Barack Obama's Response to the SOTU
John Edwards' Response to SOTU
"The president tonight renewed his call for an economic recovery plan. But the plan he and Congress have offered leaves out tens of millions of Americans who need help the most. This plan would take months to have any impact, and the people I meet everyday on the campaign trail do not have months to wait. These people are hurting now and need this help now. Over the past seven years, typical workers' paychecks have failed to keep up with inflation, millions of families are facing the loss of their homes to foreclosures, health insurance premiums have doubled, and families are spending $1,000 more a year on gasoline. The State of the Union may be interesting political theater, but until we find bold solutions to the challenges facing the country, we will be stuck with the same old small, Washington answers.
"And in the chamber of the House of Representatives where the president speaks, even though this Congress stopped listening to him a while ago, they will still applaud and cheer him. The truth is that Washington is out of touch with what's happening across the country. Between now and January of 2009, Democrats must stand up to this president, stand up for what's right, so he does not continue to forget about the middle class in this country."
Hillary Clinton's Response to the SOTU
Tonight President Bush claimed that the state of our union is strong. And we can all debate that. But what is not up for debate is that for too many American families, the true "state of their lives" is one of economic anxiety and uncertainty.
As I've traveled across the country and visited with people in their homes, I have listened to the urgent problems they face. These families are resolute, and when it comes to their strength, optimism and hard work, the state of our union has never been stronger. Yet after seven years of stagnant wages, declining incomes and increasing inequality, our families are working harder and harder and still falling behind.
President Bush had one final chance tonight to acknowledge what the American people have known for years: that the economy is not working for middle class families. Unfortunately, what he offered was more of the same - a frustrating commitment to the same failed policies that helped turn record surpluses into large deficits, and push a thriving twenty-first century economy to the brink of recession.
We need a President who understands the urgent economic challenges our families face and who will work as hard for middle-class families as they work for America. I intend to be that President for the American people.
While I was heartened to hear the President acknowledge the need for immediate actions to jumpstart our economy, it will take more than tax rebates to fix our economic crisis and rebuild our economy for the future. We need immediate relief for people who are losing their jobs and facing skyrocketing home heating costs. And we need a comprehensive solution to the housing crisis. Every housing proposal the President made tonight, I made several months - and hundreds of thousands of foreclosure notices - ago. For example, I have proposed to enable the Federal Housing Administration to function as an alternative to the subprime market; and I have proposed to empower state housing finance agencies to help families refinance unworkable mortgages. But more is needed. So I have also called on the mortgage industry to observe a 90-day foreclosure moratorium on subprime mortgages and a 5-year freeze in rates on subprime loans.
We need a long-term economic vision to restore shared growth and prosperity for America's middle class. As President, I will work every day to create good high-paying jobs that can't be outsourced, restore fairness to our economy, renew the promise of America that if you work hard, you can get ahead, and restore real fiscal responsibility to Washington.
In Iraq, President Bush talked about the success of the surge. The Administration brandishes many numbers. The one I'm most focused on is that 2007 was the deadliest year for U.S. troops in Iraq. And the humanitarian situation remains devastating.
President Bush isn't satisfied with failure after failure in Iraq; he wants to bind the next President to his failed strategy by unilaterally negotiating with the Iraqi government about the future of the U.S.-Iraq security relationship, including the possibility of permanent U.S. bases in Iraq.
The Bush Administration says it does not even plan to submit this agreement to the Congress for approval, even though Iraqi officials plan to submit it to their parliament. It is an outrage that the Iraqi parliament will have an opportunity to debate this but the American Congress won't. We need to rein in this President. That is why I introduced the first legislation to require the President to submit any such agreement for congressional approval and to withhold any funding to carry out the agreement.
After seven long years of this Presidency, I am committed as President to solve problems, not ignore them. I am committed to working for the middle class, not just the privileged few. I am committed to restoring our leadership in the world through strong alliances, not alienating our friends. I am committed to working towards real solutions for real Americans every day as President of the United States.
Showing posts with label State of the Union. Show all posts
Showing posts with label State of the Union. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 29
Wednesday, May 23
Awfulizing in America
"That's awful." I hear these two words coming from the mouths of a lot of people lately.
