The core message of Obama’s speech: Stay the course. The big decisions of his first term have been made. Now he has to hope like hell he decided right.
Right now, things don’t look too good for him. So – he’s fiddling with his message. He’s sprinkled it with a lot of zingers to excite his base – and a few rhetorical concessions to appease his critics. Along the way, he deviated more than once from strict truth.
ZINGER:
To recover the rest [of the TARP money], 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.
Only it’s not a fee – it’s a tax, assessed on the basis of the banks’ loan portfolios. The more the banks lend, the higher the tax, exactly the opposite of rational policy. And of course the new tax will fall on institutions that never received a dime of TARP money, while sparing institutions (like the auto companies) who still owe the most.
ZINGER:
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 one 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.
A few graphs up, President Obama was congratulating himself on the superior transparency and accountability of his version of TARP as compared to George W. Bush’s version. But how is it accountable to convert an emergency rescue program into a permanent slush fund for politically favored lending institutions? And if employment tax credits create jobs, why are they going only to some businesses, but not all? Why play favorites?
CONCESSION:
Look, I am not interested in punishing banks, I’m interested in protecting our economy. A strong, healthy financial market makes it possible for businesses to access credit and create new jobs. It channels the savings of families into investments that raise incomes.
Attention Republicans! President Obama appreciates markets – and understands that it’s private sector investment, not big government, that drives growth. Honestly. Truly.
CONCESSION:
But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. 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. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. And yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.
Previous Obama statements on energy have almost always omitted mention of nuclear power. If this is not a first, it’s close to it. And did the president just tip-toe up to a mellifluous Obama reformulation of “drill, baby, drill”?
CONCESSION:
And that’s why we will continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets, and why we will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South Korea, Panama, and Colombia.
Colombia! For years, Democrats in Congress have stalled the Colombia payback, partly for protectionist reasons, but also as sorehead payback against the other side in the Central American policy wars of the 1980s. But Chris Dodd, the senator who employed the most obdurate of the soreheads, is retiring before the outraged voters of Connecticut can dismiss him – and democratic Colombia has suddenly been elevated to an acceptable trade partner.
ZINGER:
To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer-subsidies that go to banks for student loans.
The private market for student loans is the National Endowment for the Arts of American progressivedom: a red flag, an ideological marker out of all proportion to its real importance. Still – Team Blue will applaud.
ZINGER:
And by now it should be fairly obvious that I didn’t take on health care because it was good politics.
Actually, Democrats do believe HCR is good politics – which is why they were so baffled and blindsided when it proved bad.
CONCESSION:
Obama delivered a right-wing sounding defense of HCR, emphasizing protection of middle class incomes and deficit reduction more than universal coverage. He even acknowledged the conservative complaint of the unseemliness of the internal Democratic party logrolling.
And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, this process left most Americans wondering what’s in it for them.
One correction here. I dont think the logrolling left most Americans wondering what was in the reform FOR MOST AMERICANS. It left them wondering what was in the reform FOR THE LOGROLLERS.
CONCESSION:
Barack Obama, born-again deficit hawk and middle-class tax cutter.
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. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don’t. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will.
We will continue to go through the budget line by line to eliminate programs that we can’t afford and don’t work. We’ve already identified $20 billion in savings for next year. To help working families, we will extend our middle-class tax cuts.
He’ll also renew the child tax credits enacted by, ahem, his unnamed predecessor and the Congresses led by an unnamed political party.
ZINGER:
Mr. Civility speaks:
From some on the right, I expect we’ll hear a different argument – that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts for wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, and maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is, that’s what we did for eight years. That’s what helped lead us into this crisis. It’s what helped lead to these deficits. And we cannot do it again.
Later, the president will deplore pundits who turn reasoned political positions into grotesque and distorted cartoons.
ZINGER:
It’s time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my Administration or Congress. And it’s time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office. 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.
Justice Alito was videotaped mouthing “Not true” at this paragraph. He should have listened more carefully to the slippery orator. Obama was using a special verb form that might be called “the Clinton conditional,” in which you declare your opposition to something that has not in fact happened or that your opponents have not in fact done. Thus, “I don’t think the Democratic Congress should ban Christian Sunday Schools” or “I don’t want President Obama to create a Soviet style gulag here in the United States.” What’s untrue about that?
ZINGER:
It’s getting late by now, and the uncommitted have switched to see where Jay Leno has migrated these days. As the party shrinks, it’s time to serve the strongest hooch.
