Analysis Of The State Of The Union Address
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-02-13/analysis-state-union-address
President Barack Obama takes to the road today to win public support for the policy proposals he presented during last night’s State of the Union address. He said it was time for the parties to come together in support of the middle class. In particular, he called for a higher minimum wage and expanded access to preschool programs and job training. He also emphasized the need for gun control and efforts to address climate change. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio delivered the Republican response, saying private enterprise, not government, should be boosting the middle class. Please join us for analysis of last night’s State of the Union address.
Guests
Norman Ornstein
resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and co-author of "It's Even Worse Than It Looks."
Ruth Marcus
columnist and editorial writer at The Washington Post.
Byron York
chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Free preschool? "Investment" (read: spending) on energy? Now we're going to blackmail colleges and universities. I'm going to go out on a limb and say these proposals are NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S JOB. Federal money flowing since the GI bill is why tuition is too high. And he wants more of the same.
What's worse than government spending? How about "public/private partnerships" in "investing" in ports and pipelines. First it was GM, now this, who knows where it stops. Maybe it stops when we are fully China. That's what they do."Scientists agree that Hurricane Sandy" was caused by "climate change" was a flat-out lie. In fact, scietists say NO CORRELATION can be drawn between that event and "climate change".
Headline: President forgets that Chris Stevens and three others are dead and says "Al Qaida is a shadow of its former self".
Let's listen to the preaching of Obama, and double-down on failed economic, social, and foreign policies. Won't it be grand?
This president is always good at delivering speeches someone else wrote, the pity is they are always completely divorced from reality. His goals are fringe and far left. Poverty, unemployment and indebtedness are of no concern to this man, the installation of a permanent centralized government control over our lives is his only objective and desire. He believes government dependence is the opiate that will lure the people to give up their rights and submit to a central authority. A prosperous economy would ruin this plan.
Just imagine if we decided that the building of major roads should be left to the private sector and that the tolls on those roads should be regulated by competition, not by government. Of course, building a major toll road like the New Jersey Turnpike would require the use of eminent domain to obtain a right of way for the road, and if we are going to have competition, we will need several parallel roads. So a lot more people would lose their homes as their properties were taken for multiple parallel roads.
The roads would, of course, have to compete. Because several roads would have to be maintained out of tolls, and because the number of cars using the larger number of roads would be about the number using the roads now, the tolls would have to be higher than they are now. And some of the roads might well go bankrupt from mismanagement (more common in private industry than conservatives would like to admit) or because fewer motorists could afford the higher tolls or from overbuilding, leaving unmaintained eyesore highways with cracking pavement.
I write this to illustrate the absurdity of the Republican argument that almost everything except defense should be turned over to the private sector and that regulation is anathema. Some things have to be done by government. And even if roads are to be toll roads, government is needed.
One thing that Republicans have been doing by "starving the beast" is failing to maintain our infrastructure. That keeps taxes lower now, but eventually our economy will collapse from bad infrastructure. What is clear to me is that our kids and grandkids will suffer. President Obama is saying that it is time to provide for our children and grandchildren.
I agree.
"I hope whatever compromise Obama's expecting to reach will cover the cost of the government he's envisioning."
http://22oftheday.blogspot.com/2013/02/how-do-solve-problem-like-obama.html
Dana Milbank got it right:
"There is something entirely appropriate about holding the State of the Union address on the same day as Mardi Gras.
One is a display of wretched excess, when giddy and rowdy participants give in to reckless and irresponsible behavior. The other is a street festival in New Orleans."
"The standoff gives new meaning to Fat Tuesday: The nation’s finances are a mess, but — what the heck? — let’s have another round. No wonder a new Washington Post poll found that 56 percent of Americans have a dim view of the country’s political system"
Amazing when you consider Mr Milbank's leftward tendency. Is the Honeymoon finally over?
PS - This picture is a little (lot!) outdated
Steve Gewirtz wrote: "I write this to illustrate the absurdity of the Republican argument that almost everything except defense should be turned over to the private sector and that regulation is anathema. Some things have to be done by government. And even if roads are to be toll roads, government is needed"
What is absurd is your lack of understanding of what our Constitution allows the federal government to do and what it actually does in 2013. Roads are within the purview of the Constitution.
"One thing that Republicans have been doing by "starving the beast" is failing to maintain our infrastructure. That keeps taxes lower now, but eventually our economy will collapse from bad infrastructure. What is clear to me is that our kids and grandkids will suffer. President Obama is saying that it is time to provide for our children and grandchildren."
The Welfare state will starve infrastructure maintenance. The "kids and grandkids" inherit a debt of about $52,000.00 per person right out of the womb to pay for it. "starving the beast" is the only viable method for a voter to impact a wildly out of control Federal Government.
