Posted by Matt (1/24/12):
First of all, I'd just like to point out that for all of our political differences, Stephen Siena and I are both fans of the New York Football Giants, who are going to the Super Bowl, so let's just have a moment of acknowledgement for how awesome that is. Tom Brady, watch out (again).On to the speech. As a liberal, one of my core disappointments in the Obama presidency has been his inability, or unwillingness, until recently, to put our current economic troubles in context. I thought he finally took care of that tonight. After congratulating our armed forces for their work in Iraq and for killing Osama bin Laden, the president began his speech by talking about the American dream, and how the basic promise that our grandparents and parents were raised on - work hard, get a good job, raise a family and save for retirement - has been eroded by the combined economic trends of new technology, outsourcing, and stagnant middle class wages. The president didn't openly criticize these trends; he merely acknowledged them, gave an account of their consequences, and then presented a blueprint for how to bring our country forward and restore the middle class that so many voters are afraid is slipping away.
More after the jump...
As America recovers from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, the president offered evidence for why "the state of our union is getting stronger," and why it is his policies that are making it so. He tipped his cap to American manufacturing, which is creating jobs for the first time in over a decade. He touted broader job creation that, in spite of a shaky economy, still was stronger in 2011 than at any point since 2005, two years before the recession hit. He talked about his administration's bailout of the auto industry, which Republicans would have let go under, and how American car companies are back on top after nearly collapsing in 2008 and 2009.
More than that, however, President Obama tonight offered a strident defense of smart government. I'll preempt my conservative counterpart's likely denunciation of the president's "welfare proposals" by challenging him to produce an instance where he talked at all about poverty or about poor people. These are subjects that deserve our attention, but they weren't the focus of Obama's speech. Instead he talked about how government can reform the tax code to encourage businesses to hire workers in America instead of overseas. He talked about how partnerships between industry and community colleges can help insure that workers have the right skills to encourage businesses to hire them. And he talked about how government research drives private sector innovation, citing the public investments that ultimately gave rise to the internet and the computing power that we rely on today.
Since I know Stephen is a fan of natural gas but no fan of government, I'll make particular mention of the president's reminder that it was government research that developed the technology to even allow for private energy companies to extract natural gas from harder-to-reach places - and note that the same principle applies for clean energy. I thought it was brilliant for Obama to argue that "some technologies pan out and some don't," which was a direct reference to the Solyndra controversy and to renewable energy in general (read Steve's and my debate on this subject). This president has overseen an unprecedented expansion in the American supply of clean energy, an industry which is now creating tens of thousands of jobs, and he is not afraid to highlight that record. The message: government has a role to play, and government research and development can help to make us more economically competitive in the long term.
Overall I thought tonight's speech was an excellent opening salvo in what will be a genuine study of contrasts in the agendas of the Republican and Democratic parties during 2012. I was pleased that the President framed his platform within the context of American middle-class upheaval, and offered a framework for how smart, pragmatic, government can continue to get us back on the right track and renew the American dream. We're moving forward, and making progress, and if we continue to stay the course, America will insure that its best days remain ahead of it. That is the message that our president offered tonight. Campaigning against a party of stringent ideology that knows no moderation, we can only hope that this administration gets a chance to finish the work that it has started.
****
Posted by Stephen (1/29/12):
As always, Mr. Obama was at his most convincing while reading a prepared speech; the man is an excellent public speaker. I would never take that away from him. And I'll admit, he certainly can make flawed thinking sound great! However, as for the substance of the speech, there were so many frustrating moments. Obama his this terrible tendency of properly identifying problems but really missing the boat when it comes to solutions/what he and his movement actually do and promote. Yes, the President started by congratulating the troops, and they have done an excellent job this year. But what will he do to reward this? Cut their budget. Apparently, Mr. Obama believes that you punish the successful and reward failure. He does this throughout all of his policies.
