The State of the Union Address

January 24

2012
L. Stark Public Policy Gannon University 01/27/2012

A basic summary of the SOU focusing on the administration s major proposals and initiatives, and how they are effected by the reality of a Republican House. This paper will define what is the President s overall sense of the SOU, and will delineate the points that were missing from the presentation.

President Obamas 2012 State of the Union Address was given on January 24, 2012, and was an overall call to fair play for the nation at large. I viewed the MSNBC broadcast of the address. Since we are in a presidential election year, it was also a campaign speech that put special focus on cities in campaign battleground states and launched Obamas re-election bid. Although it did not directly mention his opponents by name, he did target campaign issues that pertain to his opponents such as levying a millionaires tax (the Buffett Rule) and discussing the automotive industry bailout. The overall tone of the speech was cautiously optimistic, and it clearly delineated the Obama administrations successes. He kicked off the speech on a strong note by announcing that for the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country. This was clearly an item that both Democrats and Republicans could agree on and got rousing applause from the entire audience. This set the stage for creating a message of working together towards the common good by focusing on mission and teamwork to create an America Built to Last. The administrations major proposals and initiatives laid out broad policy themes that include: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) Taxes, Trade, Job Creation, Education, Immigration, Energy, Housing and Mortgages, Government Reform, and Foreign Policy.

The State of the Union Address, which was aired on all major networks, was followed by Illinois Governor Mitch Daniels Republican rebuttal. According to the Tea Party Express website, Herman Cain offered a Tea Party rebuttal which was held at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. (www.teapartyexpress.org/herman-cain-delivers-tea-party-response-to-sotutonight), but it was not carried on the three major cable news networks, Fox News, MSNBC, or CNN, according to the Atlantic Wire (http://news.yahoo.com/herman-cain-ignored-cabletonight-172920927.html). There was also an official Spanish language Republican rebuttal given by Texas Representative Quico Canseco, according to the Burnt Orange Report (http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=11783 ). The GOP website hosted a live State of the Union Address watch website (http://www.gop.gov/sotu) which did fact checking as the event was being broadcast, and it contained links to John Boehners official blog (http://www.speaker.gov/Blog) as well as Twitter feeds from Republican congressmen. They clearly laid out what they wanted Obama to cover in his address to the nation and the specific details that they did not agree with in Obamas address.

1|P ag e

The Democratic National Committee covered the State of the Union Address through the White House website (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/01/25/state-union-deep-dive) with an enhanced broadcast of the presidents speech that ran concurrently with the address and was supposed to have provided additional charts, graphs and data on a side by side display. Unfortunately the server crashed while the State of the Union Address was being broadcast, and only the video feed was available. There could not be more difference between Democratic and Republican views regarding the 2012 State of the Union Address. Partisan politics have created an insurmountable divide within our nation. GOP presidential contenders Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich weighed in with their opinions according to the Morris Daily Herald, a local Illinois newspaper favorable to Daniels which stated that both Romney and Daniels accused the president of using the speech to divide the nation. (http://www.morrisdailyherald.com/2012/01/25/gop-response-to-state-of-unionspeech-attacks-obamas-efforts-to-divide-america/abdyucb/?page=3) They went on further to say that Gingrich wonders what country President Obama is talking to and accused him of being a Saul Alinsky radical who taught radicalism in Chicago. According to Wikipedia, Saul Alinsky is the founder of modern community organizing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky) John Podhoretz of the New York Post wrote that all he (Obama) inspires now is outrage, a reference to Barack Obamas 2008 campaign message focused on inspiring hope and a fundamental reason for his popular success (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/now_gop_ought_to_be_licking_its_3PKYcK4qOfiYxh JYBfMM9L). In a pre-buttal on Fox News on Sunday, January 22, House Speaker Boehner described Obamas speech as pathetic and said Obama is about spending, higher taxes and more regulation, all of which are a wet blanket on our economy, according to S.A. Miller in the New York Post, who went on to describe America as having a do-nothing Congress (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/politics/boehner_blasts_bam_state_of_the_bn8pmkbCuaFqOJlp qzfgjM). Boehner set the national Republican tone two days before the speech was given, and created a hostile environment for the speech. The Democratic views of the address were expectedly favorable overall, and the majority of favorable articles quoted large amounts of text from the speech. E.J. Dionne, Jr. wrote in the Washington Posts (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-state-of-the-union-addressobama-steps-up-to-defend-government/2012/01/25/gIQAnRAgQQ_story.html) opinions section that the focus of Obamas message was on community-minded teamwork and saw him as taking an aggressive stance. Perhaps that stance was too aggressive in this bipartisan nation, because it was almost as if Republicans were watching a different address from what the Democrats saw. President Obama had a cautiously optimistic sense of the State of the Union that was exemplified throughout his speech, and specifically when he said, the state of our union is getting stronger. He cited success after success: killing bin Laden, our armed forces exceeding expectations, 3 million private sector jobs created in 22 months, General Motors as the number one automaker worldwide, Master Locks plant in Milwaukee, Apple Computer, Enertex wind turbine
2|P ag e

