Click on WORD or PDF for full content
In commenting on Obama’s State of the Union address, David Harsanyi says that high-speed rail and government interference in the economy aren’t winners.
…Obama says that “none of us can predict with certainty what the next big industry will be or where the new jobs will come from.” And by “none of us,” he means you. Because Obama proceeded to give a speech that laid out exactly what needed innovating, which sectors would be innovative, where new jobs would be found and how we were going to get to those jobs. Can you say high-speed rail? The president can. He mentioned railroads six times, because how else are we going to win the 19th century back?
Actually, this fixation with building an extraordinarily expensive, outdated and tax-funded rail system is a great example of why central planning undermines progress.
…Obama, for example, used the word “invest” — a well-known euphemism for more spending and subsidizing — 13 times in the speech. Didn’t he just get through telling us we didn’t know where modernization would emerge? Didn’t he just explain that free enterprise drove innovation? True, but government knows how to guide the markets in the right direction. Just think of it as an ethanol additive for capitalism. …
And Harsanyi has a good response to the “Sputnik moment” rhetoric.
…The Soviets’ intense effort to erect a façade of accomplishment was achieved by investing in an unnecessary, costly, symbolic, ideology-driven project that did nothing for the aspirations of its citizens or its stagnant, dying economy.
Let’s be sure we’re not on the wrong side of the Sputnik moment.
Charles Krauthammer says the State of the Union address shows that the Big Spender hasn’t changed.
…This entire pantomime about debt reduction came after the first half of a speech devoted to, yes, new spending. One almost has to admire Obama’s defiance. His 2009 stimulus and budget-busting health-care reform are precisely what stirred the popular revolt that delivered his November shellacking. And yet he’s back for more.
It’s as if Obama is daring the voters – and the Republicans – to prove they really want smaller government. He’s manning the barricades for Obamacare, and he’s here with yet another spending – excuse me, investment – spree. To face down those overachieving Asians, Obama wants to sink yet more monies into yet more road and bridge repair, more federally subsidized teachers – with a bit of high-speed rail tossed in for style. That will show the Chinese.
…He’s been chastened enough by the election of 2010 to make gestures toward the center. But the State of the Union address revealed a man ideologically unbowed and undeterred. He served up an insignificant spending cut, yet another (if more modest) stimulus, and a promise to fight any Republican attempt to significantly shrink the size of government. …
We have a couple pieces from Jennifer Rubin on the State of the Union address.
…the mystery is solved: There is no new Obama, just a less snarly one. But it was also a flat and boring speech, too long by a third. Can you recall a single line? After the Giffords memorial service, this effort seemed like Obama had phoned it in. Perhaps that is because the name of the game is to pass the buck to Congress to do the hard work of digging out of the fiscal mess we are in.
As we expected the laundry list of spending is called “investment.” But it is spending, pure and simple. And there is a ton of it.
There was undisguised hunger for government to pick winners and losers: “We need to get behind this innovation. And to help pay for it, I’m asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but they’re doing just fine on their own. So instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy, let’s invest in tomorrow’s.” And what special expertise does Obama or the Congress have in sprinkling our money to energy projects? More importantly, how much does GE stand to gain?…
Jennifer Rubin adds a few more thoughts to her commentary on the SOTU.
…First, the terms of the debate on spending have changed entirely, and Obama’s plan to rename “spending” as “investment” therefore failed miserably. The Republicans have rejected it outright. Ryan debunked it effectively. And even liberal pundits on the cable shows last night rolled their eyes. Nearly all of these plans are dead on arrival, and both sides know it.
Another lesson is the importance of the messenger. As Bill Kristol pointed out, Obama was not simply flat but now a pale imitation of Bill Clinton, who tried to perpetuate and grow the federal government by small steps instead of large leaps. He was, frankly, old hat, lacking the magic of 2008. Contrast that will Ryan, who not unlike Obama in 2009, has the ability to present daring and dramatic ideas in so pleasant and congenial a manner as to make them seem nothing more than common sense. As Bill put it, “Yes, Ryan is younger and friendlier and smarter than your typical old guard Republican. But he’s also much more radical in both his thinking and his political strategy.”
And finally, Obama has a peculiar and, I think, ineffective justification for all the spending. The Chinese and the South Koreans are getting ahead because they “invest,” so we must, too! But the Chinese repress freedom and outlaw labor unions, should we go down that road? The Europeans have “invested” well beyond their means, and in the process wrecked their economies. Is that the model? Obama talks increasingly about “exceptionalism,” but he fails to understand a key component of what makes us exceptional: a faith in free markets, dynamic market capitalism, and restraint on the power of government. We need to compete, but not imitate. Obama doesn’t quite grasp that.
And Rubin also comments further on the foreign affairs portion of the SOTU.