1. What America needs is investment to regain competitiveness. Our pitiful position in education quality compared to other OECD countries requires dramatic overhauls in education and infrastructure.
Free preschool is an excellent way to maximize the educational learning capabilities of the next generation, especially of poor kids that otherwise would be trapped in a system of castes with no social mobility. Universities spend about 17% of their incomes in tuition. Many of them have found easy to engage in pharaonic projects and then push the cost to the students, making the inflation in that sector comparable only to that of health care. The government should maximize the results of its dollars invested in higher education but not subsidize such absurd status quo.
The last time the American Society of Civil Engineers put a number on the cost of overhauling our infrastructure, not counting the infrastructure to improve internet access, it was $2.2 trillion. We can’t expect to be a competitive country without making such upgrade. With idiotic tax cuts we can still live of our past for some time but without the necessary investments, that won’t last. Not understanding this basic economic difference disqualifies the Right from any serious debate.
2. Counterinsurgency implies to reduce the insurgency to levels where it cannot pull others to their message (like in the case of the IRA, despite small fractions still at war) or destroying their organization (like the Baaden Meinhoff in Germany). In this case intelligence and Special Forces are key to victory. This assumes that the insurgency doesn’t have popular support (i.e, the Shining Path or the Malayan Emergency). When insurgencies have popular support though, for the right or for the wrong reasons (Algeria, Indochina, Afghanistan, etc.), without a serious political solution the insurgencies normally win. Counterinsurgency is not a magic trick (so from the moment of the trick on only terrorists die) or the act of chanting “USA! USA! USA!). Obama is to blame for not addressing properly the long term political solution to reasonably expect peace in both Afghanistan and Iraq but those who attack him for not sending enough troops or for not protecting Black Water enough should be publicly embarrassed for their ignorance. In almost no case regular troops have defeated insurgencies behaving as troops in the whole XX Century. Some people should read some history before opening their mouths.
3. I agree that Obama is much better in his speeches than in his policies. If Obama had followed the guidelines of his Cairo speech, that and our support to the Libyan rebels might have been enough to make a breakthrough that would’ve cornered al Qaeda out of the picture (like in the war of Kosovo).
4. If the American political system has turned so dysfunctional the Republicans are to blame for their unprecedented abuse of the filibuster, their attempts to win despite the popular vote and their abuses in gerrymandering electoral districts taking advantage of their victories of 2000 and 2010, without which they would not have been able to retain the House. When Rush Limbaugh becomes your intellectual mentor and even Kevin Phillips, Colin Powell and David Stockman prefer to make distance from it, you know that bigotry has substituted values and cheap slogans have replaced serious thinking.
Alfredo wrote: "1. What America needs is investment to regain competitiveness. Our pitiful position in education quality compared to other OECD countries requires dramatic overhauls in education and infrastructure".
"the United States spends more than any other country on education, an average of $91,700 per student between the ages of six and fifteen.
That’s not only more than other countries spend but it is also more than better achieving countries spend – the United States spends a third more than Finland, a country that consistently ranks near the top in science, reading, and math testing."
http://mercatus.org/publication/k-12-spending-student-oecd
We can see to the Finish or the Korean model but spending is not everything otherwise our health care system would be the best. When compared to Beverly Hills or Bethesda schools, our results are very competitive with respect to the rest of the OECD countries. Unfortunately the funding of our basic education is linked to property taxes and poor neighborhoods have poor schools and it's here where we need an overhaul. Spending is just a part of the picture and only close supervision could help us make sure that the public monies are spent wisely.
We also spend more per cap on health care than any other nation without commensurate results.
Alfredo wrote: "Unfortunately the funding of our basic education is linked to property taxes and poor neighborhoods have poor schools and it's here where we need an overhaul "
The inner city schools that GAO examined generally spent more per pupil than suburban schools in Boston, Chicago, and St. Louis, while in Fort Worth and New York the suburban schools in GAO's study almost always spent more per pupil than the inner city schools.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-234
Not many people working for minimum wage are working even 40 hrs./wk. They try to work 2 jobs and do not qualify for benefits at either. Not only physically demanding but they are away from family life which is needed to improve future for children.
The Fed is Printing/Spending 85 Billion per month....to Infinity, or until the whole thing collapses....which ever comes first.......
JFK?
Ha ha ha ha ha.....
What was with Rep Boehner staying seated when the gun issue came up and President Obama described the need for far more "sensible" gun control so articulately?
Over at Huff Po they have a front page piece on Supreme Court Justice Scalia saying he does not attend the SOTU because he does not want to "lend credibility" to a "childish spectacle" How arrogant "lend credibility" Really? What do you guest think about this
The most recent caller that gushed over the President's brilliance: I am reminded of an old cliche'. Specifically, "Talk is cheap". He has the ability to expound upon huge, sweeping, visionary platitudes, but has demonstrated limited if any ability to execute on these visions. It is easy to speak of high ideals; it requires engaged, detailed action to implement. Unfortunately, his lack of experience shows when it comes time to execute.
