It wasn’t a speech that had President Obama’s biggest supporters saying “Hell yeah!” Even the standard set of opponents wasn’t incredibly rancorous about the whole thing. In fact, I went in search of other people’s reactions to the speech to have something worthy of writing about it. What’s interesting is most of my friends who are politically aware (the primary set being from public policy grad school, a fairly OVERENGAGED crowd of politicos as you can imagine) didn’t even see fit to post well…anything about it on their Facebook pages. And these are people who have posted some of the following things this week:
• “Muenster and Herb Turkey on Kaiser Roll. Sometimes the little things in life are the most delicious…” (Harrison, Master of Public Policy grad and an International Program Coordinator)
• “definitely pulled my hip flexor pretty badly. ouch!” (John, Master of Public Policy grad and Political Campaign Consultant in L.A.)
• “Today: Sunny, 80*, 0% chance of precipitation” (Matt, Master of Public Policy grad and Criminal Justice Project Director)
• “I wish I had a sewing machine at home.” (Violet, Master of Public Policy grad and Program Coordinator in Los Angeles public schools)
• “If I’m losing at the Biggest Loser contest…does that make me a winner somehow?” (me, Master of Public Policy grad and Development Coordinator at non-profit organization)
• “It feels really good to be wearing a brand new pair of jeans” (my brother, video game designer and just for funsies)
I KNOW they watched it, these people who could actually be called something close to experts on policy analysis, and made people aware of the most mundane thoughts and doings in our lives…like eating a turkey sandwich…or talking about the weather…wanting to sew or wear new jeans (Sorry, guys.). But really, no one had any comment on the State of the Union and President Obama’s plans? This SOTU couldn’t even get these guys talking?
I did find one comment from my public policy crowd at least resembling worthiness for posting here: “I like the idea of state delegations sitting together during the SOTU but the whole mixing of parties is silly. Symbolism over substance.”
This is actually something I did want to discuss…for the first time in my memory (I haven’t actually done any research to see how long this has been tradition), the men and women of Congress were not sitting with Republicans on the right side of the aisle and Democrats on the left. They were sitting according to their state delegation. From what I could gather on the commentary this was done as a show of unity in light of the shootings at Rep. Gabby Giffords’ community meeting in Arizona that killed 6 people. And as said above, “Symbolism over substance,” even in my own head the most notable part of the SOTU was Congress not looking particularly divided.
If you’ve seen most of the SOTU’s before what usually goes on is that one side of the room stands in rabid applause for one part of the President’s speech while the other side sits, either stone faced, “asleep,” or shooting daggers out of their eyes in disagreement. It really does make you feel as though the people in the room—charged with making the biggest decisions in the future of our national government—literally hate each other and the prospect of them working together is, well…unlikely at best, potential to sabotage at worst. Despite it not looking so during the SOTU, I’m aware there is a divide in Congress and that the gap of middle ground for Democrats and Republicans is shrinking for the time being, but somehow sitting together gave me the warm, internal fuzzy feeling that maybe things aren’t actually so bad in Congress. President Obama’s plans weren’t laid out in their specificities very well (particularly contradictory ones that called for both a 5 year spending freeze and developing new energy and transportation projects), and I really walk away with my strongest feeling of the night being one of a show of unity more than a show of new policies.
There were some comments from my Facebook friends of the more conservative persuasion who weren’t necessarily part of the group I expected to have a lot to say about the SOTU. My cousin Larisa brought up some curious points for example:
“So…obama’s an idiot…to elaborate, he talks about government spending problems, and then proposes more spending. He says he will bring the troops home, and then sends them somewhere else. and he has proposed an idea which will cut ss, Medicare, and veterans to make up for his spending habits which are out of control. in the last year alone he racked up 1.4 trillion in deficit and he’s not stopping anytime soon.”
My reply: That $1.4 trillion deficit wasn’t racked up “last year.” I’d like to point out that President Bush’s policies racked up at least the same deficit each year as well, so this isn’t an isolated fiscal phenomenon; what is notable about it this year is that we’re very likely to hit our federally restricted debt ceiling of $14.3 trillion in the next year or so. This year’s deficit is a consequence far more from inherited fiscal policies (namely previous lax policies on lending and housing practices, and finance regulations not to beat a very, very dead and mutilated horse) and the resultant recession than from anything President Obama has (or hasn’t) done; he’s playing a reactionary game to an economy and government obligations largely out of his control (which I have another comment on later).
Many uninformed right-side sensationalists (not implying that my cousin is, she’s not) like to blame President Obama’s decisions like the new healthcare legislation, which I would like to point out doesn’t actually take full effect until 2014, and his proposed new energy and transportation programs from the SOTU for these deficits. Not the case at all. When you talk about Social Security, Medicare and defense spending (admittedly the comment that got this thought-string going was referring to veterans affairs not ALL defense spending) you have to realize that those three things comprise about 90% of our total budget. So yeah… if you need to make serious cuts to balance the budget perhaps there’s some fat trimming that could be done on the 3 programs that trump several thousand other programs in funding levels. The money he’s spending on things like education and developing new business sectors will make far more economic impact in the long term and they’re miniscule amounts compared to an outrageous Social Security program that has maybe 10 good years left in its system anyway!
So I say—and I can’t believe I am actually saying this—go start your new projects, Mr. President. I hope they replace antiquated programs that continue to suck our tax dollars and not deliver any tangible benefit. [A link in case you would like to form your own opinions about the deficit, national debt level, and the President’s plans for this year: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/us/politics/27spend.html]
To return to my comment, “…he’s playing a reactionary game to an economy and government obligations largely out of his control (which I have another comment on later),” one noteworthy action President Obama suggested was a dramatic restructuring of our current federal government in its entirety. He didn’t specifically say what this would look like (I’m assuming we’ll see a plan on the table in a few months); he incorporated the idea into a joke going something like, “When fish are in fresh water, they’re the responsibility of the Department of the Interior. When they’re in salt water, it’s the Commerce Department. I hear it’s even harder once they’re smoked.” Presumably an idea like the restructuring of the federal government (as he said, the first time for any major changes since the early part of the last century not including the addition of the Dept. of Homeland Security which really just reshuffled existing programs into a different building) will have a lot to do with the President’s plan for MAJOR spending cuts while still creating new projects in energy, education, and transportation. However, I’m fearful of the hundreds of thousands of jobs that are at stake in a risky idea like restructuring the federal government. Even now a less dramatic plan put forth by the Republicans to cut spending proposes gutting a number of programs that would eliminate the jobs of 4,000 FBI agents and 160,000 AMTRAK workers amongst other things (See the NY Times article above). Talk about a competitive job market already.
However, I am for social enterprise and smaller government so if the President plans to restructure the federal government and encourage renewable energy usage being up to 80% by 2035, developing a nationwide system of high-speed trains (which have all the swiftness of airline travel, “without the pat-down,” ha, good one Mr. President), and creating outcome-based public education, I say he’d be doing a good job. If he can actually do it.
The Bells by Richard Harvell
What other people have to say