In years past, it's always been more interesting to read the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/us/politics/28obama.text.html" source="NY Times" author="">Transcript of the State of the Union Address</a> (in this instance, Obama's first, in 2010) than to listen to it. It is in the reading that one gets a good sense of what the president thinks he can get away with. Remember Bush spending minutes talking about the steroid problem in high school sports as two wars he started raged? Remember his talk of a Mars shot when he needed to distract attention from some debacle? Well, now it's Obama's turn. The discussion below consists of citations from Obama's speech followed by interpretation or commentary. Obama started off by telling America just who counts: <bq>And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed.</bq> For whom, exactly, has the worst of the storm passed? Well, for the bankers, for sure. Wall Street has regained a good part of its lost value; bonuses are flying; regulation is non-existent; all continues as before. Unemployment has, for all practical purposes, skyrocketed. Though the official average is around 10%, the actual impact on people is much more significant, as many are forced to keep or take underpaying jobs or to work outside of their area of expertise (e.g. bagging groceries). Many places in the states have average unemployment rates that are much higher---Detroit, for example, is around 30%, which is altogether ruinous and should warrant a state of emergency. There is no way a first-world civilization can survive in such economic conditions---especially not one with anything approaching the American lifestyle to which people have become accustomed. The numbers are even more scandalous when broken down by race where black Americans suffer from double the unemployment rate of white Americans.<fn> Obama is well-aware of all of this (watch the video below; he <i>knows</i> this); how can he just stand there and feed us platitudes? The worst of the storm is not only not over, but the States are only just finally crashing. California's economy looks like Greece's and the richest residents sit on top of Proposition 13, paying little or no taxes for the privilege of owning vast swathes of land there. Other states have already drastically cut social services---just when the long-suffering poor need them the most---as they must balance their budgets (not being able to maintain deficits as the federal government does). With the last shreds of the already-pathetic American social safety net torn away, there will be a lot of victims. But the worst of the storm has passed. Obama's not talking to these people: He's talking to Bush's "haves" and "have mores". <bq>So I know the anxieties that are out there right now. They're not new. These struggles are the reason I ran for President.</bq> This is an interesting formulation: It sounds nice and understanding ("I feel your pain") but comes across as a way of emphasizing that the current problems aren't his fault, but rather a chronic feature of the American social landscape. It doesn't, however, explain why his policies have been so tone-deaf in addressing the real problems in America. We already had eight years of increasing the military budget in response to problems at home. How about a reduction instead? How about spending all of that money to actually provide relief instead of just "knowing anxieties"? What are those really in trouble supposed to think when they hear this? Next up, Obama talks about how awesome Americans are. (Which they totally are, but can you imagine a State-of-the-Union in which the masses were not exhorted to greater heights with some serious ass-kissing, warranted or no?) <bq>It's because of this spirit -– this great decency and great strength -– that I have never been more hopeful about America's future than I am tonight. (Applause.) Despite our hardships, our union is strong. We do not give up. We do not quit. We do not allow fear or division to break our spirit. In this new decade, it's time the American people get a government that matches their decency; that embodies their strength.</bq> So <i>that's</i> how you get to say the union is strong despite it's so clearly not being so. It is strong because it is only when the union is weak that Americans really dig in. The great propagandists of the 20th century blush with pride.<fn> Many Americans who were around in the early nineties when the Soviet Union evaporated were probably much more hopeful then than they are now. Not Obama, though. Much more hopeful at the beginning of 2010 he is. <bq>But when I ran for President, I promised I wouldn't just do what was popular -– I would do what was necessary. And if we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today. More businesses would certainly have closed. More homes would have surely been lost.</bq> Well, yes, almost certainly. But the kowtowing to the industry that created the meltdown was unseemly, at best. And far more could have been done with the same money had not so much of it been shunted off to the same people that always stand first at the trough. There's more than one way to skin a cat, isn't there? How about stabilizing the economy without giving away all of our tax money into a big black hole, at the edge of which we all stand, breathless and <i>hopeful</i> that jobs will come flying out. Granted, jobs did come out, but did it have to cost so much? It did not. The current feeling is that the Congress and the Senate are "broken", but why did it take so long to publicly acknowledge this? <bq>And as a result, the markets are now stabilized, and we've recovered most of the money we spent on the banks. (Applause.) Most but not all.