This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. We are going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws – so that women get equal pay for an equal day’s work. And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system – to secure our borders, enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nations.
Although actually the immigration hooch was not really very strong, was it?
41 responses so far
1 pinkelephant // Jan 28, 2010 at 2:17 am
Alito’s “not true” probably was in response to the assertion that Citizens United opened the door for foreign corporations to spend without limit in our elections. That is prohibited by a separate section in the Federal Elections Campaign Act left completely intact by the ruling. Foreign nationals, defined to include foreign corporations, may not make any expenditures in connection to a Federal election by 2 USC 441e, which was not at issue. Further, Kennedy’s opinion explicitly stated that “We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process.” The majority noted that even if that is a compelling interest, it would not be enough to save a law banning the political speech of all corporations, both foreign and domestic.
2 balconesfault // Jan 28, 2010 at 3:31 am
The more the banks lend, the higher the tax, exactly the opposite of rational policy.
Well, the more the largest banks lend, the higher the tax. Part of the intent of the policy is to shift more of the liability in the banking system to institutions which wouldn’t be deemed “too big to fail” during some future economic crisis, via the fee/tax shifting the playing field to favor more lending by these smaller institutions, and thus reducing the likelihood that the Federal Government will in the future be put in the position of bailing out bad assets or risking a major domino starting a dangerous chain reaction.
But how is it accountable to convert an emergency rescue program into a permanent slush fund for politically favored lending institutions?
Not politically favored lending institutions – but lending institutions which are favored by a specific policy. “Politically favored” implies that there is some political connection between Obama and small businesses- by all accounts, it has appeared the opposite is true, and Obama has had much closer connections with large financial institutions. However, his policy seems to be that we need to strengthen the small business community. From the point of view of a community organizer, which was Obama’s background of course, small businesses are more likely to be much more in touch with local community concerns, to hold onto employees during downturns (after all, their employees are part of their communities, rather than some line on a ledger sheet), and to retain capital in the community rather than channeling it to remote or even foreign investors.
President Obama appreciates markets – and understands that it’s private sector investment, not big government, that drives growth.
He has said this numerous times throughout his Presidency, and that probably explains why he hasn’t pushed for creation of a national bank to act as lender of last resort, rather than pumping money into existing institutions … or why the stimulus spending is designed to incentivize private investing, rather than to simply provide out and out full government funding (and ownership) of infrastructure like wind farms and electric transmission lines. It’s government as catalyst, since the business community will invest where there are profits to be made, and government participation can change the ledger sheet to incentivize private investment.
3 balconesfault // Jan 28, 2010 at 3:35 am
Alito’s “not true” probably was in response to the assertion that Citizens United opened the door for foreign corporations to spend without limit in our elections. That is prohibited by a separate section in the Federal Elections Campaign Act left completely intact by the ruling.
Obama was being inaccurate there. Had he said “foreign controlled corporations”, instead of foreign corporations, he would have been correct – since the ruling clearly opens the door for corporations which are chartered in the US but controlled by foreign interests to spend without limit. It is up to the reader to decide whether this represents a threat to our political system.
4 msmilack // Jan 28, 2010 at 5:56 am
Wow, I thought Barack Obama hit is out of the park. I have rarely felt as proud to be American or as grateful to live in the time of Obama. I find him so interesting and intelligent and original. I could not have been more moved. I hope that both sides of the aisle take his admonitions to heart. He was demonstrating and asking for maturity from his colleagues; and based on the responses I read shortly after from many in the Congress, some clearly heard him. In his speech he showed leadership and vision which he paired with solutions. Most of all, he repeated what he has said from day one: that he cannot do this alone. It’s true.
msmilack
5 sdspringy // Jan 28, 2010 at 6:37 am
Obama’s fears of foreign money must be a new feeling for him. He seemed completely at ease while accepting millions of anonymous contributions from any source foreign or domestic while a candidate.
Small banks do not issue loans they cannot resell. Those buyers are large banks, my mortgage was through a local bank which turned around and sold it to Chase. Any small lender will either stop lending when the resale market is nonexistent or add those fees to their loans, nice backdoor tax on middle class.
There was no provision in the TARP bill which allowed for recovered funds to be redistributed to other needy institutions. The main reason for the fraud is that Obama does not have to approach Congress for new legislation and Money too support his cockeyed agenda when he can reused the recovered funds. And with the added benefit of saying how bad the previous administration was and then continue to reuse these same monies without having to stick his own neck out. Priceless.
