JONATHAN COHN JANUARY 24, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
We’ve come to expect grand things from the State of the Union: Major revelations about the president’s agenda, bold policy initiatives, memorable turns of phrase. And sometimes that’s what we get, for better and for worse. In 2009, for example, Obama used his budget speech (the de facto State of the Union) to lay out his ambitious first-year agenda. In 2011, he reacted to his party’s defeat at the polls by calling for bipartisan cooperation and emphasizing deficit reduction.
Obama offered a few new and intriguing policy ideas on Tuesday – among them, a proposal to get more taxes from companies with operations overseas and an initiative to develop partnerships between community colleges and local businesses. He also called for some political reforms, most important among them an end to filibusters of judicial appointees. Mostly, though, he stuck to the proposals and themes he’s put out in the last six months, most memorably in his September address on jobs and his December speech on fairness.
But those happened to be very good speeches – not only because their tough rhetoric but also because of their substance. Together, they sketched out an ambitious vision of government, as an engine of economic growth and protector of opportunity for the lower- and middle-classes. Tonight, Obama was doubling down on those arguments – in no small part because, as policy and politics, they seem to be paying off.
Although the speech began and ended with foreign policy, the heart of it was domestic policy – with a heavy focus on job creation. Unlike in September, when the economy was at its absolute worst, Obama could point to a recent run of (moderately) good news about overall growth and job creation. And he could boast about the results of what has become his administration’s most unambiguous success: The rescue of General Motors and Chrysler, which has been a catalyst for a rebirth of American manufacturing in the Midwest.
Pivoting from that discussion, Obama called for more action to boost American workers and the industries that employ them – whether it was tax changes to deter American companies from relocating overseas or more spending on infrastucture, an idea that both parties once supported. He also renewed his call for investments in clean energy, suggesting (at least implicitly) that with early government support the U.S. could create a manufacturing nucleus – the kind that now exists for computers abroad.
I'm not qualified to judge all of the policies: Some, I know, are better than others. The overall scale of what he outlined on Tuesday was modest. But in principle Obama is absolutely right: "What’s happening in Detroit can happen in other industries."
Later in the speech Obama focused on the theme of “fairness” – and he was not shy about what he meant. He once again decried a system in which Warren Buffett’s secretary – whom the White House cleverly invited to sit with the First Lady – has a higher tax burden, proportionally, than Buffett himself. And for the first time he put a number on his proposed “Buffett tax”: In a reformed tax system, Obama said, nobody making more than a million dollars a year should pay less than 30 percent of his or her income in taxes. (Obama didn't talk much about the Affordable Care Act, Medicare, or the rest of welfare state, but his recent defense of those programs has been loud and firm, so I'm not reading too much into it.)
Thematically and in some cases programmatically, these calls were identical to what Obama said in the jobs speech and in Kansas. But politically that makes a lot of sense, as polls suggest the country is on his side: They like public works, they like spending on education, they like a secure welfare state, and they like higher taxes on the rich.
This speech also adopted the more aggressive tone Obama has maintained since September. Obama's most telling line was "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." But that approach, too, seems to be popular, if the president's (slowly) rising poll ratings are indicative. And, besides, Obama has tried offering accommodation before: As we saw last year, it didn't get him anywhere.
Of course, that also means his agenda isn't likely to get far in Congress this year. The Republicans who run the House didn't like it before and they won't like it now. Most likely, it will take the election – and the stark choice between Obama and the eventual Republican presidential nominee – to settle the dispute.
But after the election, there will be a chance to govern again. Expiration of the Bush tax cuts and the onset of spending cuts from last summer’s budget deal will force decisions on fiscal policy. With this speech, Obama is not merely trying to win reelection, although he is quite obviously trying to do that. He is also laying the groundwork for those negotiations, should he have a chance, as the president-reelect, to drive them. And if he sounds a lot like he’s sounded for the last few months, that’s only because what he’s been saying seems to be working.
Follow me on twitter at @CitizenCohn
Update: I made a few small changes, some cosmetic and some substantive, to fix some errors and capture a bit more nuance than I did in my insta-analysis.
24 comments
I believe in paragraph 6 you mean to say "He once again decried a system in which Warren Buffett’s secretary – whom the White House cleverly invited to sit with the First Lady – paid a higher tax rate than Buffet himself." Romney is the one decrying a system where his secretary "paid less in taxes than" himself. fwslusser
- fwslusser2
January 25, 2012 at 12:48am
ok i see it's been fixed already fwslusser
- fwslusser2
January 25, 2012 at 12:58am
Mitch Daniels reply to Obama's speech was magnificent. It was full of plain spoken wisdom and good common sense. By contrast Obama took rhetoric borrowed from the Republicans and twisted it to promote the crony capitalism that got southern Europe into such trouble. On he one hand we have the ideals of hard work, decency, honor and patriotism. On the other we have Obama's promotion of class hatred, envy and spite. Which side are you on?
