It's Like the Oscars for Ugly People: Reaction to the State of the Union

Tonight, President Barack Obama gave his final State of the Union before standing for re-election later this year. Obama alternately celebrated the United States Military for its work in Afghanistan and Iraq and for the killing of Osama bin Laden, appealed to the need for finding common ground in Washington, and offered a preview of the election year agenda he will seek to promote as he begins to draw a contrast with his eventual opponent (read the text of Obama's speech here). In this week's debate, Stephen and Matt recap the SOTU and analyze its goals and policy provisions within the context of what we can expect to see politically in 2012.

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...

Debating the Obama Defense Cuts

Recently, the President announced $487B in defense spending cuts over the next 10 years. Meanwhile an additional $500B could be coming from Congress next year after the deficit supercommitee failed to reach an agreement on debt reduction. This debate seeks to determine if the US can afford to cut spending at a time when defense budgets are already on the chopping block. Still recovering from a severe economic recession and two military misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, Americans are noticeably weary of spending money on overseas intervention. But should we be? And more importantly, can the US afford to pursue this course of action?

Posted by Stephen (1/12/12):

I'd like to start this week's debate by using my six years of Latin. "Si vis pacem, para bellum" which translates to "If you wish for peace, prepare for war". I'd also like to observe that the periods of time where wealth, science and culture flourished were also periods where a state completely dominated the known world militarily. Examples including the Pax Romana, the early Muslim Caliphates, the Pax Britannica and then the Pax Americana. Therefore, my argument essentially becomes that the US must maintain the sole military superpower for both itself and the world. Thus, if defense budget cuts would hamper our ability to maintain this Pax Americana, then they are something we cannot afford.

My first argument is that the US has an obligation to protect its people. This is a basic tenet of our government, outlined in the Preamble to the Constitution. Thus, the Defense cuts were shown to limit the government's ability to do so, it would fail my basic test. I believe that the 10-15% reduction in our Army and Marine Corps outlined in President Obama's plan will harm our ability to protect Americans and their interests. While we do not face threat of attack by an invading army, there still exist terrorists who wish to do us harm. According to the White House's own admissions the troop reductions will not allow us to participate in two simultaneous major wars.

More after the jump...

Solyndra's Collapse Means ______.

The collapse of California-based solar panel maker Solyndra, LLC is old news by now, but the political ramifications of its bankruptcy are not. With many conservatives using Solyndra's $535 million federal loan guarantee as evidence to argue that the federal government stop funding renewable energy, and the mainstream media investigating what this means for the future of solar and other emerging energy technologies, right now is an excellent time for conservatives and liberals alike to air beliefs about energy, innovation, new technology, and the role of government in supporting all three. After Stephen began last week's debate with a stirring call to eliminate federal higher education subsidies, it's Matt's turn to lead off.

Posted by Matt, 12/19/11:

The easy answer to this week's question is that Solyndra's collapse means absolutely nothing. Actually I should clarify that - it should mean absolutely nothing.

Alas, therein lies the problem. Combine a rabidly conservative congressional majority desperate for any excuse to discredit the clean energy industry with an electorate that remains particularly sensitive to any perceived government waste, and you have a toxic political brew that threatens to seriously undermine the future growth of the renewable sector, one of the few industries currently adding jobs in a down economy.

The conservative take on Solyndra, and argument against renewable energy in general, is two-fold: number one, they argue, the government shouldn't be "picking winners and losers" through federal subsidies, loan guarantees, tax incentives, or any other sort of investment. The other argument, of course, is that it's a waste of money - and here's where Republicans have seized upon the $535 million in Department of Energy loan guarantees given to Solyndra to summon the righteous outrage of the anti-spending conservative grassroots.

More Solyndra after the jump...

Should Higher Education Be Free?

The first topic CONFLICT REVOLUTION will tackle is one relevant to every young person currently navigating their way through a competitive job market and economy: in a world where college is increasingly common (even necessary), what role should government play in subsidizing its high - and growing - cost? A remote coin toss has determined that Stephen gets to go first this week; Matt responds below.

Posted by Stephen, 12/8/11:

Should higher education be free? Well it would certainly be nice if it were. But that would require professors to stop demanding pay for their time (which would most likely make all but the most dedicated change their career path - as well as starving all those who foolishly do become professors); mandate that administrators do the same; ditto for all those who are the support staff at universities. Or we can ignore this ridiculous scenario and head to what our topic really means, since education does cost money, someone must pay. Thus our topic really becomes: Should the taxpayer subsidize higher education? Further, since subsidizing ALL higher education would be far too costly, let us focus on just subsidizing a segment of the population that I’m sure my leftist companion will define the"99%" or everyone minus "millionaires and billionaires” i.e.families making $250,000 or more.

One, it turns out that government subsidizes in education doesn’t do much to control cost, but I doubt there was any shocker there. In fact, government subsidies have done nothing more than to push prices up. As Virginia Postrel in Bloomberg Business Week writes:

It’s a phenomenon familiar to economists. If you offer people a subsidy to pursue some activity requiring an input that’s in more-or-less fixed supply, the price of that input goes up. Much of the value of the subsidy will go not to the intended recipients but to whoever owns the input.

Two, government intervention has spurred an industry of “for profit colleges” which charge high prices and provide low quality educations. These colleges target lower income demographics and look to pump them through the system with government debt. When they graduate, employment prospects are not much higher.

More on paying for college after the jump...