manufacturer, and ending the Iraq war. As an American, I agree that we have had successes during the Obama presidency and I want to stand behind my Commander-In-Chief. As a Democrat I elected President Obama proudly as our first black president, and as a highly educated man with vision and a sense of community leadership. I believed in hope. I believed in the vision and the messaging. I traveled the country on my own dime, and took carloads of people with me to work to get Obama elected in the 2008 primaries in Indiana, Kentucky and West Virginia. As a woman who lost my job a year and a half ago I have a different experience, one that led me to stop my job search like many other Americans who have lost their jobs in this economy, just because I gave up. I tried for so long, on a daily, full time basis, to look for work and found only low wage jobs that would not pay the bills. I am like many other Americans who are unemployed or underemployed. I want to believe in the dream of hope, but right now I have a hard time doing so, because I just dont see it happening in my life. The 2012 State of the Union Address is personal for me, because its about my job, my life, my savings and my future. What I have lost is great, for me it was a job, a standard of living and a way of life. In the past 2 years I have seen companies close down, friends across the nation lose jobs, and other friends lose their homes, so I have a very difficult time seeing the State of our Union getting better because I havent seen those changes that President Obama speaks about happen in my life or in the lives of the people that I know. The real question is whether or not the policies that President Obama is advocating will create an appreciable change in the state of our nation. I am cautiously optimistic because I want the U.S. economy to improve, and I believe that there is the potential for positive change and economic growth; I just dont know that it will happen in the near or foreseeable future. President Obama delineated many proposals and initiatives in his State of the Union Address. In terms of tax reforms, Obama wants to 1) remove tax deductions for outsourcing jobs, 2) create a basic, minimum tax for multinational companies, 3) lower taxes for companies that keep jobs in the U.S., and 4) create a Buffett Rule so that millionaires should not pay less than 30% taxes. Speaker Boehner posted on his blog (http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?postid=276196) that taxes hurt small business job creators, and he called the Buffett Rule a political gimmick and said it creates envy and division (http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?postid=276198). Under Boehners leadership, the only changes to the tax code that will happen are overall cuts. The GOP has vowed not to raise taxes, not even for the rich, so these are absolutely not doable, feasible or even rational given the current partisan climate in Washington. In terms of trade, President Obama announced the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit to investigate unfair trade practices. This is realistic because Obama can accomplish this through issuing an Executive Order, however it is unlikely that congress will create any regulations to put teeth into it to protect American manufacturing since the Tea Party, which is a strong segment of the Republican Party that demands less government control and fewer regulations. To create jobs, Obama wants to give community colleges the resources they need to become community career centers and train 2 million Americans. It is unlikely that this will happen since
3|P ag e

