The following editorial appeared in the Los Angeles Times on Wednesday, Jan. 25:
MIXING POLITICS AND POLICY
President Obama had two purposes in his State of the Union address on Tuesday: to offer a manifesto for the 2012 campaign and to articulate policy choices to Congress that would benefit the economy. In a speech that was argumentative if not aggressive, he was more successful in achieving the first objective than the second. But overall it was an effective speech.
For some time Obama has telegraphed the overarching political themes of the speech _ economic fairness and an expansive role for the federal government _ and he stuck to that script. “We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by,” he said, “or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.” At stake, he said, “are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values” _ a piety that couldn’t conceal the fact that income inequality is a Democratic issue and, Obama hopes, a winning one. His remedy included a familiar (and fair) call for a tax policy that asked more of the wealthy _ fortuitously on the day his potential Republican opponent Mitt Romney released his tax returns.
The speech also included a riposte to Republican claims that the government’s most constructive role is to stay out of the way. Invoking the Internet, the interstate highway system and the recovery of the auto industry, he offered a paean to government spending and suggested that more was desirable in the future. For example, the administration wants to use half the savings from the troop drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan to finance infrastructure.
This is where good politics may come at the expense of good policy. The deficit received scant attention in the speech, and the president advocated various tax breaks that could complicate deficit reduction in the future even if Democrats and Republicans agreed to changes in entitlement expenditures. The best fiscal policy in our view remains targeted tax relief _ such as the continuation of the payroll tax cut _ and long-term attention to reining in the national debt and simplifying the tax system.
Although the economy dominated the speech, Obama effectively defended his work on other issues, such as the end of U.S. involvement in Iraq and two accomplishments that mesh with his emphasis on fairness: greater regulation of Wall Street and the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Finally, he urged fractious members of Congress to emulate American troops who “don’t obsess over their differences (and) focus on the mission at hand.” Good advice _ and good politics too.
___
The following editorial appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer on Wednesday, Jan. 25:
OBAMA DRAWS THE BATTLE LINES
With Debbie Bosanek sitting in first lady Michelle Obama’s box, it was clear what Tuesday night’s State of the Union Address to Congress was really about _ contrasting President Obama’s vision for America with that of whomever becomes the Republican nominee to replace him.
Bosanek, of course, is billionaire Warren Buffett’s secretary, the one who pays a higher effective tax rate than a man who makes millions of dollars more than she does. She has become the poster child in Obama’s campaign for tax-code changes that include a “Buffett rule,” which would prevent bosses from paying taxes at astoundingly lower rates than their employees.
Obama didn’t script it, but it didn’t hurt that his appeal for a fairer tax code came on the heels of Republican-establishment favorite Mitt Romney’s release of his 2010 return, which showed his tax rate at about 14 percent. Many middle-class taxpayers pay at a much higher rate. That’s because they are paying largely on earned income while Romney’s cash comes mainly from investments, which aren’t treated the same as wages.
Thanks to the Republican debates that preceded it, Obama’s comments Tuesday night concerning the disparity between what most Americans earn and pay in taxes and what the wealthy pay had already become the backdrop for this presidential election.
The question is whether the race will be decided by voters more attuned to the Occupy Wall Street message that growing income disparity has weakened the nation.
“We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules,” said Obama.
“Let’s never forget,” he said, “millions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules every day deserve a government and a financial system that does the same. It’s time to apply the same rules from top to bottom: no bailouts, no handouts, and no cop-outs. An America built to last insists on responsibility from everybody.”
The president’s speech was very different compared to his address a year ago, in which he offered an olive branch to Republicans in Congress only to have it blithely ignored. House Speaker John Boehner and other Republican leaders have lambasted Obama as being ineffective, but Obama’s remarks blaming GOP obstructionists for his initiatives’ lack of success struck a chord.
“I intend to fight obstruction with action, and I will oppose any effort to return to the very same policies that brought on this economic crisis in the first place,” he said. “We will not go back to an economy weakened by outsourcing, bad debt, and phony financial profits.”
