In his 2012 State of the Union Address, Barack Obama issued a ringing call for government to take the lead in rebuilding an economy that works for all Americans and to revive the promise of a more cooperative politics that carried him to the White House in 2008. While many of the specific measures he urged are likely to resonate with the public, it remains to be seen whether he can persuade the majority of Americans to set aside their long-festering mistrust of government and give him a mandate to pursue an aggressive policy agenda.
What about the specifics? In advance of President Obama's State of the Union address, I laid out five things to listen for. Against that template, let's look more closely at what he said.
#1: For better or worse, an incumbent president's record is at the heart of his reelection prospects. He cannot run away from that record; he must run on it. So what is the narrative that links the crises of 2008-2009 and the disappointments of 2010-2011 to our hopes for a brighter future?
Toward the beginning of his speech, Obama offered his account of our recent economic history. Even before the recession, he said, jobs began going overseas while wages and incomes for most American were stagnating. And then the crisis hit, sparked by mortgages sold to people who couldn't afford them and inadequately regulated financial institutions who made bad bets with other people's money. He reminded the country that in the six months before he took office, the economy lost four million jobs, and another four million in the early months of his presidency. Since then, however, the private sector -- led by manufacturing -- has created millions of new jobs. And so, he concluded, "The state of our Union is getting stronger. And we've come too far to turn back now." Rather than changing course, the task before us is to "build on this momentum."
#2: The American people know that the U.S. economy has changed fundamentally and that the "success story" of the future will differ from those in the past. But what is that story?
In broad terms, Obama is betting on the continued revival of U.S. manufacturing, backed by targeted public investments in sectors such as clean energy and infrastructure. As he has before, he called for a major effort in the areas of education and training as well as support for basic research. While globalization is here to stay, he added, we cannot allow our competitors to victimize us with unfair trade practices, and he advocated a new Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating "unfair trade practices in countries like China." And to accelerate domestic job creation, he urged corporate tax reform that ends subsidies for outsourcing while reducing taxes for companies that remain, and hire, in America.
#3: The plight of hard-working Americans -- those struggling to remain in the middle class and those struggling to get there -- must be front and center. How did the president frame his appeal to this bedrock of our economy and society?
As he did in his Kansas speech last month, Obama invoked a country and economy where "everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules." Symbolizing these principles, he called for tax reforms that follow the "Buffett rule" -- namely, "If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes." At the same time, the president virtually dropped the theme of inequality, which had figured centrally in the Kansas speech. This was a wise shift: in America's public culture, the principle of fair opportunity is more powerful than is equality of wealth and income.
#4: Public trust in our governing institutions is at or near all-time lows. To the extent that Obama's agenda revolves around an activist government, how did he seek to persuade Americans that its policies can actually improve their lives?
While acknowledging public cynicism about government and calling for reforms of Congress and the executive branch, the president appeared to be hoping that the content of his economic agenda would trump doubts about the effectiveness of the public sector. He may well be underestimating the intensity of negative public sentiment and overestimating its willingness to accept what many will portray as a new burst of activism.
#5: Barack Obama is not just a candidate; he's the president, and the people expect him to speak as the president. How did he balance his strategy of drawing the line with the Republicans against the imperative of conducting himself as the president of all the people?
For the most part, Obama addressed the country as president rather than party leader. While giving no ground on his key priorities, he spoke of differences between the parties more in sorrow than in anger and tried to identify some common ground, even on the core issue of the role of government. He called on everyone to "lower the temperature in this town" and to "end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign of mutual destruction." And he observed that "when we act together, there is nothing the United States of America can't achieve.
Throughout his speech, Obama invoked the principles of fairness, collective action, and common purpose. Conspicuously absent was the theme on which the Republican Party rests its case -- namely, individual liberty -- a contrast that prefigures a 2012 general election waged over clashing partisan orientations as well as competing accounts of the president's record.
Cross-posted from Brookings.edu. Read more from the Brookings Institution here.
Really?
Then all this blather on ending abortion is -- what? Teasing? Everyone has the right to not have an abortion ever? And not to have access to contraception?
And religion? Everyone is free to worship as they please -- as long as they please to be extreme fundamentalist right wing Christian bible bangers?
Or possibly maybe Republicans are vicious hypocrites who count on the voters' ignorance and apathy?
Eventually these resources are going to run out. That's what non-renewable means. Better to start developing alternatives now instead of waiting around until the crisis hits.
I agree high oil/gas prices will hurt the poor. Prices as they are now hurt the poor, but I don't see the GOP really giving much thought to it. Do you?
Corps. are people, money is speech, Verizon vs customers, WallMart vs employees, these cases are why we can't have another GOP Pres. appointing justices.
According to this sentence the Prez is a liar if I believe Warren Buffet does not pay the same tax rate as everybody else even though that's what the Prez said?