Compared to the last four administrations Obama has the fewest private sector members in his administration. The past administration had 40-50% of appointees from the private sector, Obama is less than 10%. Obama has no concept of private business, his administration has no one which has experience in the private sector. In fact in Obama’s book he describes working for a business and thought of this experience as being behind enemy line. Great
6 joedee1969 // Jan 28, 2010 at 7:12 am
He does have much time the first of the Boomers turn 65 next year and it is all down here from there:
http://americaspeaksink.com/2010/01/we-need-jobs-stop-wasting-time-washington/
7 anniemargret // Jan 28, 2010 at 8:16 am
President Obama gave me no regret that I voted for him after listening to his SOTU speech last night. I agree with mismalack- he nailed it. He sounded like a leader and while accepting some blame for the progress and lack of progress, he also reminded everyone that he can not do it alone. The Republicans by far have become parodies of themselves – so eager to bring down his presidency from Day One that they cannot even pretend to be the public servants they were voted in to be. As Obama said *nothing* is going go get done unless there are some grownups in the room. Obama was the grown-up in the room last night-
I think like millions of other Americans I am fed up to the nines with this hyperbipartisanship. These senators and reps are public servants. They are voted to work for the common good and while there will never be any cross the board consensus on issues due to the divergent ideologies of the parties, both parties must work together, willing to give up some of their precious desires, in order to gain traction. If not, this continued stalemate will occur and the only ones that lose and lose big are the American people.
Both the Dems and the Republicans need to cave in at times and get some things done. Or it won’t be long until the Republicans have the Hot Seat and then are frustrated if the Dems do to them what they are doing now to Obama (‘it will be his waterloo’). Americans are sick and tired of gridlock – on both sides of the aisles.
8 pinkelephant // Jan 28, 2010 at 8:30 am
“Foreign national” includes also those entities with its principal place of business outside the U.S., which is a wider universe than simply corporations not chartered in U.S.
9 oldgal // Jan 28, 2010 at 9:11 am
We have serious problems in this country, and he is the only president we have. We can either work to be part of the solution or we can continue to be part of the problem. As we continue to blog and comment on blogs each day we should ask ourselves whether we are contributing to solutions or merely aggravating the problems. It is time for us to start worrying more about how we can than why we can’t.
10 GOProud // Jan 28, 2010 at 10:10 am
David says: “…he deviated more than once from strict truth.” Strict truth? That’s a little too high a standard for Obama. How about just being intellectually honest & forthright for once? The man is Public Enemy #1 when it comes to truth telling and intellectual honesty. Is it the politician or lawyer in him that makes him so truth-adverse?
This was a speech by Obama-Messiah the Campaigner & Promiser Ad Nauseum, not Obama the Leader. Incredibly, he made even more campaign-styled promises proving he still doesn’t get “it”. America doesn’t want more promises and more hype about Hope and Change… they want leadership on the issues that matter most to them. It isn’t ObamaCare. It isn’t providing trial lawyers for terrorists. It isn’t more of the Obama Apology Tour to muslim world, either.
It isn’t playing the ol’ Washington game of partisan division and rancor –something Obama rev’ved up to the red line while still just a president-elect placeholder… and continued to ramp up as President from the Inaugural to the SOTU. This was the guy who told the last joint session that he would “call out (for some butt whooping in the front yard) anyone who opposed or misrepresented health care reform”. Yeah, that’s not partisanship rev’ved up to the red line? Threaten your political opponents. Come on, that’s pure Chicago Thug.
And then he has the audacity and gall to complain that it’s “Washington” that’s the problem? He still doesn’t get it… Obama is the “Washington” problem… he was the guy who told the GOP House members, “We won; we get to decide” when last dealing with budget issues on what Obama thinks passed for “bipartisanship”. This guy helped foster the rancor and division –it’s why polling now indicates he is the most divisive president in modern times.
He tried to claim the fame as a budget hawk and deficit basher, when he’s been singularly responsible for racking up more debt and higher projected deficits than even Bush43 or Reagan were able to accomplish in a combined 16 yrs of real leadership.
And his claim that he helped save 2 million jobs? Well, many in the Chamber laughed at that one… with contempt and scorn. In fact, I counted 7 times last night that legislators openly mocked Obama by laughing at the ridiculous Obama claims… and with good reason. Obama wouldn’t know the truth if it stood in front of him and bitch-slapped him for a day or two.
Ask for bipartisanship and then claim, falsely, that the GOP Senate is the Party of No? Right, great campaign rhetoric for MoveOn.Org and CodePink and ACORN but it won’t get the heavy lifting done needed to advance the stone-weight agenda that liberals and Obama want in 2010. Obama was an unrepentant campaign goon more interested in the fight than advancing the ball and his SOTU speech proved it.