</bq> This is monstrously disingenuous, at best. He can say utter this mendacity with impunity because he knows most people have no idea how the various bailout packages actually spent their money. What definition of the word "most" are we working with here? The direct loans---the classic "I give you money and you pay it back at interest" kind---have mostly been repaid. The vast majority of the money in the $700 Billion promised by Hank Paulson was spent on so-called "troubled assets"---completely unsellable and vastly overpriced junk, in the commoner's rough, ignorant parlance. These assets have only continued to lose value. Not only did we, the American people, pay far too much for these assets in the first place (nearly 100 cents on the dollar when the rest of the market was willing to put up south of 40 cents on the dollar, on average), but we've lost more value since the purchase. The lack of veracity in Obama's sunny pronouncement is disappointing, for those who noticed. <bq>[...] And we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime. [...] While we're at it, let's also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment, and provide a tax incentive for all large businesses and all small businesses to invest in new plants and equipment.</bq> Here's Obama, as ever, with his toadying efforts at so-called bi-partisanship. Why is this supposedly leftist, socialist president so concerned with lowering taxes?<fn> In the open discussion with the Republican committee linked below, he also strongly emphasizes his credentials as a tax-cutter. This is a matter of minor concern to most Americans, who are far more interested in the benefiting from the programs that will be cut to accommodate those tax-cuts, who are much more interested in stopping the wars, who are much more interested in universal health care. They are, in fact, interested in completely different things than the party with whom Obama is constantly attempting to find common ground. <bq>Meanwhile, China is not waiting to revamp its economy. Germany is not waiting. India is not waiting. These nations -- they're not standing still. These nations aren't playing for second place. They're putting more emphasis on math and science. They're rebuilding their infrastructure. They're making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs.</bq> These countries are also not spending half of their yearly budget on the military. And, are these really our top competition? America has no equal economically, so the greatest danger to America is itself. Like an unmotivated career student after graduating, America lies around on the couch all day and neglects its home and itself. Education and infrastructure---it would be nice to see a seriously large push on these fronts, but the extra support is always incremental. The only areas that enjoy indisputable support---even in the Obama administration---are military in nature (the military, incarceration, police, FBI, various "intelligence" agencies). <bq>And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. (Applause.) It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. (Applause.) It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies.</bq> It's pretty significant that nuclear, "drill-baby-drill" and the abominably non-existent "clean coal" all got a hat tip, but that wind, hydro and solar all got short shrift. This is probably not the kind of clean energy program that voters for Obama had in mind when they pulled the lever in November 2008. But, hell, the Tea Party people seem to like the idea of burning more coal and drilling for more oil, so maybe they'll come around, stop drawing little Hitler mustaches on posters of Obama while they accuse him of Stalinism <i>and</i> Marxism at the same time, and lend their considerable political power to his side. Dare to dream. <bq>To help meet this goal, we're launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports [...]</bq> I'm sure the world is collectively excited to hear about even more subsidies for U.S. farmers, who in some cases already enjoy subsidies exceeding their industry's (and it is an industry, by now) total economic output. Surely the existing first-world subsidies haven't ruined <i>all</i> the third-world economies yet; surely there's still some wiggle room there. As with the clean energy program, the plans to increase exports are not "change we can believe in" but rather more of the same policies America has employed since time immemorial. <bq>Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job. That's why I urge the Senate to follow the House and pass a bill that will revitalize our community colleges, which are a career pathway to the children of so many working families.</bq> Ok. At least he's acknowledging that the cost of college is unattainable for most---costs have increased by nearly 450% in the last decade, far outstripping the simultaneous reduction in purchasing power for the average American---he's pushing community colleges for working families. It's pragmatic, though cynical, to abandon the amazingly good colleges of America---for which the country is famous worldwide---to the children of the rich. It's pragmatic to acknowledge that no combination of Pell grants and prayer are going to pay for $45,000 per year universities. The only way for those with average wealth to pay for these universities is to take increasingly predatory loans. In the face of those costs, a <iq>$10,000 tax credit for four years of college</iq> is a joke. <bq>And let's tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years –- and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college.