web analytics

JerseySmarts.com

Ugh – Why Does Obama Keep Going Back to the Same Well?

Posted on by

Last night, President Barack Obama delivered his first State of the Union Address to Congress, the Supreme Court, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, honored guests, and the American public. I thought that the address was decently delivered in terms of speech, but it contained too much of Obama’s now-trademark arrogance and hyper-partisanship that is ruining his efforts at real reform and losing Democratic political seats around the nation.

What really bothered me was how Obama used his position like it was a bully pulpit. There were some reports early on in Obama’s Presidency that he didn’t treat the actual Oval Office with the respect that all of the previous Presidents had (i.e. not wearing a jacket while working in there, not following certain protocol). While I don’t particularly care whether he wears a jacket in the Oval Office, I do think that these actions, his hyper-partisan political activities since taking office, and the words that he used in his speech last night show a true lack of understanding about the American system of government.

For example, how dare he use the State of the Union to scold the Supreme Court? Who does this guy think he is? And don’t answer, “Duh! He’s the President!” because that’s not a good enough answer. Our Founding Fathers intended for the Congress to be the powerhouse of our national government, not the President. It was a few national crises and the ever-decreasing attention span of the American public that made the President more than a figurehead.

I’m beginning to grow weary of the arrogance that this man is showing as President. He thinks he can scold the Supreme Court? Does he think that because he lashed out at them like a stupid schoolboy that they are suddenly going to reverse their decision or change their political stripes? Did Obama ever take Civics 101 and learn about the separation of powers in this country? I was really offended by that portion of his speech and I was glad that Justice Samuel Alito shook his head in disagreement and mouthed the words “Not true” when Obama scolded the Court. That was a disgusting display of arrogance by Obama – something that this country doesn’t need. This is what Obama said:

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.

No one is going to deny that we don’t want foreign influences in our elections, but – again – we see Obama framing issues within his own world view and not those of the American electorate.

Another example of this arrogance is when he scolded Republicans and told them that they were elected to lead. Here is his speech:

And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town — a supermajority — then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. (Applause.) Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions.

I’m pretty confident that the Democratic leadership insisted on a 60 vote Senate dating back over two decades, but I guess what happened yesterday (unless Obama thinks he can use the event to bash Bush) doesn’t matter to the President. What bothers me about this piece from the speech is that it is a sound bite – not an actual piece of thoughtful prose on what is going on in Washington, DC. The truth is that Republicans (and moderate Democrats) have tried to provide examples of ways that legislation could be written and passed using a middle-of-the-road approach. Unfortunately, the Democrats and the President don’t want anything to do with building a bridge to acceptable legislation for both sides of the aisle. They want the Republicans to vote in their favor because they are in power. This part of his address proves that fact (which is a shame).

Prior to the speech I was looking forward to hearing what Obama had to say about student loans. This is what he said:

To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer subsidies that go to banks for student loans. (Applause.) Instead, let’s take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants. (Applause.) And let’s tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years –- and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college.

Hmmm… Other than being a good opportunity to get some cheap applause breaks, I’m not sure what “new” policy implications were brought up here. First, the idea that student loans will be forgiven after 10 years if a graduate chooses a career in public service is already a regulation. In other words, it already exists. Second, the federal Direct Loans system already has an income-based repayment plan that adjusts student loan payments to one’s wages. So…I’m not sure what the new policy implications are here, but I am looking forward to hearing what Obama has to say about fleshing out these programs.

In any event, waiting ten years is too long of a time for excess debt to be repaid. Since I can’t imagine being saddled with the $94 thousand balance of my original $121 thousand student loan debt for another 4 years, I’ll just stick to my plan to repay another $39 thousand in the next year and a half!

Overall, a “more of the same” message from Obama. I, like the rest of the now disaffected Obama voters, expected so much more…

Unnecessary Complications: Post-State of the Union Spin

Posted on by

As I was thinking about President Barack Obama’s State of the Union Address that we will all be listening to tonight, I couldn’t help but become a little bit frustrated by what we will all hear after the State of the Union – the spin doctors. It really aggravates me that in 2010 we will have to be subjected to two completely different “fact-based” opinions on what the President said during his Address. What also bothers me is that every single Democrat or left-leaning media person will praise Obama like he’s the Second Coming (like they did during the election cycle) and every single Republican or right-leaning media person will decry his Address saying that he completely missed the point.

Frankly, in 2010 in America – that’s disgusting.

I’ll be watching the speech on FOX News and probably listening to their post-Address wrap up and thoughts. The reason why I choose FOX News is because they will at least bring on both Democrats and Republicans to give their points of view. While their standard slate of commentators (note – commentators) tend to lean to the right on most issues, at least I know that by watching FOX News I’ll be able to hear both sides of the story and that I’ll have a greater chance of getting a news person acting as a fair and impartial arbiter of the discussion. You can’t find that on MSNBC or CNN (though CNN has come a long way).

As for the speech itself, let me turn to the Asbury Park Press which published an article today that said the following:

It has been widely reported that Obama will announce programs aimed at the middle class on issues such as student loans. However, those measures will have limited appeal if unemployment remains high.