it would require a budget allocation by both the House and Senate, and the Republicans are bound and determined to not raise taxes and to cut the budget deficit. He wants to turn our unemployment system into a reemployment system. Functionally the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 created a one-stop shop system of CareerLinks across the country. The only difference that President Obamas solution would require is to integrate the Unemployment Call Centers into the CareerLink system. The curious part is that under WIAs predecessor, the Job Training Partnership Act of 1982, the unemployment system and the employment systems were linked. In order to do this it would require expenditures of money in every state in the nation. As this would functionally require budget expenditures, it is unlikely that it would be supported by the GOP. To create jobs in small businesses, President Obama proposed tearing down regulations for business start-ups and expanding tax relief for small businesses. The GOP is highly suspicious of this proposition because the Democrats running Washington have repeatedly proposed tax hikes on small business job creators (http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?postid=276196). Although this would seem like an easily accepted proposal because it would promote economic growth, there is a lack of trust on the GOP side and according to Speaker Boehners blog it does not appear to be viable. Expanding tax relief to small businesses on the surface seems like a good idea, but since the GOP has vowed to balance the budget and reduce the deficit, the real question of the tax cut is where will the money come from in the budget to cover this new tax cut? There were many education proposals suggested, but the real question is which, if any, of them will be viable given this congress. First, Obama wants to give more financial resources to schools. Since this will cost money, it is improbable that the GOP majority in the House will vote it through. Obama is also telling states that he wants them to mandate that students stay in school until they graduate or turn 18. He does not have a mandate to do this. It would require each state in the union to separately vote this through and allocate money from already stretched to the breaking budgets. When teachers have been laid off in every state in the nation, the last thing schools want to do is swell their ranks, which would also swell their expenses. On a federal level, President Obama wants to 1) stop interest on student loans from doubling in July 2012, 2) extend the tuition tax credit, and 3) double college work study jobs. Since these proposals involve increasing program funding it is unlikely that any would be feasible under the current GOP majority, even though the outcomes would be positive if funded. In regards to energy policy, Obama proposes to: 1) expand offshore oil and gas exploration by 75%, 2) add regulations for gas drillers on public lands to disclose chemicals used, 3) create clean energy tax credit to create jobs, and 4) provide financial incentives to retrofit buildings for energy savings. Historically, the GOP has been tied to big oil and gas, so it is highly probable that they would support expanding offshore exploration, especially because it would not involve any budget expenditures. Republican Representative Rehberg twittered that with unemployment where it is, we need lower taxes, less burdensome regulation and a streamlined legal process. Thats economic stimulus (http://www.gop.gov/souta). It is improbable that the GOP led
4|P ag e

congress would ever support increased regulations when they have been pushing for less government and fewer regulations. It is also improbable that they would add any new entitlement programs or special interest programs, whether business oriented or not because their first priority is balancing the budget and reducing the deficit. President Obama said in his speech that he would do as much as possible to promote his agenda, and the best example of this is government infrastructure. He stated that he would sign an Executive Order clearing away the red tape that slows down too many construction projects. Since construction projects take money he suggested that congress and the senate take the money saved that we are no longer pending on the Iraq war, and take half of it to pay off the budget deficit (a priority with the GOP) and put the other half towards projects like construction that will grow the economy. In theory this appears to be a solution that the GOP would support, but Obama also spoke of corruption in Washington with insider trading and implied that our legislature is corrupt, which will not garner him any favor with the opposition. Based on that accusation, negotiations may become increasingly difficult with the opposition. The housing crisis has been a major concern for many Americans who have lost their homes, or seen their home values decline. President Obama proposed to: 1) create low interest consumer mortgage refinancing, 2) establish a Financial Crimes Unit, 3) ask congress to put teeth into financial anti-fraud laws, and 4) have the Attorney Generals office investigate the causes that led to the housing crisis. It is entirely within the Executive Offices powers to establish a Financial Crimes Unit and launch an investigation through the Attorney Generals office, so both are realistic and feasible. As long as congress gets enough pressure from constituents they can go along with anti-fraud laws, although this will be a tougher, albeit almost impossible sell for Tea Party members who base their decisions upon wanting less government involvement and regulation. Since the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people, candidates can accept campaign contributions from financial groups as well as other types of corporations. Currently there is no way to track where campaign contributions are coming from since the advent of Super PACs. Potentially corporate campaign contributions could have an impact on whether or not financial anti-fraud laws can be reformed. If corporate lobbyists are able to make campaign contributions to legislators on Capitol Hill, then reform will not be possible. Consumers will have a major interest in low interest mortgage refinancing, but whether or not it is passed will be determined on whether or not there is a budge cost affiliated with it. President Obama proposed government reform in three ways: 1) ban congressional insider trading, 2) make sure people who bundle campaign contributions cant lobby congress and 3) grant Obama authority to consolidate the federal bureaucracy. In the previous paragraph I spoke of the danger of the danger of Super PACs and the idea that corporations are people. The impact of lobbying in relation to Super PACs is newly created since the Supreme Court rule on it in 2010 (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html). The question is how pervasive the first two practices are. Since the legislature would be regulating itself, it is dubious that either of these changes would pass through the GOP led House. In terms of granting Obama
5|P ag e