On the other hand if your word salad is about you disbelieving wht the Prez said about Warren Buffet why don't you PROVE IT instead of just pulling things out of your orfice?
Making assertions withoout any facts -how conservative of you.
failed because they were never given the opportunity to manifest due to Republicans that
bound and determined that he fail - you know - "the NO guys"
It is instructive to look at the military because, while I know that most conservatives do not like to think about it in that way, it is part of the government. It has fairly high approval ratings because it is viewed as being fairly effective. Could that be because it is the one part of government that the Republicans do not obstruct and sabotage? That it actually gets the resources it needs to do its job? That they actually try to get competent people to run it?
The military also has the advantage that it can classify its failings as secret while domestic departments can not. There have been numerous studies over the years that show that most government agencies are run at least as well as most private institutions of equivalent size. However, no human institution is perfect and if you want to destroy one you can always find enough annecdotal failings and repeat them over and over that will do so.
http://theworldmonetaryordertocome.blogspot.com/2010/11/introduction.html
"Thumbs down": failure to address concerns with our "individual liberty". Americans in both parties, excepting perhaps the extreme left, have come to distrust the president in this area. The fact that he's silent on an issue which many are vocal about to the point of paranoia doesn't bode well for him. He didn't explain or justify acting independently of Congress and the judiciary, invasive surveillance, excessive controlling law, compromised rights on arrest and detention of citizens, unprecedented discretionary power to law enforcement and the commander in chief, and widescale interference abroad. The "war on terrorism" is a lame justification and unacceptable. It appears the U.S. is fast becoming a police state, and people wonder if Obama has a covert agenda.
In my opinion, however, voting for Gingrich is not an option. From the debates he seems willing to say anything for audience approval; his platform must be prestige as no unifying theme is evident in his campaign. At least Obama has progressive ideals. If Romney's nominated, it's a close watch of the race and a final decision at the polls, not minding if he wins regardless of how my vote is cast. But Newt is just out of the question.
Obama hit every point that William Galston listed out of the park! Why would we want any of the Republican clowns trying to win their nomination?
PLEASE TELL ME WHY?! Crickets chirping……….Thought so!
Why is 30% of income for millionaires a “fair share”? Because Barack says so? Because Nancy Pelosi says so?
“Share” connotes a non-arbitrary division based on some accepted formula. A “fair” share must then mean a fair formula. What is fair about one person paying 30% when half the people pay 0%?
The top 1% of returns (people who have AGI above $345,000 - 2009 numbers from IRS), earn 17% of the income, but pay 37% of the income tax. These people pay twice their prorata share of tax based on income. Why is that fair? Because they are Rich? Because they are you?
Fair is in the eye of the beholder. Just because you shift the tax burden to people with money doesn’t make the allocation fair.
Fair is when everyone pays the same prorata share of income as taxes. Earn a million, pay 10% - %100,000. Earn $100,000, pay 10% - $10,000. Earn $20,000, pay 10% - $2,000 (and ask yourself why you didn’t take advantage of the free public education that would have allowed you to make more).
Simple
Someone like Mitt Romney is not going to starve if he pays 30% of his income. At worst, maybe he has to drive a Rolls instead of a Bentley (or whatever). Or have 5 houses instead of 6. A guy earning $50,000 a year who pays 30% feels that bite much more.
As for reciprocity, consider: The rich did not get rich in a vacuum. The society they live in supports and sustains them. The roads they drive on are paid for by taxpayers. The cars they drive have to meet standards mandated by government agencies. The electricity they receive is monitored by government, which is in turn paid for by taxpayers. The homes they own have certain standards mandated by the government. As do the materials used. The food they eat is inspected by government inspectors, paid for by taxpayers. I could go on, but I think I've made my point.
People used to understand that paying taxes was part of the duty of a citizen. This was before the appalling culture of narrow-minded greed, cruelty and selfishness became acceptable. I still believe that individually, you Americans are generous people. But certain elements of your political parties would belie that.
Your answer fails to address the question of fairness. People want to pay their share, so long as their share is fair. Your answer address ability to pay, not fairness.
The question remains: why should some pay more than their prorata share. The prorata share can be based on different calculations, so long as they are fair. The proration could be based on the persons' share taxable income or, alternatively, the number of people paying the taxes.
For example, in 2009, there were 137 million taxpayers paying $866 billion in federal income tax. The prorata share of tax based on the number of people paying would be $6,275 per tax payer. That's one method most people would not accept, although it would be a “fair” allocation. So that leaves a proration based on the taxpayer's share of taxable income. Here, as noted, the rich earn 17% of the income but pay 37% of the tax, twice their prorata share. Where is the “fairness” in that?
So they must be perpetually fooled
And the ruling class fate
Is to foster the state
To remain the tuxedoed and jeweled