David, you say “(Obama) deviated more than once from strict truth”? I say he wouldn’t know the truth if it bitch-slapped for a day or two. He is a politician and lawyer… truth has never been of value to either professions… for many of them, truth is something that’s completely open to negotiation and purchase.
Obama-Messiah the Campaigner didn’t help himself last night –in fact, his jokes fell flat, his delivery was overly professorial, he proved it was all about “the Obama ego” as he droned on for more than the typical self-absorbed Clinton-SOTU hour, Obama was mocked and laughed at while giving the speech and he deserves an “F” for the epic failure.
I hope the GOP and the Country hand him his political head on a plater in November. And neither he or Rahm Emanuel will be able to blame anyone for that loss except Obama & Emanuel… as Coakley proved, there’s no “do-over” for this crowd of truth-evaders.
But that doesn’t mean they won’t try to escape from the truth.
Many of the trolls here have commented about the notion that the GOP needs to apologize for the mistakes and excesses of the ’00s… well, Obama should have begun his speech last night with a simple sincere admission: “I want to apologize to the American people for letting them down and not doing what they sent me to Washington to accomplish –fix the economy, make govt more transparent, end the political rancor and bring America back together. I failed. I won’t let the next 3 years go to waste as I have this past year.”
But that would require Obama’s Olympian God-like Ego to take a backseat. That’s about as likely as Obama finding Truth and embracing it… and telecasting it on C-SPAN.
11 sinz54 // Jan 28, 2010 at 11:30 am
oldgal:
I agree.
But what that means in practice is that Obama has to be willing to work with folks across the political spectrum, instead of letting Pelosi and Reid (who are two rabid partisans) run the show by excluding Republicans and conservatives from it.
There’s no point in our trying to be “part of the solution” if we’ve already been shut out of the process that is defining the solution.
12 balconesfault // Jan 28, 2010 at 11:41 am
sdspringy: Small banks do not issue loans they cannot resell. Those buyers are large banks, my mortgage was through a local bank which turned around and sold it to Chase. Any small lender will either stop lending when the resale market is nonexistent or add those fees to their loans
This practice has become commonplace … and it is also a practice which probably was a contributing factor in the mortgage crisis.
A local lender has incentive to act to stabilize housing values in the local marketplace, and foreclosures are the fastest way to create the downdrafts that rapidly devalue a market. In the past, when local lenders held a higher proportion of the mortgages, they were incentivized in a falling market to aggressively work with homeowners to renegotiate mortgage terms and keep people in homes.
In the world of sliced and diced mortgages washing around the system as financial instruments, there was often no single mortage holder who could renegotiate, and thus the foreclosure run took place at a time when some of those problems could have been avoided with a more hands-on system.
This fee/tax could shift the economics so that local lenders are likely to go back to becoming local mortgage holders. I do not see why that development would be bad for the economy.
13 balconesfault // Jan 28, 2010 at 11:42 am
But what that means in practice is that Obama has to be willing to work with folks across the political spectrum, instead of letting Pelosi and Reid (who are two rabid partisans) run the show by excluding Republicans and conservatives from it.
Pelosi is as rabid as anyone in the Republican leadership – no less, no more.
Callin Reid a rabid partisan sort of makes you look silly.
14 Chekote // Jan 28, 2010 at 11:44 am
Boring, uninspiring speech.
15 Chekote // Jan 28, 2010 at 11:46 am
The problem is that government programs always sound good but in reality they are a nightmare. I have a friend who lost her job and has been trying to take advantage of the mortgage modification program. It has been a total bureaucratic nightmare for her. Somebody lost her application and the other day she received a notice of foreclosure.
16 GOProud // Jan 28, 2010 at 12:21 pm
sinz54 notes: “There’s no point in OUR trying to be “part of the solution” if we’ve already been shut out of the process that is defining the solution.”
I’m sorry, I thought you were a registered Independent? Did WE get that wrong?
17 balconesfault // Jan 28, 2010 at 12:23 pm
I have a friend who lost her job and has been trying to take advantage of the mortgage modification program. It has been a total bureaucratic nightmare for her.
As I understood it, handling of applications for the mortgage modification program was being administered by loan servicer – and not by the government. In that sense, it’s not a pure “government program”, as much as a government subsidization of existing loans for payment reduction.
Who did she send her paperwork to?