It was a campaign speech, made before the largest TV audience Obama may have before November’s election, and he made the most of it.
___
The following editorial appeared in the San Jose Mercury News on Wednesday, Jan. 25:
OBAMA LAYS CAMPAIGN GROUNDWORK _ AND WHY NOT?
President Barack Obama’s 2012 State of the Union address was his most political, clearly a set-up for this year’s re-election campaign. But in some ways, it also was his most effective.
The speech was more a statement of his values, and what he believes are American values, rather than a litany of detailed programs. It was the most practical approach for the time. Given the frequent gridlock of the past three years, it would be crazy to think Republicans would join him in a bipartisan agenda as they pull out all the stops to end his presidency. From Obama’s first day in office, the GOP placed a higher priority on preventing his success than they did on helping the nation recover from economic calamity. That hoped-for kumbaya moment isn’t happening in this presidential term.
GOP commentators after the speech pronounced it same old, same old Obama, wanting to spend public money and, our favorite, to redistribute wealth. Well, yes, Obama would like to help the shrinking middle (read: consumer) class recover some of its upward mobility, giving more people a shot at the heady incomes of the Mitt Romneys of the world _ $21 million a year in 2010 _ to both help them and get the economy back in gear.
But it’s not as if current patterns of taxation are God-given. They all are results of previous decisions in Congress that, in subtle increments over the past several decades, have helped the rich get richer and left middle income Americans increasingly to struggle. Restoring fairness _ say, having people like Romney pay a higher tax rate than a couple raising kids on school teachers’ pay _ might resonate even among working Republicans.
One proposal did draw applause from congressional Republicans: Obama’s plea to restore the middle class tax cut that Congress allowed to expire last year, increasing taxes on average workers at the same time the GOP refused to end what was supposed to be a temporary tax cut for the rich. It would have been hard to show disapproval of the idea in public, but somehow we’re not ready to bet on a quick approval with no strings attached, as the president, Pollyanna-like, suggested.
The specific ideas Obama did toss out need closer looks, such as his tax plan for businesses with jobs offshore, the plan to help put veterans to work and the ideas for helping to stem the foreclosure crisis, a challenge on which Obama has until now fallen short. But anything needing bipartisan support is probably doomed this year. So parse this speech for philosophy, values and ethics, and keep it in mind as the Republican primaries unfold.
___
The following editorial appeared in the Seattle Times on Wednesday, Jan. 25:
NO BAILOUTS, NO HANDOUTS, NO COP-OUTS
President Obama’s State of the Union address was full of vision and promise for retooling the economy, promoting education and protecting vulnerable Americans. The question that looms over Obama’s prose and oratory is his capacity to deliver results.
The president offered a stark summary of the self-serving corporate behaviors and fiscal irresponsibility that “plunged our economy into a crisis that put millions out of work, saddled us with more debt, and left innocent, hardworking Americans holding the bag.”
His agenda offered an aggressive response to generous tax codes that scattered jobs around the globe. He proposed “an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers, and a renewal of American values”; tax breaks for “insourcing jobs,” returning them to the United States _ a blunt competition with nations with low wages and scant work rules.
The most promising elements to achieve that renewal include expanding international markets for U.S. products and creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating unfair trade practices in countries like China, the president said. Naming names. That reflects a serious intent.
So do the challenges laid for job creation, job training and related education at all levels. “States also need to do their part, by making higher education a higher priority in their budgets.” The chief executive might easily be quoting one of our editorials.
He also emphasized putting more resources into the wise collaboration between strong community-college programs and industry to train people for the job openings that exist but now go unfilled.
The repeated theme: an economy that works for everyone.
Mindful his audience included millions of Americans caught in the upheaval of U.S. real-estate markets, the president spoke to promoting affordable refinancing for those hanging on. Details pending.
Earlier in the day, a clutch of major lenders and state officials announced a draft settlement _ well short of a mortgage fix _ that would parse out $25 billion to reduce the principal on some privately held mortgages issued between 2008 and 2011. Some mortgage holders would get help to refinance at 5.25 percent. Victims of deceptive practices might receive checks for $1,800. Virtually no one will get their home back. The deal does not affect Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgages.