authority to consolidate bureaucracy, Glen Beck, a conservative talk radio host, raised concerns on his website that Obama was requesting to change the Constitution, the fundamental basis of Tea Party doctrine (http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/01/25/sotu-obama-wantsgovernment-power-consolidated-under-executive-branch/). Since the Tea Party is a vocal and persuasive element of the GOP, it is unlikely that they would support giving President Obama any additional authority. In order to win the next election, the GOP needs to take credit for either their action or inaction in a positive light. If they give additional power to Obama to make decisions then it implies that they would be giving away some of their own power, which is unlikely. As a result, it is unrealistic that any of the proposed government reforms will take place until the balance of power changes. The final category of proposed policy changes involves foreign policy. Obama stated that, America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. He implied that this would be at any cost, which further implies that we could be looking at another war. According to the War Powers Resolution of 1973, an act of war is supposed to be enacted through congress, although there have been times in our history when that decision has been made by executive decision in case of a national emergency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution). Our current congress has fully funded our military, but our citizens have made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq, Afghanistan and in the war on terror. The question lies in whether the US can afford another war, or whether it will bankrupt our nation. Given the current state of the budget, it is unlikely that the GOP would act in any manner that would further increase the budget deficit. President Obama proposed a new defense strategy to save half a trillion dollars in spending. Since this would support the military and reduce the budget, it is likely that the GOP would support this idea from a pragmatic view; however, because of the extreme level of bipartisanship it is unlikely that they would want to cooperate with a Democratic idea where Obama would receive credit. Proposed legislation to prevent cyber-threats would certainly tie into the war on terror and the patriotism that surrounds protecting our nation. From a patriotic point of view it would probably have the support of the Tea Party, and from a practical point of view it would secure national defense in a way that is not being currently done since this is an innovative idea. As this is a national security item that impacts business operations and trade, it would appear to be necessary and feasible for both Democrats and Republicans to support. Overall, there is little chance of support for President Obamas proposals and initiatives, given the current bipartisan atmosphere in American politics today. In reality, the House of Representatives is responsible for introducing new legislation, and with a strong Republican majority lead by House Speaker John Boehner it is unlikely that few if any of Obamas proposals will ever move forward in congress. The only truly probable policies that will come out of the Obama administration will emanate from Executive Order. The overall hostility of the GOP rebuttals and pre-buttals set the tone for the coming months and weeks ahead in congress. It is
6|P ag e