18 GOProud // Jan 28, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Chekote “Boring, uninspiring speech”.
Maybe that’s why less people watched it than watched some of Bush’s SOTUs or Clinton’s or Reagan’s. Maybe they knew what was in-store… a boringly partisan, double-dealing, word-smithed, Chicago Thug taunting speech by the King of Political Duplicity.
Yep, that would be boring and uninspiring. I guess that’s why so many legislators openly laughed at many of Obama’s claims in the speech and a SCOTUS judge echo’ed Rep Joe Wilson line –You Lie. Probably not the first or last time someone listening to Obama’s speech will say that, eh?
19 balconesfault // Jan 28, 2010 at 12:25 pm
I’m sorry, I thought you were a registered Independent? Did WE get that wrong?
A legit error – Sinz is an independent who would be much happier if the GOP controlled Congress and the Presidency.
20 Haiti, State of Nature, and Birth Control | Conservative Heritage Times // Jan 28, 2010 at 12:26 pm
[...] all the current “solutions” to the problem in Haiti, result in either (1) long-term occupation of the country, (2) allowing a Camp of [...]
21 sinz54 // Jan 28, 2010 at 12:35 pm
balconesfault:
I said that OBAMA has to be willing to work with the GOP leadership.
I don’t expect Pelosi to do that unless Obama, as the leader of her party, tells her to.
Instead, Obama let Pelosi and Reid do whatever they want–even though as Democrats, they should be responsive to what he wants as the leader of their party.
If Obama truly wants GOP participation in the health care process, he should meet with McConnell and Boehner, hear them out, and then tell Pelosi and Reid that certain of the GOP proposals are worth including in health care reform.
Even left-wingers are sharply criticizing Obama’s strategy of telling Pelosi and Reid “You cobble together a health care bill on your own, and let me know when you’ve finished so I can sign it.”
http://tinyurl.com/ykqeroe
What Obama is doing is making his usual flowery speeches about “working together” and “unity”–while allowing partisans in Congress to do whatever they want without direction from him.
That’s going to backfire this year.
We’re in an election year now.
If the American people get the message that Obama wants unity but Congress doesn’t, they’re going to turn on Congress.
And since more Dems than Repubs are up for re-election in Congress, more Dems than Repubs are going to feel the voters’ anger.
22 sdspringy // Jan 28, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Obama’s after glow from his speeches has worn thin and tattered. No one finds Obama inspirational except for the Far Left, which is a shrinking 30% at most.
The MSM, MSNBC crowd will try to rub the lantern feriously, hoping the Obama genie can still be coaxed out but no one believes the oratory anymore.
Obama is in his own little snow globe world, where HCR is still his priority but not the nations. Where another stimulus bill disguiesed as a jobs program will continue the mythical “saved or created job”. Where Obama’s lobbiest driven administration continues to cut back room deals with Big Pharma, Wall Street, anyone to continue Obama’s precieved drive to Mount Rushmore.
Obama is delusional, and the disjointed speech was more appropriately given by Chavez in the UN hall.
23 sinz54 // Jan 28, 2010 at 12:40 pm
UPDATE: I have just learned that there will be a meeting of House Republicans this weekend. President Obama has accepted an invitation from the group to address them and take questions from them.
Such a meeting happened once before, but nothing came of it–most likely because Obama didn’t feel the need to, with his Senate supermajority. Now that Scott Brown has changed history and destroyed the Dems’ supermajority, and with the Dems facing likely losses in the upcoming November election, Obama may be more inclined to listen to what the Republicans have to say.
Here’s what I have to say: There can be no climate change bill that does not include nuclear power as part of the mix.
24 balconesfault // Jan 28, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Here’s what I have to say: There can be no climate change bill that does not include nuclear power as part of the mix.
The interesting part will be how much a financial committment the Federal Government will be willing to make to nuclear – and how much conservatives will scream because that committment increases the deficit.
As a marker, CPS in San Antonio is now looking to get out of their committment for the South Texas Nuclear Project expansion after it looked like the price tag might double from $13 billion to $26 billion before design is even complete. More and more utilities are going to be leery of the huge costs and long term market risks (in the ten years it would take to build a nuke, we’ll probably be up to around 5% wind, and costs of solar are plummeting). To achieve any serious level of nuclear growth (what did Cheney want – 50 new nuke plants) will you be willing to commit about half a trillion dollars from the Federal Treasury to suppliment private funding?