</bq> What about not going to college at all? What about vocational programs, as most countries in Europe have? What about building apprenticeship programs? The American obsession with sending everyone to college is laughable when the actual situation on the ground, as it were, is taken into consideration. There are not nearly enough jobs in a domestic economy that is primarily service-based to accommodate all of the people that Obama wants to shovel through college. The last graduating class was still 50% unemployed six months after graduating. The jobs that need filling do not require college training, but actual on-the-job skills that can best be learned in apprenticeship programs, which are nowhere to be found in the States. Next up was the <i>Meisterwerk</i> on which he expended the majority of his political capital: Health Care. To be fair, he didn't <i>expend</i> his political capital so much as watch it ebb away as he let the marvelously dysfunctional Congress bungle their way around the bill for nearly a year. <bq>The approach we've taken would protect every American from the worst practices of the insurance industry.</bq> That's a very interesting way to put it. The Congress and Senate have capitulated to nearly every demand from this predatory industry. It seems that even the "King of Change" has nothing more to offer than to fend off the "worst practices", to say nothing of actually reforming the industry. Americans will still be forced to bend over whenever the HMOs want, but the Obama administration will admonish them to use lubrication. <bq>[...] if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know.</bq> Obama has accepted that this health care bill is the best America can hope for. Basically, subsidies for lubrication and an awareness campaign for using it is the best that our broken political system can offer. If the Republicans have any better ideas, they should put up or shut up. Don't hold your breath, though. So, health care is kinda, sorta weak and is gonna be kinda expensive if it gets passed---the health companies still gots to get paid---the wars continue---the war companies still gots to get paid and Wall Street got fat bonuses this year, but what about <i>next</i> year? Tax cuts came down the pipe thanks to bi-partisanship, so there's not a lot of lucre around. Cuts are going to have to happen somewhere. Where, oh where, could that be? <bq>Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. (Applause.) Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will.</bq> Well, hell, there goes Keynes. Nice to see, of course, that military spending will continue apace, despite the belt-tightening. The States can forget about getting any help. So, at the same time that Obama's telling the American people that he's there for them in tough times, he's promising to cut taxes and spend less money across the board. It's a politically expedient move intended to garner bi-partisan support---it's amazing to see such an intelligent man act so stupidly in thinking he'll get the support of the Republicans. He continues to believe that he can shame them into behaving rationally. They have no shame, though. They are not ashamed of their opinions because, in their reality, they are not only <i>right</i>, but <i>righteous</i>. <bq>We face a deficit of trust -– deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap we have to take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue -- to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; to give our people the government they deserve.</bq> Oh, Obama. We <i>do</i> have the government we deserve. Exactly the government that a politically disinterested, consumption-obsessed, ludicrously wealthy and powerful society deserves. One that is robbing them blind while they wallow in a comfort that is in a steady, but not immediately obvious, decline. Since corporations are people, they too can use their money---an expression of their first amendment right to free speech---to mold the government they want. Since they care the most, they win. The massive influx of corporate cash into his campaign coffers makes him a poor representative of this point-of-view. Neither do the large number of former lobbyists and industry leaders in his various teams and cabinets and so on help him in this regard. <bq>But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day. We can't wage a perpetual campaign where the only goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about the other side -– a belief that if you lose, I win.</bq> Again, he makes an excellent point, but he's the wrong guy to make it. He ran for office for <i>over two years</i> and raised and spent more money than any other candidate, ever. In the video linked below, he lights into a couple of questioners, telling them that they haven't asked him a question, but have rather spouted some talking points as if they were on the campaign trail. Obama is right: These practices are a waste of time and do not lead to solutions. There's just no way that the legislators to whom he is directing his admonitions are going to listen to him (donkey and elephant alike). And then there's Iraq. Good 'ol Iraq. <bq>As we take the fight to al Qaeda, we are responsibly leaving Iraq to its people. As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as President. We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August.