- bulbman1066
January 25, 2012 at 2:18am
I'm on Obama's side. His view of America is positive. Mitch Daniels and other Republicans tell us that the sky is falling. America did not become great while our leaders were telling us that we were going over the edge of a waterfall. We are a positive people--except for the majority of Republicans. I did like Daniels' idea (that he got from McCain) that the rich should not receive Social Security Retirement benefits. I don't hate the rich. And I'm not envious of them in the least. If they want to wallow in luxury, more power to them. Somebody has to. I don't want or need luxury. And many rich people do charitable work (when I was a working person, well-to-do Republicans gave me the best tips). I'm on the side of, not only rich people, but all Americans. Republican politicians are on the side of the rich and some of the poor (they sometimes defend the "safety net," like Daniels did), but they hate the middle class, because there are many working people in it, and working people compete for a small portion of the wealth of the rich through unions and such.
- magboy47.
January 25, 2012 at 3:09am
I read Mitch Daniel's statement. At first he sounds SO REASONABLE, he almost sounds like a Democrat. What - let's not destroy the safety nets, let's ask millionaires to pay some of the costs of Medicare and SS? He sounds like a socialist! But then. He blames Obama for not creating jobs, at a time when the Republicans, especially in the House, have been nothing but obstructionist and have created almost no private sector jobs when in fact the Obama Administration probably saved the auto industry. Meanwhile, jobs that could have been created by fixing infrastructure, advancing the cause of green energy and helping the environment were totally nixed by our all of a sudden so cost-conscious Republicans, the very same GOP which cut taxes for the well-to-do and started two obscene and obscenely expensive wars of choice. NO WONDER we are broke. And, since when can any President "create jobs" if Congress strips him of his ability to do so? The only way a President CAN create jobs is as Roosevelt did: through programs like the WPA and direct stimulus to business and individuals. Further, blaming Obama for divisiveness is just absurd. What it is: another way to avoid having to discuss class and the vast disparity in wealth and opportunity that really does divide America. We somehow have this Great American Myth, that we aren't like Britain, we don't have classes in America; we have endless opportunity and social mobility, especially upwards social mobility; and those who have, got it by being harder working and more worthy than those who don't have it. PLEASE can we get off this schtick? It's absurd. If people really believed that class doesn't matter and that upward social mobility is a given, there wouldn't be all this screeching about the inheritance tax, or for that matter taxes in general, because money wouldn't matter; the only thing that would matter is all this opportunity we have here. As we say here in Chicago. Uh huh. C'mon you guys. Obama did not create this mess and he didn't create the furious invective that's characterized the past few years. Today in Arkansas somebody murdered a housecat belonging to a Democrat, bashed the head in of a pet cat, the cat of a household which had children - can you imagine? and scrawled "liberal" on its body. This is pretty sick but it's about what you'd expect after years and years of hate screeching on FOX and the right wing radio. People, wake up. Mitch Daniels sounds rational and his comments were anodyne but the blame continues apace in his words. Blame the government, blame the poor, absolve the rich. Indeed he mentioned Steve, Creator of Jobs in China; give me a break.
- Sophia
January 25, 2012 at 3:14am
I agree, Sophia. Multinational corporate America obviously doesn't care if Americans die of starvation in the streets. Government cares, and they will have to be the job providers in America, while CORPORATE AMERICA IS MAKING ALL-TIME RECORD PROFITS. Obama has mentioned the record profits in passing a couple of times, but he should be hammering this into the public consciousness. He left it out of the SOTU. Amazon here in Seattle is making huge profits, and their American employees are now training Indian workers to replace them. Obama should be talking about how many foreign jobs corporate America IMPORTS, too. It's massive. Microsoft here in Redmond does it big time, too.
- magboy47.
January 25, 2012 at 3:25am
Good speech. Obama is preparing the battlefield for November. Republicans will assert the miracle of unbridled capitalism but the issue of fairness will not go away and they have no effective way of addressing it.
- paskunac
January 25, 2012 at 7:15am
Sophia. The oher irony with Daniels' speech is his biography. he was Bush's budget director. So, however reasonable his tone may sound, he's as responsible as anyone for the mess we are trying to dig out from under.
- miceelf
January 25, 2012 at 8:31am
Mitch Daniels, the Captain Francesco Schettino of the George W. Bush budget catastrophe, lecturing us on economic policy. Dan
- dbuck1
January 25, 2012 at 9:36am
Good analysis. I've heard commentators say Obama isn't cooperating with Republicans, and Republicans saying Obama isn't cooperating with them. Which ignores the last three years of recent history, when Obama bent over backwards to cooperate with THEM, and THEY refused to cooperate with anything. The "Fairness" issue is the one that resonates regarding tax rates. We've GOT to restore the Clinton era tax rates, but if the will to do that is not there, at the very least almost everyone (except Romney) admits it's unfair for his secretary to pay 30% taxes while he pays 15%. With a trillion dollar budget deficit, we've GOT to get new revenues, and the Capital Gains tax rate is definitely the low hanging fruit.
