Obama’s First State of the Union: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
The general pulse I got from both sides of the political spectrum before last night’s speech was anything but what the American people would have expected this time last year. Democrats seemed wary and nervous, but nonetheless held a certain fixed confidence in the President, whereas Republicans eagerly awaited the media-savvy President’s first potential PR flop; that is, they expected a speech filled with hollow excuses and an attempt to brush away reality with some sort of artificial optimism. I went into the speech consciously trying to be as neutral as I could (and I admit, that is a goal I struggle with). Therefore, I’ll run down what I determined to be what struck me as the notable good, bad and ugly moments of last night’s speech. Yes, I realize that I cannot possibly cover every issue he tackled, so I’ll let my personal priorities dictate my agenda:
The Good:
I was initially a bit skeptical of Obama’s goal to double exports over the next five years (not because of my personal bias, but because of how unfeasible it seems). However, I began to follow along with him when he talked about expanding trade with Colombia, Panama and South Korea in the near future, which was essentially a promotion of freer trade in the Americas and elsewhere (If you haven’t figured it out yet, I’m big on free trade, which I will write about at some other time). I also was relieved to hear him promote the construction of new, safe nuclear power plants and (finally) lend his support to exploring possibilities for offshore drilling to at last utilize the resources we know we have. In terms of energy policy, I was generally pleased with what he had to say. His call to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is long overdue and would be a huge step forward for social justice in America. Why deny anybody the opportunity to exercise patriotism in whatever way possible, especially on the basis of sexual orientation? The repeal of all capital gains tax on small businesses would create huge financial breathing room and would move us one step closer to a system of fair and just taxation in this country. I’m also a big fan of the non-defense/Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security spending freeze. Finally, I think it’s about time someone figured out the idea of fiscal responsibility in Washington. I’m just surprised it was Barack Obama.
The Bad:
The part of the speech that I found to be the most egregious violation of rational thought was how he plans to treat student loans from now on. For those who missed it, he intends to pass a law that would not allow anyone to spend more than 10% of their income on student loans and that would forgive all outstanding loans after 20 years (or 10 years, if that student enters into a career of public service). Now I’m not sure that he is aware that this plan will both bankrupt the entity distributing the loan and decrease the credit of students everywhere, but to think that this plan is anything but financially outrageous is simply delusional. His call to use $30 billion of of paid back loans from large banks to help smaller banks give out more loans to small business owners is problematic for a few reasons. That $30 billion is not coming from big banks. Don’t kid yourself into believing that. It’s coming from the big cesspool of tax dollars that every citizen pays into. And for it’s worth, TARP specifically requires all paid back loans to go directly to the national deficit anyway. Unfortunately, this issue just isn’t as simple as he would like to make it sound. He made a half-hearted and overdue final petition to pass healthcare reform, which demonstrated no willingness to compromise on the issue. I would have loved to see him address some of the things that Bob McDonnell proposed in the Republican response, namely allowing insurance providers to operate across state lines and enacting serious tort reform.
The Ugly:
The phrase “with all due respect to separation of powers” does not give the President a blank check to call out the Supreme Court for any sort of ruling. Deliberately slapping the Supreme Court in the face by expressing dissatisfaction with their ruling on campaign finance (which cannot be changed now anyway) is both irresponsible and disrespectful. To do it, literally, in front of their faces only adds insult to injury. He intentionally portrayed those who don’t necessarily agree with global warming science as ignorant and stubborn, which only furthers partisanship and tension between sides of the global warming debate. Both of these were unwarranted and low-blow comments that, frankly, didn’t help him achieve his so-called goals of greater bipartisanship in this country.
That all having been said, there was a surprising amount of the speech with which I was pleased. I think in certain policy areas, President Obama demonstrated a sincere willingness to operate across party lines, whereas he came up short in a few others. I have little to no faith in Congress’ ability to pass more than a handful of the numerous policy proposals he made, and I think he is well aware of that too. Nonetheless, if he is willing to fight for some of the more moderate proposals he made, our prospects for 2010 might just be a bit less bleak than 2009 was.
I feel that the president had the right to call out the supreme court for passing a law that seems to be taking the political power away from the people and putting it into the hands of corporations, the goals and intentions of which in do not reflect what is best for Americans. It also will reduce the impact that an individual American will have upon the democratic process. The bill opens the door for special interests to flood the political area even more than ever. This is not how the founding fathers envisioned the freedom of speech. Secondly, on the topic of global warming, climate change is a reality accepted by essentially all members of the environmental science community. This came up in one of my classes the other day and my professor, a legitimate expert on climate and biomedical ethics, stated frankly that there is no scientific debate about whether or not the globe is getting warmer every year. The area of contention is rather what is causing global warming.
Here are some facts from National Geographic, taken from NASA and the IPCC:
“Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”
“The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century’s last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.” (Although the extend to which the rate of change has been somewhat contested, everyone agrees the earth is getting warmer)
There is scientific consensus that the earth has been getting progressively warmer, while there is a political debate based largely upon misinformation and misunderstanding. The scientific question, of course, still remains as to whether or not humans are causing global warming. The scientific community has not come to a complete consensus, although most believe it is very likely that we do have an impact.
Global warming is a fact, the greenhouse theory is what is still up for debate. Again, there is no real scientific debate about whether or not the earth is getting warmer (global warming).
First of all, the Supreme Court does not pass laws. They, rather, nullified a series of laws on the grounds that they violated the constitutional principle of free speech. I understand fully the consequences of their ruling and while I also don’t necessarily agree with it, at this point it is hardly up for debate. With the exception of Plessy vs. Ferguson, I cannot think of a single Supreme Court ruling that was resoundingly declared to be wrong and therefore overturned. The arrangement of separation of powers, as indicated in the Constitution, does not give the president any formal authority to undermine the Supreme Court. Therefore, my argument is that our president should not try to instill a negative image of the Supreme Court among citizens because the Supreme Court is not supposed to be a politicized institution and while he did not violate the letter of the law with respect to separation of powers, he certainly violated the spirit of it.
Secondly, I actually never said anything contrary to your point about the debate over what actually causes global warming. All I said was that I was personally skeptical of global warming science, and the cause of global warming is a huge part of the scientific explanation. That having been said, even if Republicans were challenging whether or not global warming exists at all, I still believe that it was a low blow to effectively dismiss them as simply stubborn or ignorant. There are easier and more sensitive (and probably more effective) ways of reconciling political differences than insulting your opponent.
arena*