Watching speeches make me nervous, so I don’t watch them. Never have. Not campaign speeches, not award acceptance speeches, not State of the Union speeches by President Obama. I prefer to read speeches the next day when the drama and excitement has worn off and the content of the words is all that matters. So that is what I did with last nights speech. And it made me realize another reason I don’t like watching speeches… inaccuracies, or more precisely misstatements. Here’s one from last night:
And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it is time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas, and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs right here in the United States of America.
I am curious what tax breaks we give to companies that ship jobs overseas? Or is Obama simply referring to the savings that these companies have because they do work overseas, and wants to convert those savings into tax breaks for keeping workers here? Either way it is a wrong statement, one that implicitly vilifies companies trying to lower their bottom line in a rational and financially sound way, and at the same time makes it seem like higher taxes (the sounding call of the democratic party) were someone else’s idea.
Or what about this nugget:
Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan. It would reduce costs and premiums for millions of families and businesses. And according to the Congressional Budget Office -– the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress –- our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades.
Now is he referring to the initial report the CBO put out on November 30th saying::
According to a report released by the Congressional Budget Office this morning, the average price of insurance premiums bought on the individual market—that is, premiums not purchased through employers—would go up by 10 to 13 percent in 2016 if Congress passed health care reform legislation now in the Senate.
Or is he referring to the plans that have been changed and squeezed and redefined as the public and opposition in congress have forced initial bills to be thwarted? But it sounds better to say that the plan you are pushing for is the one that is near the end of it’s life because no one wants it and so finally bears some resemblance to lowering costs, rather than the one you really wanted with the public option that would have begun the last step in creating a single payer socialized system.
I could go on, but to be honest the speech was really long and I don’t have the time or interest to find every disagreement. And I also want to remain true to my desire to not immediately bomb everything Obama does, because I hated how democrats did that to Bush. But this was my first reaction to what I read. But maybe this State of the Union and its hopeful refrain will be borne out, but I’m afraid there may be much too much rhetoric and not enough true substance.
MARK ADDS:
Josh
Elijah
Greg
Michael
Mark
Dude Man
I should really start reading the speeches the day after. Watching them makes me dizzy from the stand up/sit down-clapfest.
There are many things I would love to say about Obama’s speech, but the one statement I questioned most was his proposal of a 2011 Government spending freeze. Considering the fact that he jumped all over the same idea when it was presented by McCain, saying, ”
“The problem with a spending freeze is you’re using a hatchet where you need a scalpel.”
My favorite was when Obama used the state of the union address as an opportunity to taunt Obamacare’s opponents, saying if you have a better fix, I’d like to hear it. Mark Steyn had a great observation of this, calling it the worst version of monarchical theater, in which Obama gets to play the part of king, but without the ability of the leader of the opposition to stand up and say “nuts to you.” Exceptionally petty.
I think we need a Meat Axe, not a hatchet.
A spending freeze is better than another increase, but it’s pretty lame. Freezing our government’s discretionary budget (which is only 17% of the total budget), on programs that went up 22% last year, is a joke.
I think a reduction of about a 50% cut in gorvernment spending is appropriate and necessary. Eliminate Medicare, Prescription drug benefit, social security, EPA, NEA, HUD, and anything else not explicitly authorized in the Constitution.
Alas, it is not to be. Is there any country on earth where people are still free to enjoy the fruits of their labors?
I don’t know what the combined tax rates are in Mexico, but at least you can still ride in the bed of a pickup truck down there.
Have a great weekend all.
First off, let me say that I also like the idea of reading the transcript the next day. I watched this one and found it more tolerable than I expected, probably because of all the setbacks Obama has faced lately, but it’s still an uncomfortable exercise.
Tim, I agree, but to add to your point: I was really bothered by Obama saying ‘If you have a better idea, let’s hear it’ because Paul Ryan and a couple other Republicans have written an alternate health care reform bill- does Obama not know this? Has he even looked at it? Or is he cynical enough to assume that no one is aware of it and go for the cheap political points?
And number 17, you’re right: First Obama pushes a health care bill that taxes health plans, an idea he ridiculed McCain for, now he proposes a spending freeze, an idea that McCain championed numerous times throughout the debate.
Here are some other thoughts (sorry to be so long- maybe this should have been a whole new post?)
I was thrilled to hear Obama getting behind nuclear power and off-shore drilling. I really hope he follows through, but even if he doesn’t I’m hopeful that his acknowledgment of it signals a clear path for future republican leadership.
I was really happy and impressed that he at least paid lip service to global warming skepticism (perhaps he has no choice given “climategate?”), even if I completely disagree with his conclusion that change is favorable regardless.
I thought it was sort of bizarre how he spoke of Washington as if it was completely separate from him and he has no role in it. I agreed with many of his criticisms but I felt that many of them impugn him more than he’s willing to admit. I especially thought it was disingenuous of him to chastise partisan bickering when he has partaken in his fair share of it and completely locked the republicans out of negotiations. He also seemed contradictory in the sense that he told us how messed up Washington is but still wants us to believe that Washington can cure what ails us (there’s a good piece by Peggy Noonan today about this).
I’m mildly encouraged by the spending freeze proposition, but in the same breath he wants a “jobs bill,” which, as far as I can tell, is code for more stimulus. I also have a very hard time believing his numbers on the “success” of his stimulus. If all of these people are working that wouldn’t be otherwise, why is unemployment still 2% higher than it was before the stimulus? And why do we now need a “jobs bill?” I would have been really impressed if he admitted some fault with the first stimulus, but he seemed to stick by it. Also, I thought it was weak that he did not present any information about what this jobs bill would actually do, just that he wanted one written. Why should we have any faith in this bill given the record of the stimulus?
I basically thought he sounded like he was admitting defeat on health care- it was interesting that he waited so long to bring it up.
I don’t like that Obama seemed to talk about the TARP money as if it’s a surplus or some bonus money to think of new things to do with. Why can’t we just pay it back to the treasury and start paying off some of our deficit?
I didn’t dig him blaming Bush for all of the red ink. He did not mention that democrats controlled congress starting in 2006 and have been drafting budgets for three years now, nor did he mention that he’s added more to the national deficit in his one year than Bush did in his 8. He gave a rational for all of his spending, but it fell flat to me and he didn’t address the inability of the stimulus to meet stated goals.
I loved the Republican response- I thought it was incredible. But, I’m a little unclear on its purpose- is it meant to directly respond to Obama’s speech? Did republicans have a copy of Obama’s speech beforehand? If so, how long did they have it? I basically assumed they had to prepare that speech without knowing what Obama was going to say. If they did have the speech, I really wish they would have taken more time to agree with Obama everywhere possible, especially the energy stuff.