not in the political self-interest of the Republican Party to assist a Democratic president in an election year when they are running their own set of candidates to fill the position. The points that were missing from the 2012 State of the Union Address include: 1) the Arab Spring, 2) the Keystone XL pipeline, 3) health care reform, and 4) how to reduce the budget deficit. He did touch on our crumbling infrastructure by mentioning the need for construction projects and do some nation-building, but he didnt discuss it in any appreciable detail. This is of particular interest in terms of job creation, but also because President Obama put such a huge emphasis on shovel-ready projects in his stimulus plan. The Arab Spring, the series of revolutions that began to occur in the December 2010, and are continuing to this day was not mentioned in the foreign policy segment of the State of the Union Address. These peaceful, grass roots civil resistance demonstrations and protests have changed governments and removed dictators to change the political map. President Obama did mention specific nations in the Middle East (Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran) that were not involved in the Arab Spring. The importance of the Arab Spring is that it is spreading, almost virally, through social media and it is ongoing in Jordan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Morocco and Syria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring). The Arab Spring has been one of the biggest international movements in our decade and has created increasing unrest in the Middle East and made it an increasingly volatile area in terms of the impact on international relations. The Keystone XL pipeline is a project that, according to Republican Congressman Dan Benisheks Facebook page (http://facebook.com/CongressmanDan), is a shovel ready project that would create an estimated 20,000 jobs. It is a $13 billion dollar oil pipeline that would move crude oil from our northern borders in Canada along Nebraska to refineries in multiple parts of the U.S., extending as far as the Gulf of Mexico according to the TransCanada Corporation website (http://www.transcanada.com/keystone.html ). The project could potentially have major environmental impacts through construction, usage and potential disasters. Given the known environmental impact of Hurricane Katrina and the Gulf oil spills, it is important that the right decisions are made and regulations are in place to reduce the environment impact. The economic impact of the project includes job creation through pipeline construction, operation and spin-off jobs, in addition to the impact that it could potentially have on our GNP due to the boon to the oil industry. According to the Washington Post, (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/obama-administration-to-rejectkeystone-pipeline/2012/01/18/gIQAPuPF8P_story.html) President Obama rejected the Keystone XL pipeline project on January 18, 2012. Health care reform, or Obamacare as the GOP commonly refers to it, was not covered in the State of the Union Address. It was a major bone of contention on the GOP website and on Speaker Boehners blog. The GOP position states that Obamacare is driving up premiums and jeopardizing health care coverage for millions of Americans, and they are calling for its repeal. Only a few of the provisions of health care reform have already been implemented, mostly those
7|P ag e

that effect children. Currently regulations stipulate that a child cannot be denied healthcare coverage due to pre-existing conditions, and that young adults and college students can now be covered under their parents policies. In 2010 the GOP blocked early implementation of health care reform, so many of the changes in health care reform will not take effect until 2014. Since this was already voted on by congress and approved by the senate in 2010, it is not surprising that it was not covered in any detail in President Obamas address. The president proposes policy, and it is the job of the legislature to enact those policy suggestions into law. The GOP has used heath care reform as a wedge issue to divide the country, so it is logical that they would want to see one of their favorite issues brought to the forefront. The president did speak of making reforms to Medicare and Medicaid, which both play a large role in the impending budget crisis, but only glossed over the topic and did not provide any specifics. The eight hundred pound gorilla in the room was the budget deficit. President Obama touched on points like paying down our debt and rein(ing) in long-term costs and spoke of a shared sense of responsibility in terms of reducing the deficit, but did not delineate a strategy that would accomplish that goal. He spoke of irresponsible behavior in the mortgage industry which saddled us with more debt and he asked the Attorney General to investigate and prosecute those that were responsible for the housing crisis. Although national accountability is good, this is tantamount to closing the barn door after the horse has left; it does not prevent the damage that has already been done. President Obama covered taxes, trade, job creation, education, immigration, energy, housing and mortgages, government reform, and foreign policy. He proposed to lower taxes for small businesses, eliminate unfair trade practices, create jobs, make education more affordable, create a way to transition illegal immigrants into citizens, open up offshore oil explorations, prosecute the people responsible for the housing crisis, reform government in terms of reducing corruption and increasing efficiency, and prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. In summary, President Obama issued his State of the Union Address to a divided nation, one that is divided on principle as well as by party. As a president running for re-election it is critical for him to put a positive spin on the State of the Union if he has any hopes of being re-elected. The message was cautiously optimistic and called for teamwork in this moment of trial. He proposed that there is a lot of hard work ahead of us in order to transform our nation into one with a stable economy based on education and good paying jobs, where we are in charge of our own energy and are not dependent on other countries that are not stable. I agree that President Obamas message had to be cautiously optimistic, but I do not share the same level of optimism that the president does. I believe that the policy proposals that he laid out would be sound administrative tools at any other juncture in history, but most will lie fallow with a congress that has no desire to till the fields of cooperation. The clear choice for this presidency is to implement as many Executive Orders as possible, at a time when few truly bipartisan actions will be implemented. It is ironic that the Republican Party has been the Party of No,
8|P ag e

and will continue to be while they have the controlling majority. Truly, the only substantive changes that will occur will happen only after the balance of power changes. One can only hope that we will find an expeditious solution for Americas $15 Trillion national debt. This is truly the audacity of hope.

9|P ag e