- AllanL5
January 25, 2012 at 9:49am
Obama 2012
- ljb6599
January 25, 2012 at 11:05am
Obama 2012
- ljb6599
January 25, 2012 at 11:05am
So much of what Obama said sounded like special pleading for traditional Democratic interest groups, plus the usual attempt to bludgeon the GOP. He had a few good ideas but, overall, I wasn't favorably impressed. I would prefer to see Romney in the White House, if he can somehow get past Newt.
- Spengler47
January 25, 2012 at 11:37am
You might prefer to see Romney in the White House, but I'm sure you wouldn't want to see the economic chaos that would result from lowering taxes further, deregulating financial institutions, and continuing to cut resource for the states. Romney's speeches contain the policies that lead to double-dip Depressions. It's amazing to me that they're as popular as they are.
- AllanL5
January 25, 2012 at 11:51am
Spengler - Wanting to fund education and put verterans to work in public safety are special interests? Since when in hell have education and public safety not been elements of the "common welfare?" Demanding equitable tax policies is catering to which special interest? Oh yeah, the 98% of the population who do not reap windfall benefits from current tax policy. Investment in R & D - now there you got me, since if left unchanged, the way we currently do things will put most of the resulting profits in the hands of a very few, very wealthy people, rather than benefiting workers. But of course we could change that easily enough.
- IowaBeauty
January 25, 2012 at 12:04pm
Powerful and possibly his best speech as President to date. His understated appeal on issues was positive and clearly reached out to the other side of the isle for support to correct this economic mess we are in.
- Zuretti
January 25, 2012 at 2:07pm
The Blue Model doesn't work anymore. Obamanation and Cohnlessness miss the point. Great article below, if you are interested in expanding your understanding http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1183
- mr_rationale
January 25, 2012 at 2:21pm
The Blue Model? Aren't they a musical troupe?
- Tristan
January 25, 2012 at 2:45pm
The Blue Rationale is back. He's going to be shocked to be upstaged by JAIMECHURCH. By the way, this blue-red thing is assways about, somebody should fix it.
- ironyroad
January 25, 2012 at 5:58pm
ironyroad It is JAIMECHUCH. Not CHURCH. Unless you want to imply a religious conspiracy.
- JAIMECHUCH
January 25, 2012 at 7:34pm
mr-rationale. A more realistic practical approach is described below. It is the economy. http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/01/stiglitz-depression-201201
- JAIMECHUCH
January 25, 2012 at 8:04pm
Apologies, no conspiracy, but the R crept in while the guards weren't watching.
- ironyroad
January 25, 2012 at 8:46pm
I read both of the linked articles (Mr._Rationale's and Jamiechuch's). They are both excellent, though I think both overlook how much technology is changing our society. Yes, as a couple of people argued (a while back), AI is not going to make doctors and architects, etc. obsolete tomorrow or next week, but even so what we mean be work, training/re-training, production, etc. is changing in profound ways, both because of technology and because of globalization. Also, we are losing again a hard fought sense of what it means to be an "American," a kind of "civil religion" that came together through wars, liberations (slavery, sexism, etc.) depressions, waves of immigrants, etc.; and needs to be redefined and rebuilt with each generation. Probably it is nothing new, but apparently what it means to be an American in South Carolina is a long way from what it means to be an American in Washington state (where I live, and we are by no means all on the same page here).
- skahn
January 25, 2012 at 11:10pm
I do some volunteer work for as a volunteer for a church where I do not attend/worship. Most of the people I volunteer with are around my age (60s and 70s). They are fairly wealthy, and have fairly impressive backgrounds in business, engineering, management, etc. They, and the church congregation have a fairly conservative background and temperament, but they have moved very slowly to a fairly liberal, inclusive, tolerant world view. They know I am not a religious believer, but although there is a kind of tepid evangelical atmosphere, they are very tolerant with my polite not-in your-face but not hidden secularism. Today I asked them about their reaction to the SOTU speech. Most of them have probably been Republicans most of their lives, but now they have a quiet and deep disgust with the current crop of GOP leaders. One of the gentleman did a quiet, but very informed and quite acid deconstruction of Mitch Daniel's record as Bush's budget director. In baseball terms, I would put Obama's speech as a high hard double of the left field wall. If he doesn't start swinging wildly and missing, I think he may play a double header and finish well. It's a very difficult game, though.
- skahn
January 25, 2012 at 11:23pm