Given the thin gruel from GOP presidential debates, the president is selling himself, not responding to empty critiques.
His opposition, as such, is impatience with a slow recovery. His capacity to deliver in a poisonous atmosphere on Capitol Hill haunts the promise and prospects outlined Tuesday night.
___
The following editorial appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Wednesday, Jan. 25:
OBAMA PREACHES FAIRNESS AS THE ELECTION LOOMS
President Barack Obama laid out a “blueprint for an economy that’s built to last” on Tuesday night during his State of the Union message _ “an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers and a renewal of American values.”
Who can disagree with such goals? But they must be backed by solid policy ideas _ and by the will to push hard to achieve them. With Congress deadlocked philosophically, and with both sides in full combat gear for the fall campaign, nothing of substance is likely to happen this year, as Obama himself acknowledged.
Nevertheless, Obama’s grand theme of fairness _ in taxes, in the way individuals are treated, for struggling homeowners, in financial services, for American companies that create jobs _ may resonate with restive voters. It’s a good theme for the president.
Obama lobbied for tax fairness for individuals. “Right now, because of loopholes and shelters in the tax code, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households. Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. Do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Or do we want to keep our investments in everything else _ like education and medical research; a strong military and care for our veterans? Because if we’re serious about paying down our debt, we can’t do both,” Obama said.
Republicans call such rhetoric “class warfare,” but as the president noted many Americans “would call that common sense.” We agree.
There are growing inequities in the American system, and the government has a responsibility to address them. Both sides of the nation’s fiscal ledger need attention if the nation is to avoid financial calamity. Taxes will need to rise and long-term spending will need to decline. Obama is right to demand that the country “stop subsidizing millionaires.”
But Obama has had numerous chances to lead on this issue and declined. He ran away from his own deficit commission’s report in late 2010, and he and House Speaker John Boehner failed to reach a “grand bargain” last summer during the debt ceiling fiasco. Obama certainly is not entirely to blame; the Republicans have not exactly been willing partners.
On corporate taxes, Obama noted that Milwaukee’s Master Lock Co. has been able to “bring jobs back home.” He suggested a minimum tax for multinational companies but lower overall tax rates. It’s an interesting idea, but like so many others in his speech, one in which the details matter a great deal. As it stands, American companies pay one of the highest tax rates in the world and that hurts American competitiveness. If Obama truly means to pursue lower corporate rates, he’s right on the merits.
The president crammed the speech with other policy prescriptions: extending the payroll tax hike, due to expire in a few weeks; better training for workers; investments in research; comprehensive immigration reform; tax relief for small businesses; help for kids with student loans; clean energy tax credits.
Many of these ideas have merit, including extending the payroll tax holiday through the end of the year. But nothing passes unless the president has the mettle and political skill to push for what he believes in, qualities Obama has at times lacked even when his party controlled both houses of Congress. And now, too many Republicans are so opposed to the man occupying the White House that they seem unwilling to work with him on anything.
Obama’s rhetoric was, as usual, soaring _ inspirational at times. But it’s the dirty work in the congressional trenches where rhetoric becomes reality. Don’t expect much reality this year.
___
The following editorial appeared in the Kansas City Star on Wednesday, Jan. 25:
OBAMA MAKES EFFECTIVE CASE FOR HIS RECORD
Americans on Tuesday night saw an upbeat and energetic president who left no doubt he was prepared to defend his record and fight for his re-election.
Barack Obama, delivering his third State of the Union address, effectively highlighted his administration’s successes, such as the resurgence of the U.S. auto companies and the bipartisan trade agreements.
He presented the public and Congress with a grab bag of initiatives. Some, like a call for states to require students to stay in school until they earn a diploma or turn 18, were high-minded visions destined to go nowhere. But other ideas, like simplifying training programs to move “from an unemployment system to a re-employment system,” seemed fresh and promising.