Out of every $10 spent in education, only $1 come from the federal coffers. The other $9 come basically from property taxes. You might find many cases of abuse, of school boards buying gadgets from Apple just because Apple takes them to a paid vacation in a resort, etc. You could see up to the Finish or Korean model to overhaul our educational system but you need close supervision too to make sure public funds are not wasted. Only after you have made a thorough overhaul based on a successful model you can know how much extra money you need and where, if any.
It is a very weak argument to say that raising the minimum wage will keep the economy from growing. An employer who can not afford his workers that basic pay is not strong enough to grow his business. Workers who are paid a Living wage do not take the government dole of food stamps. At this level people are usually not saving much more than to buy their first cars. They grow the economy at this level, not their employer by hiring another starvation wage worker.
President Obama had all ready disappointed his base many times during his first administration no pre war accountability, No bank prosecutions, ramped up kill program, rolled over to Israel...we had no alternative to vote for. We had to go for the lesser of two evils. What else is new?
I criticize Obama for things like having a third of the original stimulus made of useless tax cuts or ending up with a health care bill taken from the infamous Heritage Foundation but we must first demand responsibility from the Republicans who have blocked Obama in ways without precedents. The president is weak but I cannot blame him for not performing acts of magic.
I am a registered Libertarian who will vote for Tea Party candidates and I believe that bedrock conservative principles as enunciated by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are always under attack by Big Government.
I also love the Diane Rehm show, go figure.
That being said, I have become, over time, very concerned by what I believe is Diane's over-reliance on the American Enterprise Institute when she needs a conservative viewpoint.
It is my opinion that the American Enterprise Institute does not represent enough American conservatives to be repetitively given such pride of placement at the studio table.
It is further my opinion that the AEI, when it comes right down to it, is Big Money/Big Government as long as the big spending is military/intelligence, which is corporatist, or at least neo-Liberal, at heart.
Simply stated, I view the AEI as just another Washington lobby among so many others looking to punch its meal ticket but it bothers me that this particular lobby has such easy and uncritical access to the American airwaves by way of this show.
Like George W. Bush said, "You have to keep repeating things to catapult the propaganda", so good for the AEI, but the lack of balance vis a vis conservative views on this show has bothered me for some time.
Thank you for the access to your site to post my opinion, the there is a reason why the First Amendment is the first amendment.
Can your pamel take a moment and raise the question what is moral, ethical, Christian, or humane about a situation where small business owners expect to make a living on the backs of people they are underpaying with a minimum wage that keeps people in poverty?
What exactly is the connection between dos equis and marco rubio? i am no fan of rubio, but your guest displayed poor judgment, cultural insensitivity and ethnocentrism when stating that rubio might as well have been doing a commercial for a mexican beer. I daresay that such a disrespectful comment would not have been made about a non-Latino. By the way, Rubio is Cuban and dos equis is mexican. All brown communities are not the same, as Rubio displays amply through his calls to criminalize undocumented migrants, most of whom everyone assumes to be Mexican. Your guests need a critical education in learned associations and implicit bias. Learn your own so that you don't perpetuate them on national radio.
Deficit reduction achieved on reductions in growth of future spending does not tie the hands of future Congresses, this is a charade and a lie. These reporters that count this a real deficit reduction are either stupid or they think we are stupid.
Diane and Rehm Team could you do a show on the way funding for education is based on taxes in most states across the country. For instance the State Supreme Court of Ohio has determined that the way that funds are distributed to students in Ohio is constitutionally in violation. Please do a program on the way wealthy students across the country have more money spent on them at public schools because funding is based on state taxes.
Diane's closing words brought this to mind.
car·i·ca·ture A picture, description, or imitation of a person or thing in which certain characteristics are exaggerated to create a comic or grotesquely exaggerated representation of (someone or something).
kathleen wrote: 'Please do a program on the way wealthy students across the country have more money spent on them at public schools because funding is based on state taxes."
Do you read other posts?
The inner city schools that GAO examined generally spent more per pupil than suburban schools in Boston, Chicago, and St. Louis, while in Fort Worth and New York the suburban schools in GAO's study almost always spent more per pupil than the inner city schools.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-234
February 13, 2013 - 10:22 am
Ruth Marcus commented on Marco Rubio's college debt. I believe Rubio is not telling the truth. He would have been an in-state student at the University of Florida in the early 90's. No way it cost $100,000. I suspect he is throwing in the cost of law school. Not exactly honest.
@winfreyr, I read your blog.
Only problem is ...
"even the most liberal of us should be ready to see less of and leaner government programs "
... "leaner government programs" is an oxymoron.