25 eriback // Jan 28, 2010 at 2:03 pm
HCR only became bad politics after the death panel lies and ongoing sausage making. It’s been clear from the start that the public supports the principals Obama has laid out from the beginning of his term.
26 balconesfault // Jan 28, 2010 at 2:40 pm
eriback: It’s been clear from the start that the public supports the principals Obama has laid out from the beginning of his term.
Not completely – there is still significant opposition to the mandate.
The problem is public seems largely ignorant of the fact that if they want to force insurance companies to accept pre-existing conditions (which the public favors by a wide margin), they have to mandate that the public buy into insurance before they get sick (unpopular). My personal opinion is that without a public option the mandate could be found unconstitutional.
But Republicans have been demagoging the issue in a way that doesn’t lead at all to helping their supporters understand this linkage between pre-existing conditions and a mandate. Some Democrats have tried to make this clear, but the time to really do that would have been during their town hall meetings last August, and instead they had to busy themselves with trying to talk over tea bag rallies.
One would think that this is a role that the media should perform – but they’ve largely abdicated any role in informing the public what the contents of the Health Care bill is, and instead they’ve focussed almost exclusively on controversy and polling numbers.
27 pinkelephant // Jan 28, 2010 at 3:43 pm
I forgot to mention something regarding foreign-controlled corporations: the 2 USC 441e prohibition states that Foreign Nationals shall not “directly or indirectly” make independent expenditures or contribute to electioneering. Were a foreign company or government to create a wholly owned or foreign controlled U.S. subsidiary, both chartered and with a principal place of business in the U.S., and use the subsidiary to make independent expenditures or pay for electioneering communications, it would certainly run afoul of the prohibition against indirect contributions or expenditures.
28 teabag // Jan 28, 2010 at 4:08 pm
pinkelephant // Jan 28, 2010 at 3:43 pm
But what of USA born and bred corporations bought by foreign governments or entities? As I understand it they are not barred from Political advertising or contributions should that be thrown out as well.
29 msmilack // Jan 28, 2010 at 4:36 pm
I just read a wonderful piece about the State of the Union address written by Christopher Buckley others might enjoy; check it out at:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-01-28/one-hell-of-a-speech/?cid=bs:archive10
Marcia Smilack
30 teabag // Jan 28, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Poll: 83% of Speech Watchers Approve of Obama’s State of the Union Proposals.
Of the randomly selected 522 speech viewers questioned by CBS, 83 percent said they approved of the proposals the President made. Just 17 percent disapproved
31 jreb // Jan 28, 2010 at 6:22 pm
An Associated Press article fact checked some of President Obama’s claims with the following results:
(1)”Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending..” Anticipated savings would amount to less than 1 percent of the deficit and only if the president can persuade Congress to go along. Also Obama criticized his Republican opponent in the campaign for suggesting a freeze on spending.
(2)”..called for a bipartisan fiscal commission..”. Any commission created by Obama would be a weak substitute for what is really needed, a commission created by Congress that could force lawmakers to consider unpopular remedies such as curbing politically sensitive entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare.
(3)On his healthcare initiative “Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan.” Obama can’t guarantee people won’t see higher rates or fewer benefits in existing plans. Due to new taxes on insurance companies, insurers could change what is offered or the cost of existing plans. Also seniors already on Medicare who have private Medicare Advantage plans would see cuts to their benefits according to the CBO.
(4)Obama criticized lobbyists saying that they have “outsized influence” over the government and pledging his administration would have “excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs”. Obama has limited hiring of lobbyists for some administration jobs, however he has made seven waivers to that ban for White House officials alone.
(5)”Because of the steps we took, there are about 2 million Americans working right now…” In December , the administration reported jobs created or saved due to the stimulus at about 650,000. A number which was based on a self reporting system by recipients and some of the calculations were shown to be in error. In November, the CBO reported that between 600,00 to 1.6 million people were added and that it is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus.
(6)Obama called for action by the White House and Congress “to do our work openly, and give our people the government they deserve”. Obama skipped past assertions that negotiations on heath care would be broadcast on C-Span. Democrats in the White House and Congress have conducted private negotiations, making multibillion-dollar deals with hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, union leaders, and other Democrat congressional members behind closed doors. Nor has he consistently lived up to his pledge to insure that legislation is posted online for five days before its acted upon.
(7)”The United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades.” In early December the U.S. and Russia failed to complete negotiations in time to avoid expiration of the 1991 SALT agreement and while officials think a deal is within reach, there has been no breakthrough.