"Did you hear about the kid from Tipton who died in Iraq?"--"That's awful"
"Did you hear how the city gave TIF to the developer to put up that building?"--"That's awful."
"Did you hear what happened on American Idol to Melinda?"--"That's awful."
Usually "that's awful" is followed up with "it's a shame" or "that's too bad."
And maybe it is. Maybe it is a shame that the people we elect do not do more to end the war or be more responsible with our tax money (or that people don't recognize talent).
But maybe what is awful is that we aren't more outraged and demanding action in an organized way, in the right amount of numbers, with enough intensity. Maybe we are awful--Awful busy, awful distracted, awful overwhelmed...
Think about this, never has Congress received more mail (electronic or otherwise) about situations that concern people, but the acts of civil disobedience have decreased (and I don't mean sit ins, necessarily). Politicians poll us to identify the things we think are awful so that they can get our votes.
Maybe it is a product of a 24 hour news cycle that goes from one "ain't it awful" event to another, but maybe it is our own attention spans that should be called into question.
Raging against the machine, perhaps, used to be easier when the machine was easy to identify and take on one at a time--Civil Rights, Vietnam, Women's rights, etc.
But the world we live in now is complicated. We have people relations problems for sure, but we have this pesky global climate change scenario, bees disappearing, shorelines eroding, and vegetation doing all kinds of strange things. We are engaged in a dangerous conflict that has no easy answers for those living there. We have a mounting national debt that is being avoided by all of us. I know--that's awful.
But, it is my thought that the more we are paralyzed by what is "awful" in our lives, the more we look to avoid addressing what we can deal with. While many of us are not climatologists, we can turn off our lights when we leave the room. While few of us are military strategists, we can choose to treat our own relationships in non-violent ways and remind our nations leaders that they got us into this mess and they have got to get us out.
We also have to acknowledge that as "awful" as things are, they will get better or worse based on what we are doing. So what are you doing?
"Did you hear about the kid from Tipton who died in Iraq?"--"That's awful"
"Did you hear how the city gave TIF to the developer to put up that building?"--"That's awful."
"Did you hear what happened on American Idol to Melinda?"--"That's awful."
Usually "that's awful" is followed up with "it's a shame" or "that's too bad."
And maybe it is. Maybe it is a shame that the people we elect do not do more to end the war or be more responsible with our tax money (or that people don't recognize talent).
But maybe what is awful is that we aren't more outraged and demanding action in an organized way, in the right amount of numbers, with enough intensity. Maybe we are awful--Awful busy, awful distracted, awful overwhelmed...
Think about this, never has Congress received more mail (electronic or otherwise) about situations that concern people, but the acts of civil disobedience have decreased (and I don't mean sit ins, necessarily). Politicians poll us to identify the things we think are awful so that they can get our votes.
Maybe it is a product of a 24 hour news cycle that goes from one "ain't it awful" event to another, but maybe it is our own attention spans that should be called into question.
Raging against the machine, perhaps, used to be easier when the machine was easy to identify and take on one at a time--Civil Rights, Vietnam, Women's rights, etc.
But the world we live in now is complicated. We have people relations problems for sure, but we have this pesky global climate change scenario, bees disappearing, shorelines eroding, and vegetation doing all kinds of strange things. We are engaged in a dangerous conflict that has no easy answers for those living there. We have a mounting national debt that is being avoided by all of us. I know--that's awful.
But, it is my thought that the more we are paralyzed by what is "awful" in our lives, the more we look to avoid addressing what we can deal with. While many of us are not climatologists, we can turn off our lights when we leave the room. While few of us are military strategists, we can choose to treat our own relationships in non-violent ways and remind our nations leaders that they got us into this mess and they have got to get us out.
We also have to acknowledge that as "awful" as things are, they will get better or worse based on what we are doing. So what are you doing?
Friday, January 26
The "Straight Talk Express" Has Better Name
I know, what is a progressive blogger doing fraternizing with the "enemy"? But wisdom on Iraq comes from both sides of the aisle. Senator Hagel gets "big cojones" points for dressing down his fellow Senators.
