Third Way Perspectives
Posts Tagged ‘President Obama’
13 Thoughts on President Obama’s 2013 State of the Union Address
February 13th, 2013
- The spirit was less confrontational than the inaugural address. The President repeatedly called for bipartisanship and compromise. He denounced partisanship and called for common purpose.
- One thing Republicans will likely object to: the President’s repeated call for the wealthiest Americans to do “their fair share’” and pay more in taxes and Medicare premiums. Republicans will call that class warfare and more tax hikes.
- The President made a strong argument that economic growth is a higher priority than deficit reduction. That’s where he and Republicans part company. Republicans believe deficit reduction is a prerequisite for economic growth. Obama said that “reckless spending cuts” will inhibit growth. He insisted on a “balanced’” approach to deficit reduction, including both “revenue increases” (mostly through tax reform) and cautious spending cuts.
- He called the looming sequesters (across-the-board spending cuts) a “manufactured crisis.”‘ That is exactly what they are. The American public has no idea where this impending crisis is coming from and they do not see it as real. The President re-enforced that notion and warned that allowing the sequesters to go into effect would jeopardize the nation’s security, devastate our priorities and cost “hundreds of thousands of jobs.” Bottom line: he called the sequesters “a really bad idea.”
- President Obama argued that nothing he proposed “should increase our deficit by a single dime.” Several of the initiatives he proposed would be financed without tax revenues. The Energy Security Trust would come from “oil and gas revenues.” Private capital would pay for the Partnership to Rebuild America.” The non-partisan commission to improve voting procedures would cost very little tax money.
- The only real anti-poverty measure he talked about was raising the minimum wage and pegging it to inflation — which costs government nothing.
- He probably rattled a lot of college and university administrators when he said that federal aid to colleges would be based partly on “affordability and value.” College costs have been increasing much faster than inflation, and he wants to force colleges to hold down costs.
- On foreign policy, he touted two things:
- His record of ending wars, not starting them; and
- His shift from massive military intervention to targeted counter-terrorism strikes. He responded to criticism of drone strikes by promising to “engage with Congress” to ensure that counter-terrorism strikes would be legal and transparent.
- Two foreign policy issues received particular emphasis:
- Cyber security, which he depicted as a “rapidly growing threat,”; and
- Human rights, which is likely to be elevated to a top foreign policy priority by the New America coalition that elected him.
- His call for comprehensive immigration reform was loud and clear. That’s where he knows Republicans are on the defensive.
- He mentioned gay rights only in passing — for instance, at the beginning, when he said that you should be able to get ahead in this country no matter “who you love.” But it may be unprecedented for any President to mention gays in a State of the Union speech.
- The most emotional moment in the speech came when he discussed gun violence and called attention to the victims. But the President did not specifically call for Congress to pass new gun controls. He simply said ”They deserve a vote.” That was very clever. He was insisting that members of Congress go on record for or against background checks, tougher gun trafficking laws and bans on high-capacity magazines and assault weapons, even if the measures fail (as many probably will). When legislators cast a vote against those things, they will become vulnerable to attack by their opponents as insensitive to gun violence. The President’s call got a rousing response from legislators, who chanted, “Vote! Vote! Vote!”
- Altogether, the State of the Union speech was not particularly bold or ambitious. It was realistic.
Democratic base wants compromise
February 7th, 2013
Last November, Bob and Evelyn Driscoll waited 90 minutes in line to vote. Standing in a cold drizzle, neither of them were in love with either of the presidential candidates or their congressional representatives. But they were eager to vote because they knew the country faced immense challenges.
They believed the economy was better but still just inching along. Their take-home pay had been basically flat for the past 10 years. They worried that the deficit was standing in the way of America returning to greatness. They wondered whether Social Security and Medicare would be there for their kids — or themselves — when they needed it. And they hoped they had saved enough for retirement and for the ever-increasing cost of college for both of their children.
They stood in the cold until it was their turn to vote. They pulled the lever for the president, and for Democrats in the House and Senate. And if they were able to deliver a short message to each as we cross the threshold into Barack Obama’s second term, it would be this: “Fix it. Work together and fix it.”