He also talked about the American dream - working hard, getting a good job, raising a family and saving for retirement. Yet, those things are not supported by his administration and the left wing movement as a whole. Instead, they promote the lazy to just suck from the system. Let's face it, our grandparents busted their balls in mediocre jobs in order to create a better world for their children. Today, too many Americans think that these jobs are just simply below them and with generous welfare offerings from the US and a system that sees pretty much anything as a good reason to not be fit to work, we have a tremendous amount of people on welfare. Mr. Obama, how are you promoting the American dream? Saving for retirement? The government's easy monetary policies have made saving nearly impossible while promoting the population to take on ever more debt in order to prop up an economy based purely on consumption. Yes, both parties have supported this, so the blame is not entirely on Mr. Obama and the Democrats, but if you're going to change the system back to its core, why not start here? Meanwhile, increased hostility towards business, high corporate taxes, expansive regulation and government meddling in financial markets has caused financial markets to suffer and spend the past decade essentially flat.
Concerning the auto industry, let's not forget the real problem. Democrats' favorite pet, unions were responsible for Detroit's failure. Their power, given by supporters of the progressive movement, guaranteed that employment was not based on merit or hard work and instead on membership. Increasingly, high taxes, new global competitors and high wage and benefits costs, were the real source of the problem. It was only after declaring bankruptcy and renegotiating union contracts that Detroit could reemerge. Want to support future economic growth? Why not start by ending the favoritism towards unions? You already know they caused the failure of US industry, and you want to promote manufacturing. But if you want to promote that, why, Mr. Obama, do you harass companies that want to expand US manufacturing, but avoid unions? Don't play favorites and talk about equality, that insulting. You have some dream of high-tech manufacturing receiving special benefits. Why can't you just promote ALL manufacturing?
Then the President told us that we should stop subsidizing companies that send jobs overseas, I'm supportive of this (and ending all subsidizing). But let's go further and promote things that will create more jobs here. The president is on point with extending the payroll tax, but here's another example of properly identifying a problem and then giving a poor solution. Lowering the payroll tax would help create jobs, but let's be honest, if it will do that in 2012 and 2013, it will also do that in 2015. So why not just make the thing permanent? If anything, this will have more of an effect since, unlike government, businesses like big picture. Really want to help? Scrap all that nonsense about a minimum tax rate for businesses. Oh and while you're at it, lower those 35% corporate tax rates that you acknowledged where too high.
As for lack of talented labor supply for companies like Siemens: if we're going to spend money on education, this proposal makes more sense than others. But maybe, no one is going into these professions because of our current subsidized higher education. Stop subsidizing and when prices are too high for some, they'll start to look at whether that four-year degree in communications is a better decision for them than just going to trade school. Again, you know the problem but are not solving it. Oh yeah, then you propose to further this problem...good one! Hey Mr. Obama, this is like identifying that someone has a weight problem then subsidizing Twinkies.
On to energy, I'm getting sick of this chest pounding for several accomplishments. Yes, congratulations you didn't totally mess up every time. But is that how low our standards are? First, let's get rid of this fallacy that this was the only way it could happen (especially since with the current subsidy system in, why would you invest your own money in an energy company when someone else will give it to you?). The issue here is risk. The government does not exist to take risks with our money. Not unless you can lose your job for a big lose, oh wait that might get uncomfortable after Solyndra... But let's also not forget that the government getting involved and playing favorites undermines the entire concept of the American dream -- equal opportunity. When the government picks winners, it basically tells equality to f off. I hope the contradiction here isn't too hard to see.
Kudos, though, for the proposal to open up oil fields.
As for the Buffett rule, which we'll devote a full debate to, it's absolutely ridiculous. You realize that corporations pay taxes correct? (At 35%). Capital gains taxes on dividends then re-tax those profits. So what is your actual tax rate? Instead, Mr. Obama why not go with the recommendations of your own Simpson-Bowles commission?
Lastly, I found this funny. Our super-intelligent president produced one of the lowest reading level SOTU speeches in history.
No comments:
Post a Comment