On the Dems side, Wisconsin's Russ Feingold tells his colleagues that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee didn't rise to the occasion before the Iraq War, voting for the "bizarre" response to 9/11 that was the invasion of Iraq and, more importantly, that their toothless plans to oppose Bush's continuation of Iraq are equally irresponsible.
Thursday, January 25
State of the Facts
From Fact Check
President Bush delivered his State of the Union address Jan. 23, concluding that "the State of our Union is strong [and] our cause in the world is right." That broad judgment we'll leave to others to evaluate. Some of the specific facts the President cited, however, we found to be selective, and one we found to be incorrect.
Gasoline Cut
Bush overstated matters when he proposed to slash the nation's use of gasoline by one-fifth over the next decade:
Bush: Let us build on the work we've done and reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent in the next 10 years.
But, compared to what? In reality, Bush's stated goal is not so grand as he made it sound. A White House "fact sheet" says in the fine print that he's talking about a 20 per cent from projected levels, not from what motorists are using today.
There's a big difference. The Energy Information Administrationpredicts that if current trends continue American motorists will consume 12 per cent more gasoline than they do currently by the year 2017. Cutting that projected consumption by 20 per cent works out to a level that is just 11 per cent less than current consumption. That would still be a historic reversal and a major accomplishment, but roughly half of what Bush's words seemed to promise.
Foreign Oil
Bush – once again – spoke of lessening dependence on Middle Eastern oil and imported oil generally:
Bush: For too long our nation has been dependent on foreign oil.
He didn't mention that the nation has become significantly more dependent on foreign oil during his time in office. According to the Energy Information Administration, the US imported 60.2 per cent of the oil it consumed in 2006, up from 52.9 per cent in Bill Clinton's last year in office. Dependency has grown in each year of the Bush presidency save one, despite all the talk and enactment of his energy legislation.
Federal Deficit and Fiscal Discipline
Bush called for fiscal restraint and claimed credit for cutting the federal deficit in half:
Bush: What we need is to impose spending discipline in Washington, D.C. We set a goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009, and met that goal three years ahead of schedule.
Actually, Bush inherited a budget with a comfortable surplus, and then ran up enormous deficits that continue to the present. Under Bush, the national debt (debt held by the public) has increased by more than $1.5 trillion. The annual deficits peaked at $413 billion in fiscal year 2004, and has declined since then. But in fiscal year 2006 (which ended last Oct. 31) the deficit was still $248 billion. The latest estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office project a further reduction in the current fiscal year, to $172 billion. That would indeed be less than half the worst of Bush's deficits, but it would be only two years prior to fiscal 2009, not three.
As for spending restraint, Bush has shown little if any to date. He allowed spending to soar 42 per cent during his presidency, and didn't veto a single spending bill. (His only veto was of a bill to loosen restrictions on federally funded stem-cell research.) He did sign massive tax cuts, and revenues increased only 21 per cent during the same period.
Education
The President called for reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act, saying:
Bush: Students are performing better in reading and math, and minority students are closing the achievement gap...the No Child Left Behind Act has worked for America's children.
According to the government's own National Center on Education Statistics, the overall achievement gap between minority students and white students has decreased between 2002, when Bush signed the law, and 2005. But the act's impact on math and reading scores is debatable. Students in 4th and 8th grades performed at historic high levels in math in 2005. However, scores had been on the rise since before the law passed. In reading, there was no difference between 4th graders' scores in 2002 and 2005, and the scores of 8th graders actually dropped two points in that interval. The reading scores in 2005 were barely different from those in 1992.
The Economy
When it came to describing the economy, Bush was pretty much on the mark:
Bush: Unemployment is low, inflation is low, and wages are rising.
In fact, the 4.5 per cent unemployment rate for December was well below the historical average. For all months since 1948, when the BLS started publishing its current statistical series, the average rate has been 5.6 per cent. The current rate is not far above the 4.2 per cent rate that prevailed when Clinton left office.
Inflation remains reasonably low. The Consumer Price Index rose 2.5 per cent during 2006, less than the 3.4 per cent rise of 2005.