The Driscolls aren’t just among a tiny slice of swing voters — they represent millions of moderate and independent voters across Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio and throughout America. Most important for the president and Democrats in Congress, they represent the base of the Democratic Party.
Seeking consensus on immigration, guns
February 4th, 2013
Two tough issues — immigration reform and gun control. “It won’t be easy,” President Barack Obama said about gun control in December, “but that’s no excuse not to try.” Tuesday, he said about immigration reform: “The closer we get, the more emotional this debate is going to become.”
Which does he stand a better chance of winning? Answer: immigration. On immigration, Obama has Democrats strongly behind him. Republicans are divided — and freaked out by the issue. On guns, he’s got Republicans strongly against him. Democrats are divided — and freaked out by the issue.
On both issues, the president has the public solidly behind him. That’s his biggest asset. “There’s already a growing consensus for us to build from,” he said on Dec. 19, five days after the Newtown, Connecticut, massacre. “A majority of Americans support banning the sale of military-style assault weapons.’’ On Jan. 29, when he went to Las Vegas to speak about immigration reform, he said, “A broad consensus is emerging and … a call for action can be heard coming from all across America.”
Even more important, the president’s popularity is soaring. He has a 60 percent favorable rating in the new Washington Post-ABC News poll, the highest since his first year in office.
The president intends to use the bully pulpit to rally public opinion behind both causes. He also intends to use his 2012 campaign organization, which has morphed from Obama for America to Organizing for Action, to browbeat Congress into action. Welcome to real the permanent campaign.
Blue World Order
December 7th, 2012
This post was originally published in Foreign Policy.
For Republicans, the recent U.S. presidential election was supposed to be 1980. They would paint President Barack Obama as Jimmy Carter—weak on the economy and weak on national security. High unemployment and low growth? Check. National security? Democratic presidential candidates—from Carter to John Kerry—were often hobbled by public doubts about their fitness to protect the United States from foreign threats (see: “Dukakis, tank“).
But not this year. For the first time in decades, Democrats had a presidential candidate with an advantage on these issues. Obama entered the 2012 election with a successful foreign-policy record: The U.S. war in Iraq was over, the war in Afghanistan was winding down, Osama bin Laden was dead, al Qaeda’s top ranks were decimated, Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi was toppled, and an international coalition had been assembled to impose the toughest-ever sanctions on Iran. Read the rest of this entry »
Why it’s all about Obama
October 16th, 2012
This piece was originally featured on Reuters.
President Barack Obama may have lost the first debate the minute he appeared on stage in Denver. Just by showing up, he changed the terms of the campaign. Viewers immediately saw the election as a referendum on the president. The decision became whether to fire him or rehire him.
This was bound to happen sooner or later. It always happens when an incumbent is running for reelection. Until the Oct. 3 debate, Democrats had made a vigorous, and mostly successful, effort to turn the election into a choice rather than a referendum: Which guy do you like better — Obama or Mitt Romney? Read the rest of this entry »
Opening Russia
March 29th, 2012
This piece was originally posted on The Huffington Post.
The World Trade Organization currently has 153 members, ranging from the United States and China, to Uruguay and Ukraine. The WTO is not an exclusive club. Venezuela, run by America-hating strongman Hugo Chavez, is a member. And plenty of other WTO countries have kings, presidents-for-life or juntas that are not making names for themselves as statesmen or democrats. Still, despite its varied membership, the WTO does play a vital role in opening markets and enforcing rules against unfair trade.
This summer, Russia will become the WTO’s newest member. Congress will have no say in the matter. But Russia’s WTO accession will nevertheless pose a quandary for Congress and for American exports. Current U.S. law would put American companies at a real disadvantage in exporting to Russia once it joins the WTO. Unless Congress acts to change the law, as President Obama and Congressional leaders have urged, American jobs in companies doing business with Russia — and the potential for tens of thousands more — will be at risk.
Read the rest of this entry »