he is suggesting is
not "to pay back" what was given to them, it is to get the big banks to cover the TARP losses of small banks. I wonder if those banks could sue the government over changing the terms of a contract after it was signed and refuse to pay the money?
That's why we extended or increased unemployment benefits for more than 18 million Americans, made health insurance 65% cheaper for families who get their coverage through COBRA and passed 25 different tax cuts.
I'm generally OK with this, but these systems need to be reformed to prevent abuse. I've only known a handful of people who have been on unemployment, but the only one I know who didn't abuse it or get it when they didn't need it is me. It is a simple economic reality that people will do what you pay them to do, so if you pay people when they are out of work, a great many will gladly accept the deal and choose not to work. Just a few weeks ago a I heard a friend of a friend say she worked two days at a new job, but decided the extra money (above her unemployment) wasn't worth the extra effort of having to work for it.
Let me repeat: we cut taxes...
That's fine, but when you are a tax-and-spend democrat who only spends, the result is a $1.4 T deficit!
So tonight, I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. I am also proposing a new small business tax credit — one that will go to over 1 million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages. While we're at it, let's also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment and provide a tax incentive for all businesses, large and small, to invest in new plants and equipment.
These are good - and very surprising from Obama. We'll see how they go over in Congress.
. That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.
Also good and very surprising. But as with the previous, it is so surprising from Obama it is tough to believe he's serious. Where's that "blue ribbon panel" report on nuclear waste you promised us?
Third, we need to export more of our goods. Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America. So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support 2 million jobs in America. To help meet this goal, we're launching a national export initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports and reform export controls consistent with national security.
Interesting. Sounds good, but I doubt that that is something you can make happen just by wishing it.
And it is precisely to relieve the burden on middle-class families that we still need health insurance reform.
Really? Very little of what is now on the table has anything to do with the middle class. And if it is really about money, why aren't you proposing to deal with the problems that make it expensive...? [yeah, more on that later...]
Now let's be clear — I did not choose to tackle this issue to get some legislative victory under my belt. And by now it should be fairly obvious that I didn't take on health care because it was good politics.
Heh, right. Socialized healthcare has been a wet dream of liberals for some 50 years. But you took it on for the same reason Clinton did: it's good politics
in a campaign. It
sounds great when you don't have to actually outline a real plan or subject it to CBO analysis. In a campaign, you can just wave your hand and say everyone will have free heathcare and people who want to believe it will. But as with Clinton's failed plan, once they realize who is paying for the free healthcare and what it actually means, it becomes unpopular.
The approach we've taken would protect every American from the worst practices of the insurance industry. It would give small businesses and uninsured Americans a chance to choose an affordable health care plan in a competitive market.
Well no, actually, the failure to address the flaws in the insurance industry is one of the biggest complaints people have against it. Heck, if this were just about addressing the flaws in the current system, there'd be no need to burn it to the ground and start over with nationalized healthcare.
Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan.
True, but that's not really what you wanted, is it? Tough to consider that a win.
And according to the Congressional Budget Office— the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress — our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades.
I suppose I'm supposed to be impressed by that? How 'bout making it revenue neutral right from the start? Regardless, given how fast the deficit just went up and where it is today, taking 20 years to knock $1T off of it sounds like nothing short of a fiscal calamity to me.
AKA, selling votes in a way that was almost certainly illegal.
Now, even as health care reform would reduce our deficit, it's not enough to dig us out of a massive fiscal hole in which we find ourselves.
Lol, right, because you just said it would take 20 years to drop $1T!
By the time I took office, we had a one year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade.
That's a mischaracterization due to the fact that a lot of the TARP money is coming back, but in any case, what you've so far proposed isn't helping that.
The federal government should do the same. So tonight, I'm proposing specific steps to pay for the $1 trillion that it took to rescue the economy last year.
Ok...
Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will.
Sounds nice, but it is peanuts. Tens of billions off a trillion dollar problem.
More importantly, the cost of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will continue to skyrocket. That's why I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that let's us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans.
We'll see. Buying votes with Social Security is a powerful thing that Congress won't give up easily. And it won't be popular for Obama either, so I suspect we'll hear about as much from this "commission" as we've heard from his "blue ribbon panel" on nuclear waste. But it sounds nice to say in a speech.
And when the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason why we had record surpluses in the 1990s.
That would be interesting - a democratic congress passing a law similar to a republican one from 15 years ago!
It's time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or Congress.
Um, ok...now that you've let all the lobbyists you need into your administration, it is time to clamp down on lobbyists like you promised you would before you were elected? Gee, thanks.
Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well, I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.
Quick lesson on Constitutional law: if a law gets struck down by the USSC, a similar law will also almost certainly be unconstitutional. If you want to tackle that issue, you need an amendment. Perhaps one is needed.
I'm also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform. You have trimmed some of this spending and embraced some meaningful change. But restoring the public trust demands more.
Nice, but we need to wait until after you get your bovine infused healthcare package through before you do that, right?
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.
Translation: get what you can get passed before half of you are voted out of office in 10 months.
And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it's not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. So let's show the American people that we can do it together.
Indeed - a lot of this speech reads like "oops, I can't ignore the republicans anymore". When you have a filibuster proof majority, there is no need to be bipartisan. Now he's forced to do it at least a little.
So let's put aside the schoolyard taunts about who is tough. Let's reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let's leave behind the fear and division and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future — for America and the world.
That is the work we began last year. Since the day I took office, we have renewed our focus on the terrorists who threaten our nation. We have made substantial investments in our homeland security and disrupted plots that threatened to take American lives. We are filling unacceptable gaps revealed by the failed Christmas attack, with better airline security and swifter action on our intelligence.
1. Then stop downplaying the threat of terrorism and start taking it seriously. 1a. Stop ignoring/suppressing the Ft. Hood terrorist attack - release the report you've been sitting on for the past 2 months. 1b. Keep the Guantanamo Bay facility open.
All in all, a great speech. Speeches are what he does best. The tone to me is of someone aiming for the middle. But he did that during the campaign, too: he made himself sound moderate when in fact he's extremely liberal. So time will tell whether he's:
1. Learning he was wrong and shifting to the middle because it is the right thing to do.
2. Shifting to the middle because it is politically popular.
3. Shifting to the middle because he no longer has a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.
4. Pretending to shift to the middle (like how he campaigned).
Obama is an idealogue, so it is hard for me to believe he would so quickly shift the way he looks at the world. I don't trust that he's going to really try to do the moderate things he says and I think he left a lot of very liberal adjenda items out.
