Obama’s First State of the Union

Posted: 28th January 2010 by Scott @ The Right of a Nation in General Politics

I just want to go through the text of the state of the union and make a few comments.

“One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted — immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed.”

The two wars are still ongoing, the economy is worse, and the government is in MUCH deeper debt.  Has the worst of the storm really passed?

“I hear about them in the letters (talking about peoples’ struggles) that I read each night. The toughest to read are those written by children — asking why they have to move from their home…”

A lot of people had to move from their homes because they bought homes that were way out of their price range, on adjustable rate mortgages, on the hopes that the value of the already outrageously priced house would continue to rise.  This is not something that should concern the government, although Obama has spent tons of taxpayer money trying to somehow fix that problem.

“For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don’t understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded, but hard work on Main Street isn’t; or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems. They’re tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness. They know we can’t afford it. Not now.”

Change is never going to come fast enough for people who expect politicians hundreds of miles away from their home to somehow fix their life, because it’s not going to happen.  And I don’t think everyone is “tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness,” because what Obama is referring to is what has kept him from passing his destructive policies so far.  We all know Rahm Emanuel’s opinion, but just because there is a crisis doesn’t mean that the leading party just gets to do whatever they want and the other party should just step aside and watch.

“To recover the rest, I’ve proposed a fee on the biggest banks. Now, 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.”

Obvious class warfare.

“Because of the steps we took, there are about 2 million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. Two hundred thousand work in construction and clean energy, 300,000 are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, first responders. And we’re on track to add another one-and-a-half-million jobs to this total by the end of the year.”

No mention of the unemployment rate going from 7.7% to 10% during his presidency.

(after talking about projected surplus after Clinton and then saying “Bush did it first!” in reference to budget deficits) “And our efforts to prevent a second depression have added another $1 trillion to our national debt. That, too, is a fact.  I’m absolutely convinced that was the right thing to do. But families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same. So tonight, I’m proposing specific steps to pay for the trillion dollars that it took to rescue the economy last year.”

Here he basically says something similar to a billionaire buying a 200-foot yacht and then saying “ya know, I need to save money, I’m going to start buying the cheap brand of toilet paper!”

“Now, I know that some in my own party will argue that we can’t address the deficit or freeze government spending when so many are still hurting. And I agree — which is why this freeze won’t take effect until next year — when the economy is stronger. That’s how budgeting works.”

This is only four paragraphs after saying “like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don’t.” Cash-strapped families don’t say “you know, we really need to slow down our spending but right now we’re really broke so we need to keep spending, next year when we get those big raises we’ll stop spending so much.”  The reason they don’t say that is because it doesn’t make any damn sense.  So no, that’s not how budgeting works.

“With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. 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 I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.”

Here he complains about the recent Supreme Court decision, and he says the people should decide elections.  Which means that the only people who should be able to afford TV and other ad campaigns are the candidates themselves, since he doesn’t think groups of people should be able to be involved in the political process.

It goes on some more after that with him talking about how politics in D.C. need to change, etc. which is a lot like listening to an alcoholic or drug addict’s plea of “I will change, I can change, I promise, this is the last time, I’m gonna change I promise.”

Which sure, a few can change, but usually the one in particular telling you that at that particular time is not one of those few.

CommentLuv badge