…Likewise, the chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, was concerned about what was missing from Obama’s speech. She praised the president on Iraq and Afghanistan in a statement, but voiced a variety of concerns:
…The President also did not mention the threat posed by Iran and Syria’s sponsorship of terrorism and efforts to undermine its neighbors, on the very day that the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah axis took a severe step to undermine Lebanon’s sovereignty.
Support for freedom and people yearning to be free must always be at the center of U.S. foreign policy, and I am glad that the President expressed our nation’s support for the people of Tunisia and South Sudan. Yet, the Administration has pursued a ‘reset’ of relations with Russia, which has dismissed the crisis of Russia’s worsening human rights record. It has made concessions to the regime in Havana while the Cuban people remain enslaved. And just last week, China’s leader was honored with a State dinner even as the regime in Beijing continues to imprison those who dare to demand their basic human rights, including the most recent Nobel Peace Prize winner.
Turning to the President’s reference to strong support for our ally South Korea, he is right that the free trade agreement with South Korea will create jobs, and I look forward to working with him to ensure that it passes Congress as soon as possible. But that is not the only ally that merits a job-creating free trade agreement. The pending agreements with Colombia and Panama will also bring jobs and other economic benefits to the U.S., including to my Congressional district in South Florida. Every day that passes without these agreements in place is another lost opportunity for the U.S. economy. …
In Newsweek’s KausFile Blog, Mickey Kaus runs down his comments on SOTU.
SOTU to Snooze To: Reaction to the first karaoke SOTU (since everyone had the words in advance):
1) Obama seemed to have contracted Reich’s Disease, the annoying affect of lecturing to his audience as if they were schoolchildren in the manner of former Labor Secretary Robert Reich. He dropped this attitude as the speech war on, then recontracted it for the closing paragraphs. Note: It’s even worse for Obama to lecture than for other politicians to do it, since the reason he is unlikable (to people like me) is that he seems stuck up.
2) Civility is boring! Who knew? It was way more invigorating when people cheered and shouted “You Lie!” Next time, rigorously separate the parties and give them cheerleaders with megaphones. Yes, boring SOTUs sometimes play well with the electorate. But what about the people who have to cover them?…
Nile Gardiner, in the Telegraph Blogs, UK, looks at troubling numbers from the CBO, and discusses Congressman Paul Ryan’s response to the President’s address. His brief discussion of how the UK is dealing with their debt is instructive.
In contrast to the president, Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, conveyed a far more credible and serious message in his response to the State of the Union. As Ryan noted:
Our nation is approaching a tipping point. We are at a moment, where if government’s growth is left unchecked and unchallenged, America’s best century will be considered our past century. …
…. We need to reclaim our American system of limited government, low taxes, reasonable regulations, and sound money, which has blessed us with unprecedented prosperity. And it has done more to help the poor than any other economic system ever designed. That’s the real secret to job creation – not borrowing and spending more money in Washington. Limited government and free enterprise have helped make America the greatest nation on earth.
Across Europe, governments are at last beginning to acknowledge the sheer scale of the debt problem, and in some cases taking immediate action to deal with it, especially in Britain. In the UK the Coalition plans to eliminate the structural deficit altogether by 2015, and intends to cut 490,000 public sector jobs, nearly one in ten of the 6 million total for the UK…Most UK government departments will have their annual budgets cut by 19 percent. …
It’s good to have a new House Speaker. Judicial Watch details Pelosi’s wasteful abuse of privilege regarding military flights. We have one question: did two million dollars come out of the defense budget to pay for the Pelosi joy rides?
…According to previous documents uncovered by Judicial Watch, the former Speaker’s military travel cost the United States Air Force $2,100,744.59 over one two-year period — $101,429.14 of which was for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol. …
Judicial Watch also previously uncovered internal Department of Defense (DOD) email correspondence detailing attempts by DOD staff to accommodate Pelosi’s numerous requests for military escorts and military aircraft as well as the speaker’s last minute cancellations and changes. For example, in response to a series of requests for military aircraft, one DOD official wrote, “Any chance of politely querying [Pelosi's team] if they really intend to do all of these or are they just picking every weekend?…[T]here’s no need to block every weekend ‘just in case’…” The email also notes that Pelosi’s office had, “a history of canceling many of their past requests.”
Judicial Watch also uncovered emails from the DOD that show the Pentagon worked hand-in-hand with congressional offices prior to releasing documents regarding congressional military travel under the FOIA. These “heads up” emails involved FOIA requests filed…
“Despite the media firestorm over her military travel abuses, Nancy Pelosi continued to use the United States Air Force as her own personal travel agency right up until her final days as House Speaker,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “…We are pleased that Speaker Boehner will not follow Pelosi’s corrupt example and will instead fly commercial. But this scandal is not only about travel by the Speaker of the House. Through the Speaker’s office, other members of the House are able to obtain permission for the use of military luxury travel for congressional delegation trips abroad. These trips, known as CODELs, have exploded in number and cost. Speaker Boehner needs to reform this abuse of our military’s assets. This is the right thing to do for the U.S. Air Force and for the American taxpayer.”