(8)Obama claimed “And in the last year, hundreds of Al-Qaeda fighters and affiliates, many senoir leaders have been captured or killed – far more than in 2008.” It’s an impossible claim to verify since neither the Bush or Obama administration has published enemy body counts, particularly those targeted by armed drones in the Pak-Afghan border region.
In short the President has been proven to be a master orator and campaigner, however the American people are tired of rhetoric and need to be shown results instead of continuing rhetoric and campaign promises.
32 pinkelephant // Jan 28, 2010 at 6:29 pm
Teabag: It doesn’t matter when the U.S. company became controlled by foreign nationals, those foreign nationals may not use the U.S. Company for electioneering purposes. Specifically FEC regulations state that:
“A foreign national [including foreign businesses and governments] shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process of any person [including corporations, unions, PACs, and other legal "persons"] with regard to such person’s Federal and non-Federal election activities, such as decisions about making contributions, donations, or expenditures . . . or decisions concerning the administration of a political committee.” 11 CFR 110.20(i)
That means if U.S. Corp, Inc is a subsidiary Foreign Org, GmbH (regardless of whether bought or created by the foreign parent), U.S. Corp, Inc. may engage in political speech only if no Foreign Org, GmbH officers, directors, employees, or shareholders have any influence over when or how the activity occurs, and that includes indirect influence of even the most informal variety, such as the use of funds from foreign sources.
Regardless, even before Citizens United, U.S. Corp, Inc., owned by Foreign Org, GmbH, could establish a PAC to engage in political activity, subject to the same limitations on foreign national involvement that now apply to U.S. Corp, Inc. as a corporation, but with even more permissible activities–such as direct contributions to candidates.
The door, let alone floodgate, is no wider for foreign influence in our elections.
33 teabag // Jan 28, 2010 at 6:50 pm
So Pink.
If a foreign corporation has an American company then shareholders and officers of that foreign company are unable to direct that the US company place funds or advertise in US elections?
My question then is. who would know if an officer of a foreign entity did just that. No one! Who is policing all these foreign companies and governments that have basically bought the USA over the last decade?
34 balconesfault // Jan 28, 2010 at 7:06 pm
jreb – it does seem like an awful lot of those comments in the “factcheck” actually have nothing to do with what Obama said is substantively true or not … but just offer opinions as to the effectiveness of his measures.
35 sdspringy // Jan 28, 2010 at 8:24 pm
Balcon, even the Dems running for the hills seem to know about the effectiveness of Obama’s measures.
Obama’s first year is even worse than Carter’s. Not one single promise, measure, declaration has come true. Moving Gitmo is not closing Gitmo. Complaining about TARP then to continue to backdoor the use of recovered funds is fraudulant. To belittle ideas of spending freezes during the campaign, then present a 1% freeze as substantial is pandering. And do we need to review the complete HCR debate after Brown in MS.
36 pinkelephant // Jan 28, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Teabag,
Though it is ancillary to my point, I will answer you. The mere fact that U.S. Corp, Inc. has considerable ties to Foreign Org, GmbH is going to invite careful scrutiny from domestic competitors, watchdog groups, opponents of the political position likely to be advocated, and even the FEC, that at the first whiff of impropriety, injunctions and complaints will fly like a swarm of bats. That violations carry criminal in addition to civil penalties are likely to give pause to anyone contemplating even minor violation. Any hint of a connection whatsoever between the foreign officers and the political arm of U.S. Corp, Inc. are going be so suspect, taint the message so clearly, and create such potential liability, that the risk of doing so will guard against almost all potential violations, as it has in the PAC context.
If, however, that is not good enough for you, then I suggest rather than railing against the Supreme Court (that did not suddenly create this situation) or defending the President’s gross misrepresentation of the law, you advocate a change in the law and regulations preventing subsidiaries or controlled entities of foreign organizations from engaging in the political process and from even establishing PACs. Without both prohibitions, neither is any more enforceable.
Nonetheless, my point remains the same: Foreign Nationals have no easier time participating in electoral politics. Any U.S. subsidiary that intends to participate in election activities will have to so structurally resemble a PAC, but with stricter limits on activities, that an actual PAC, long legal, will continue to present the more attractive alternative.
37 balconesfault // Jan 28, 2010 at 8:40 pm
sdspringy –
There are conservative Dems. They do not follow in line behind Obama. That’s the nature of a big tent.
Not one single promise, measure, declaration has come true.
And I thought that people here would note that he not only met the Afghan troop committments he promised during the campaign, but actually increased them with his new wave of deployments.
Moving Gitmo is not closing Gitmo.