And it's also true that wages are rising, and finally rising faster than inflation. According to figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, average weekly earnings for rank-and-file workers rose 2.1 per cent last year even after adjustment for inflation. But last year's rise came after many years of stagnation. In December workers were earning only 2.9 per cent more per week than when Bush took office, taking inflation into account.
Job Gain
The President puffed up his description of the economy using an apparently bogus number. And in fact, when we dug into this we found that the White House has been using inflated numbers for job gains for more than four months.
Bush: We're now in the 41st month of uninterrupted job growth, in a recovery that has created 7.2 million new jobs -- so far.
The 7.2 million figure is correct according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, counting an unusually large upward adjustment in the figures for total non-farm employment that the BLS announced in October. However, as in the past, Bush concentrated only on the period since August 2003, which was the low point of the prolonged job slump that plagued the first 2-1/2 years of his presidency. Since 2.7 million jobs were lost that time, the net gain from the time he took office has been 4.6 million jobs, a respectable number but still not so large as the one Bush highlighted.
President Bush delivered his State of the Union address Jan. 23, concluding that "the State of our Union is strong [and] our cause in the world is right." That broad judgment we'll leave to others to evaluate. Some of the specific facts the President cited, however, we found to be selective, and one we found to be incorrect.
Gasoline Cut
Bush overstated matters when he proposed to slash the nation's use of gasoline by one-fifth over the next decade:
Bush: Let us build on the work we've done and reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent in the next 10 years.
But, compared to what? In reality, Bush's stated goal is not so grand as he made it sound. A White House "fact sheet" says in the fine print that he's talking about a 20 per cent from projected levels, not from what motorists are using today.
There's a big difference. The Energy Information Administrationpredicts that if current trends continue American motorists will consume 12 per cent more gasoline than they do currently by the year 2017. Cutting that projected consumption by 20 per cent works out to a level that is just 11 per cent less than current consumption. That would still be a historic reversal and a major accomplishment, but roughly half of what Bush's words seemed to promise.
Foreign Oil
Bush – once again – spoke of lessening dependence on Middle Eastern oil and imported oil generally:
Bush: For too long our nation has been dependent on foreign oil.
He didn't mention that the nation has become significantly more dependent on foreign oil during his time in office. According to the Energy Information Administration, the US imported 60.2 per cent of the oil it consumed in 2006, up from 52.9 per cent in Bill Clinton's last year in office. Dependency has grown in each year of the Bush presidency save one, despite all the talk and enactment of his energy legislation.
Federal Deficit and Fiscal Discipline
Bush called for fiscal restraint and claimed credit for cutting the federal deficit in half:
Bush: What we need is to impose spending discipline in Washington, D.C. We set a goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009, and met that goal three years ahead of schedule.
Actually, Bush inherited a budget with a comfortable surplus, and then ran up enormous deficits that continue to the present. Under Bush, the national debt (debt held by the public) has increased by more than $1.5 trillion. The annual deficits peaked at $413 billion in fiscal year 2004, and has declined since then. But in fiscal year 2006 (which ended last Oct. 31) the deficit was still $248 billion. The latest estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office project a further reduction in the current fiscal year, to $172 billion. That would indeed be less than half the worst of Bush's deficits, but it would be only two years prior to fiscal 2009, not three.
As for spending restraint, Bush has shown little if any to date. He allowed spending to soar 42 per cent during his presidency, and didn't veto a single spending bill. (His only veto was of a bill to loosen restrictions on federally funded stem-cell research.) He did sign massive tax cuts, and revenues increased only 21 per cent during the same period.
Education
The President called for reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act, saying:
Bush: Students are performing better in reading and math, and minority students are closing the achievement gap...the No Child Left Behind Act has worked for America's children.
According to the government's own National Center on Education Statistics, the overall achievement gap between minority students and white students has decreased between 2002, when Bush signed the law, and 2005. But the act's impact on math and reading scores is debatable. Students in 4th and 8th grades performed at historic high levels in math in 2005. However, scores had been on the rise since before the law passed. In reading, there was no difference between 4th graders' scores in 2002 and 2005, and the scores of 8th graders actually dropped two points in that interval. The reading scores in 2005 were barely different from those in 1992.