“He can do all he wants on college loans. But for those in dire straits, he has to go farther,” Greenberg said.

FYI – David Greenberg is an associate professor of history at Rutgers University. I’m interested to hear what Obama has to say about student loans. Those of you who frequent this blog know that I write about my student loans – a lot (see yesterday’s post). While I have created a plan of my own to repay this debt, by doing so I am effectively taking myself out of the for-sale housing market for the next two years.

Now, a few years ago I would say that I was an extreme example of how student loan debt could possibly hurt and stifle the middle class economy. Today, however, I think there are a lot more people in my situation (albeit at lower dollar amounts) than people may think. Sure, one guy in New Jersey who is handcuffed by six figure student loans is an extreme example of how one person can’t contribute to the economy’s recover…but when you multiply that times let’s say one person in each state, you now have 50 people that aren’t contributing. Then when you consider that there might be 10 people in each state in this situation (a likely figure), now you’re at 500 people that have good paying jobs, but cannot contribute to the economic rebound. Up that to maybe 1,000 people per state (again, not unreasonable when you consider the total population) and now you have 50,000 people not participating.

Simple math: 50,000 people x $250,000 (cost of each person buying one home) = $12,500,000,000 in new home sales

That’s a lot of zeroes, huh? And those are just numbers that I’m pulling out of the air. I’m confident that there are more than 50,000 college graduates who are stifled by their student loan debt and I’m sure that people would be buying more/other things besides new homes – like new cars, clothing, electronics, etc.

Also from the Asbury Park Press:

Recent Republican victories have been attributed in part to economic issues, with unemployment in double digits.

“The challenge is to frame a policy to create jobs, while cutting the deficit,” said Joseph Patten, an associate professor of political science at Monmouth University.

“Traditionally, you stimulate the economy by spending more. It’s difficult to do that when you have a spending freeze,” Patten said.

I had to include Dr. Patten in this entry because he used to be one of my Professors at Monmouth and the guy knows what he’s talking about. I wouldn’t want the task set before President Obama – find a way to generate new jobs while cutting the deficit and still finding a way to appease your ultra-liberal base by spending more money on more programs. Good grief!

Let’s see what Obama has to say tonight.

Newt Gingrich – Saviour of the Right?

Posted on by

As I’ve been doing more and more lately, I was reading through the New York Times online the other day. On their site they have a link to their New York Times Magazine, which generally has much longer articles on specific topics. In the latest edition, they had an article that talked at great length about former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. The article, written by Matt Bai, was excellent in describing Speaker Gingrich, his rise and fall in Washington, and his prospects for leading the Republican Party in the future.

I’ve spent some time on this blog reviewing Speaker Gingrich’s books and I think that his stance on many major political issues are in line with what the vast majority of the country wants (likely because he takes stances that 80% of Americans agree with as per his think tank research). Speaker Gingrich may not have the cleanest personal record, but he has an excellent mind for Washington politics. Here’s a line from the article regarding his simple, yet powerful new political stance:

His goal is to turn the Republicans into what he calls a “party of the American people” by linking disparate solutions whose only real relationship to one another is that they demonstrate, in surveys, what he calls “tripartisan” appeal — the broad support of Republicans, Democrats and independents. Gingrich told me he has identified about 100 ideas and positions that command anywhere from 62 percent to 93 percent support among such a cross-section of voters: giving out tax credits for installing alternative heating sources in your home (90 percent); awarding cash prizes to anyone who invents a car that gets 100 miles to the gallon (77 percent); keeping God in the Pledge of Allegiance (88 percent).

This strategy is brilliant, when you think about it. Take the concepts and ideas which form the base of “American Values” (and which most Americans agree with whole-heartedly) and use them as the base for a political platform. Seems like an easy way to victory, right?

Gingrich was fascinated and impressed by Obama’s [inaugural] address (“Those could have been our words,” he told the group), and he advised them to laminate it and keep it close by, so that they could hold the new president to his pragmatic rhetoric.

A few weeks after Speaker Gingrich made this suggestion, Republicans started carrying around laminated portions of President Barack Obama’s inaugural address. However, it is telling that Gingrich suggests that Obama’s words could have been Republican words. In many ways, I think he is correct since most inaugural addresses and State of the Union speeches are nothing more than rallying cries to core American values. Too many times the people on the far left and far right (and the political extremists) refuse to hear the simplicity of the words used during these addresses. Another piece of the article:

“He’s a total idea factory,” [Paul] Ryan said. “The man will have 10 ideas in an hour. Six of them will be brilliant, two of them are in the stratosphere and two of them I’ll just flat-out disagree with. And then you’ll get 10 more ideas in the next hour.”

This little bit refers to the fact that Speaker Gingrich is constantly putting new policy ideas out there to a select few in the Republican party. That’s what the party is missing right now – new ideas. If Gingrich can bring new ides to a stagnant, broken party, he might be able to rejuvenate the Republicans in time for the 2010 elections.

This article is a fascinating read for policy wonks and those who are highly interested in national politics. Bai does a commendable job telling Speaker Gingrich’s story and I highly recommend reading this article if you are so inclined and have the time to do so.