Last night's State of the Union address wasn't a super speech as speeches go, but the President was so evidently enjoying himself while sticking it to his opponents in the Congress, I have to give it a big thumbs up. He did the two main things I wanted him to do. First, he explained to the American people what it will mean to them if his tax cuts aren't made permanent. All the GOP candidates are running on this issue, but all they ever say is let's make the tax cuts permanent, in the shorthand that makes sense to bloggers and pundits. They need to explain the implications of not doing so: you people are about to get a massive tax increase at the hands of the Democratic Congress. Unless Congress acts, most of the tax relief we've delivered over the past seven years will be taken away. Some in Washington argue that letting tax relief expire is not a tax increase. Try explaining that to 116 million American taxpayers who would see their taxes rise by an average of $1,800. [snip] Most Americans think their taxes are high enough. With all the other pressures on their finances, American families should not have to worry about their federal government taking a bigger bite out of their paychecks. There's only one way to eliminate this uncertainty: Make the tax relief permanent. (Applause.) And members of Congress should know: If any bill raises taxes reaches my desk, I will veto it. (Applause.)Was that so hard? Plus I loved the intervening line, because we all know who's going around the country saying he doesn't mind paying more taxes:
Others have said they would personally be happy to pay higher taxes. I welcome their enthusiasm. I'm pleased to report that the IRS accepts both checks and money orders. (Laughter and applause.)(Did you see the look Hillary shot him when he said that?) He defended his economy, too, which needed to be done, since our erstwhile Republican defenders apparently aren't up to the task.
The Powerline boys and Michael Ledeen consider the speech a concession to NoKo & Iran. That seems harsh to me. He was plenty tough on Iran:
wherever freedom advances in the Middle East, it seems the Iranian regime is there to oppose it. Iran is funding and training militia groups in Iraq, supporting Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon, and backing Hamas' efforts to undermine peace in the Holy Land. Tehran is also developing ballistic missiles of increasing range, and continues to develop its capability to enrich uranium, which could be used to create a nuclear weapon. Our message to the people of Iran is clear: We have no quarrel with you. We respect your traditions and your history. We look forward to the day when you have your freedom. Our message to the leaders of Iran is also clear: Verifiably suspend your nuclear enrichment, so negotiations can begin. And to rejoin the community of nations, come clean about your nuclear intentions and past actions, stop your oppression at home, cease your support for terror abroad. But above all, know this: America will confront those who threaten our troops. We will stand by our allies, and we will defend our vital interests in the Persian Gulf.It's true he didn't mention NoKo, but I'm not sure every foreign policy concern has to come up in SOTU. The main thing he had to do was let the people know the surge has succeeded and demand the Congress continue to fully fund the war. And insist they not allow our ability to monitor terrorist phone calls expire next Friday. (Osama to sleeper cells: call me Saturday!) Oh, and we're getting the Afghan surge we need, too.
Getting back to the economy, in the run-up to the speech there was lots of gloom in the blogosphere because supposedly the President wasn't going to do a thing about earmarks. Some folks who were reporting impending moral collapse on that topic last week, eg, are claiming credit for Bush's policy today. The right-leaning have always been swift to believe in Bush Betrayal, but that's not My Man. He's been wrong, but never cowardly.
Didn't the Democrats sweep into power in 2006 on the promise to end corruption and reign in spending by the feckless Republican Congress? Weren't they supposed to end earmarks? Isn't Obama running on ending the influence of special interests? Interesting then that the D side of aisle fell utterly silent as the President pronounced these words:
And tomorrow, I will issue an executive order that directs federal agencies to ignore any future earmark that is not voted on by Congress. If these items are truly worth funding, Congress should debate them in the open and hold a public vote. (Applause.)I thought that was their issue?
It was also interesting that a lame duck President offered this bold move.
I ask you to support a new $300 million program called Pell Grants for Kids. We have seen how Pell Grants help low-income college students realize their full potential. Together, we've expanded the size and reach of these grants. Now let us apply that same spirit to help liberate poor children trapped in failing public schools. (Applause.)I'll have to learn more about it, but sounds like a voucher program to me --no doubt that's why no Dems applauded.
In all, except for being now (7 years later) totally gray and much more lined, he didn't seem at all like a broken-down lame duck President to me. He seemed like a leader who has plenty of fight left in him and a man utterly at peace with his conscience.
Incidentally, did you see the President muss Barney Frank's hair and pat his cheek on the way out of the chamber? That was hilarious!
As to the Dem response. In principle I hate responses to the SOTU, no matter which party is offering them. SOTU is a duty prescribed by the Constitution. A "response" is simply a suggestion that the President isn't the Chief Executive of the United States, but merely the head of his party. The "response" represents a corruption of our politics in itself --it turns a moment of national unity into a horse race exercise. Last night's was a pile of glittering generalities with which no one could disagree. Any politician of any party could have given that speech. Its sole significance, I believe, lies in the rumor that Sibelius will endorse Senator Obama this week. If that's true, choosing her was simply Nancy Pelosi's way of signaling the Democratic leadership is tired of the Clintons.