The Economy
When it came to describing the economy, Bush was pretty much on the mark:
Bush: Unemployment is low, inflation is low, and wages are rising.
In fact, the 4.5 per cent unemployment rate for December was well below the historical average. For all months since 1948, when the BLS started publishing its current statistical series, the average rate has been 5.6 per cent. The current rate is not far above the 4.2 per cent rate that prevailed when Clinton left office.
Inflation remains reasonably low. The Consumer Price Index rose 2.5 per cent during 2006, less than the 3.4 per cent rise of 2005.
And it's also true that wages are rising, and finally rising faster than inflation. According to figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, average weekly earnings for rank-and-file workers rose 2.1 per cent last year even after adjustment for inflation. But last year's rise came after many years of stagnation. In December workers were earning only 2.9 per cent more per week than when Bush took office, taking inflation into account.
Job Gain
The President puffed up his description of the economy using an apparently bogus number. And in fact, when we dug into this we found that the White House has been using inflated numbers for job gains for more than four months.
Bush: We're now in the 41st month of uninterrupted job growth, in a recovery that has created 7.2 million new jobs -- so far.
The 7.2 million figure is correct according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, counting an unusually large upward adjustment in the figures for total non-farm employment that the BLS announced in October. However, as in the past, Bush concentrated only on the period since August 2003, which was the low point of the prolonged job slump that plagued the first 2-1/2 years of his presidency. Since 2.7 million jobs were lost that time, the net gain from the time he took office has been 4.6 million jobs, a respectable number but still not so large as the one Bush highlighted.
Wednesday, January 24
State of the Obvious
The State of the Union address is on of those time honored traditions that allows the president to stand before Congress and blow smoke up their (and our) behinds. Take the one last night.
"we are all held to the same standards, and called to serve the same good purposes: To extend this Nation's prosperity ... to spend the people's money wisely ... to solve problems, not leave them to future generations ... to guard America against all evil, and to keep faith with those we have sent forth to defend us."
Let me count the ways this statement is absent of reality--Iraq $$$$$, 3,063 dead soldiers/22,951 wounded, a foreign relations fiasco that has China, North Korea, the whole of the Middle East, South American nations, ramping up their forces.
"we must balance the federal budget. We can do so without raising taxes. What we need to do is impose spending discipline in Washington, D.C. We set a goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009 - and met that goal three years ahead of schedule. Now let us take the next step. In the coming weeks, I will submit a budget that eliminates the federal deficit within the next five years. I ask you to make the same commitment. Together, we can restrain the spending appetite of the federal government, and balance the federal budget."
How do we do that when we are waging war? Our Defense budget is 19% of our GNP and 35% of our national budget.
If American forces step back before Baghdadis secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country - and in time the entire region could be drawn into the conflict.
Isn't it already? Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia all rattling sabers and funding militias in Iraq.
"we are all held to the same standards, and called to serve the same good purposes: To extend this Nation's prosperity ... to spend the people's money wisely ... to solve problems, not leave them to future generations ... to guard America against all evil, and to keep faith with those we have sent forth to defend us."
Let me count the ways this statement is absent of reality--Iraq $$$$$, 3,063 dead soldiers/22,951 wounded, a foreign relations fiasco that has China, North Korea, the whole of the Middle East, South American nations, ramping up their forces.
"we must balance the federal budget. We can do so without raising taxes. What we need to do is impose spending discipline in Washington, D.C. We set a goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009 - and met that goal three years ahead of schedule. Now let us take the next step. In the coming weeks, I will submit a budget that eliminates the federal deficit within the next five years. I ask you to make the same commitment. Together, we can restrain the spending appetite of the federal government, and balance the federal budget."
How do we do that when we are waging war? Our Defense budget is 19% of our GNP and 35% of our national budget.
If American forces step back before Baghdadis secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country - and in time the entire region could be drawn into the conflict.
Isn't it already? Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia all rattling sabers and funding militias in Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)