Obama placed a welcome emphasis on continued development of energy sources, from opening up offshore oil and gas resources and pursuing natural gas exploration to continued development of clean energy technologies. His administration needs to follow up with details of how it will assure safety of natural resources and protect against waste of taxpayer money as in the Solyndra debacle.
The president’s calls for an end to excessive tax breaks for the very rich were on point, and we enjoyed seeing Warren Buffett’s secretary in the audience. On reform of the corporate tax structure, Obama is right to call for an end to perverse incentives that reward companies for moving jobs and profits overseas. But instead of proposing a web of new incentives, why not simply call for lowering the tax rate and broadening the base _ something thoughtful persons across the political spectrum agree needs to be done?
Obama’s rebuke of Washington’s gridlock was appropriate. And he effectively highlighted a solid list of foreign-policy successes. Largely because of U.S. leadership, the president noted, “a world that was once divided about how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program now stands as one.”
In one of the speech’s feistier declarations, Obama said, “… anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn’t know what they’re talking about.” Well put.
On a disappointing note, Obama offered no fresh ideas about education. Also notably absent were any substantive ideas about entitlement reform and debt reduction. Obama especially cannot shirk his duty to show leadership in those arenas. We’d like to see him use the proposals made by the Simpson-Bowles Commission, which he appointed, as a framework for reform.
A State of the Union address can be a golden opportunity for a president to bring an administration’s strong points into focus. Obama seized that opportunity and made good use of it.
___
The following editorial appeared in the Chicago Tribune on Wednesday, Jan. 25:
BOTH PARTIES ARE LOOKING TOWARD 2013
For most of a year, Republican aspirants to the White House have criticized the man who lives there. They have their intramural spats, but any of them would starkly change the nation’s policy trajectory come 2013. Tuesday night, President Obama formally engaged them, laying out his own agenda for 2013 and beyond. He gave an optimistic speech to a pessimistic America that has heard a lot of words.
No one in the U.S. House chamber thought this night truly was about the State of the Union in Anno Domini 2012, and we doubt many citizens did. We’re at an epic moment, barely a nine-month gestation from the election that will determine the likelihood of virtually everything that Obama proposes. Come that election, will voters hand him a second term in office? Or, a year from today, will he be settling back into his Chicago home?
Because until that’s resolved, you can tuck Obama’s priorities into one of those lockboxes that Bill Clinton and Al Gore used to invoke. Just as you can closet the GOP priorities set out in the rebuttal by Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels. They’re welcome to talk all they want, as they did Tuesday night, about their plans for reshaping the tax code or putting people to work. With Pennsylvania Avenue so gridlocked, their ambitions will go unfulfilled.
The president’s speech studiously avoided feeding the partisan divide, and for that all should be glad. There were more moments of whole-chamber applause than during the usual State of the Union.
We wish we had heard fresh ideas for relieving the awful danger that federal deficits and debt pose to this nation’s future. Tuesday night, though, was about saluting that future, not getting us there.
Watching the president urge Congress to put aside election-year politics, we kept circling back to how we Americans truly are a nation divided. Many among us have little excitement about any candidate for president. If there’s a default zeitgeist, it’s: I just can’t wait to vote against (fill in the blank).
If only some leprechaun had distributed the polling averages from RealClearPolitics to the president and every lawmaker. His approval rating stands at 46 percent; his disapproval rating at 48.3. Which sounds weak until you learn that Congress has an approval rating of 13.3 percent, and a disapproval rating of 83. Nor is the blame one-sided: Asked to vote for generic congressional candidates, 44 percent of voters choose the Democrat, 42.2 percent the Republican.
What ought to frighten everyone in that House chamber is that 28.3 percent of Americans think the nation is headed in the right direction; 65.3 percent think we’re on the wrong track. Leaders of both parties are betting that America’s challenges, especially financial, can wait for the Nov. 6 election that will give Washington a clear direction _ or more gridlock.
That’s a risky calculation at a tenuous time for this nation. The president exuded confidence and anticipation Tuesday night. Wednesday morning, though, he wakes up in a capital that has not changed.
___
(c) 2012, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Distributed by MCT Information Services
Send questions/comments to the editors.