Actually, if they move detainees out of the legal limbo that is Guantanamo to someplace where either US or other nations laws are in place, then it certainly is a significant change.
Complaining about TARP then to continue to backdoor the use of recovered funds is fraudulant.
Where’s the fraud?
To belittle ideas of spending freezes during the campaign, then present a 1% freeze as substantial is pandering.
I’ll agree there. It is pandering.
And do we need to review the complete HCR debate after Brown in MS.
You do, eh? Well, unfortunately for you, the law of the land does not say that. It says that if the House accepts the Senate bill without modifications, it can proceed directly to reconciliation. After reconciliation it can proceed to the House and Senate for simple majority votes with no filibuster opportunity (although the Republicans will no doubt make the process excruciatingly long with a lot of proposed amendments that wouldn’t result in them voting for the resulting legislation even if accepted.
Nice try, though.
38 sdspringy // Jan 28, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Balcon the TARP was supposed to be a financial bailout not a revolving fund. When a financial institution has paid those funds back it does means those same funds were available for relending to auto manufactures, or to build a bridge in CA. Those recovered funds along with the interest paid were to be used to lower the debt. To use those monies to cover other failing jobs initiatives is fraudulent. To give a speech how inept the previous administration was and use the TARP program as an example of distasteful legislation and to then backdoor those funds back out on the street is dishonest. To backdoor those funds so you won’t have to go to Congress and budget money in the light of day is cowardly.
Afghan, I will give you that.
HCR as currently written is terrible. The Dems are running away from it. Nelson will not even vote for his own pile of corn written into the legislation. If passed the Dems will lose over 50 seats in the House. Don’t think the courage of Dems run that deep.
Gitmo detainees are not in legal limbo. There exists a Supreme Court approve military tribunal legal process to handle them. They can and should remain under military control. They were captured as a result of military action not arrested for parking tickets. They do not deserve the legal rights granted to American citizens. Only you and Holder may think otherwise.
39 GOProud // Jan 29, 2010 at 7:49 am
David headlines it with “Repackaging the Obama Agenda”.
As a smart rancher once told me, you can repackage cow pies, but at the end of the day they still stink, everyone knows where they came from and no one can be bothered with cleaning them up.
That fits for the Obama, far Left, liberal Democrat agenda of ‘08-09.
The bad news: Obama still doesn’t get it and he’s very willing to lie and spin to cover up that deficiency.
40 GOProud // Jan 29, 2010 at 7:53 am
TeaBagged offers: “Poll: 83% of Speech Watchers Approve of Obama’s State of the Union Proposals.”
WSJ: MoveOn organized over 480 SOTU Watch Parties, the newly installed WH political hack and former campaign chief organized an additional 1,100 Watch Parties.
I wonder if there’s an attempt to stack the polling pool? Yeah, the Team that stole the election with ACORN fraud would never do that… nawh. Perish the thought.
Meanwhile, Nielsen makes it official: Obama’s SOTU was an epic failure in outdrawing most of W’s and most of Clinton’s SOTUs.
Ouch. 83%, eh? Well, they are still a lot of idiots who can’t face the fact they made the wrong choice in Nov 08 by picking Obama. No surprise.
41 sinz54 // Jan 29, 2010 at 12:02 pm
sdspringy:
I disagree.
The three basic elements of the HCR package are reasonable–and probably necessary.
1. Guaranteed issue: Just about everybody except the hard-core free-market purists at RedState.com and the Cato Institute accept the need to ban the denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions.
2. Mandated coverage: But then Americans can game the system by eschewing coverage until they get sick, at which point all insurers must accept their applications for membership anyway. That would send premiums way up. So the pool must expand, and a mandate that everyone must be covered with at least a basic package of catastrophic insurance is the only fair way to do that.
3. Subsidies: But if poor Americans are mandated to obtain coverage too, they will need subsidies to be able to afford the premiums.
Any reasonable health care reform package must incorporate those three elements–guaranteed issue, expanded pool, subsidies. I don’t see any other basis for an HCR package that preserves the current private insurance market and the social programs, like Medicare, that we already have.
The problems started when Congress wouldn’t leave well enough alone, and insisted on adding other things: Public option, much more generous mandated coverage, abortion coverage; and of course, those special sweeteners like the one for Nelson in Nebraska that alienated so many Americans.
Obama could have exercised real leadership by demanding such a simple HCR reform. That would have been enough of a major achievement for him. Instead he tossed the ball to Congress, with their 535 competing interests.
You must log in to post a comment.