</bq> Obama often shows a very honest side of himself in interviews and speeches. He's self-deprecating, admits failure, takes blame. It's refreshingly honest to see someone self-confident enough to admit he's not perfect, but believe he's <i>right</i> and is <i>trying</i>, despite human fallibility, to do what he believes is the best thing for most Americans. And then he goes and says shit like the citation above. It's just so patently unbelievable that what most people will understand <iq>all of our combat troops out of Iraq</iq> to mean is actually what the situation in Iraq will <i>be</i> in August. There are 14 FOBs (Forward Operating Bases) in Iraq of Brobdingnagian proportions, built in just the last few years. The new U.S. embassy in Iraq is <i>bigger than the Vatican</i>. We are not leaving. No f#&king way, no f#&king how. There will be representatives of the U.S. in Iraq wielding frightening weaponry in August. There's probably some way to parse Obama's sentence so that he will not have been lying. Perhaps instead of "combat troops" there will be "security forces". Perhaps we will use more Iraqi troops as the British did in India with the Sepoy or Gurkas. Perhaps Xi (formerly Blackwater) will fill in the cracks. It's just dishonest to lead people into believing that the U.S. is actually going to be out of Iraq in any significant way. Let's see, who haven't we talked about yet ... has Obama got some love for the People's Republic of North Korea, maybe? He does. <bq>That's why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions –- sanctions that are being vigorously enforced.</bq> Wonderful. Because you can never starve to death enough. It's amazing that people have so internalized the concept of "sanctions" that they can be espoused by a supposedly left-leaning president without his being judged for it. Sanctions are a form of economic violence often more devastating that military violence. Iraq's entire middle-class was destroyed by sanctions. The people against whom the sanctions are aimed---the leadership of the nation being targeted---are almost wholly unaffected. Sanctions do not cause people to rise up against their government; rather, they have the opposite effect. People view the sanctioning country (or organization) as attacking them and their country and they rally around their leaders, no matter how much they hate them. On top of that, any revolutionary fervor engendered among the more right-thinking is quickly subsumed by a struggle to survive in a devastated economy. So good luck with those sanctions; maybe charisma-powered sanctions will finally "work", whatever that means. <bq>We're working with Muslim communities around the world to promote science and education and innovation. We have gone from a bystander to a leader in the fight against climate change. We're helping developing countries to feed themselves, and continuing the fight against HIV/AIDS.</bq> Holy crap! We're <i>so</i> awesome! What was that? A list of cool stuff we want to do when we grow up? When did the U.S. become a leader in climate change? Most Americans (and their representatives) don't even believe it's happening. Obama, as so many before him, says it, so it must be true. Intelligent as he is, his speeches don't swerve much from the prescribed formula. He also mentions that <iq>over 10,000 Americans are working with many nations to help the people of Haiti recover and rebuild.</iq> There are a lot of Americans, but the official representatives of America are soldiers. Every other country sent people trained in rescue and aid; America sent thousands of people trained in mayhem and destruction. Haitians need anesthetics, not machine guns. <bq>And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system -– to secure our borders and enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation.</bq> Again, Obama saunters right up the middle: Each side of the debate can think he agrees with them. What does "play by the rules" mean? Well, that depends which laws are enacted (or allowed to stand). It could mean that laws will be relaxed to feel more like "rules" (left-wing interpretation) or that laws will be strengthened and vigorously enforced (right-wing interpretation). It most likely means that nothing at all will change for the beleaguered immigrants of the U.S. They'll just keep making us cheap T-shirts for a handful of shekels and our undying derision. All in all, a typical Obama speech, with a little something for everyone and no single focus. As mentioned several times, he spoke a few days later at a Republican conference---off-the-cuff, unscripted and without teleprompting---with much more force and conviction. You can watch the video at <a href="http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/291730-1" source="C-Span" author="">Presidential Remarks at Republican Conference</a> (86') and see him thinking on his feet for yourself. It's too bad he let his minders and handlers hem him in for the State of the Union 2010. <hr> <ft>That's actually meant as a compliment; it's a wonderful paragraph even if it doesn't really have anything to to with most people's day-to-day reality.</ft> <ft>See <a href="http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/ib241/" source="Economic Policy Institute">What a recession means for black America</a> for more information. <bq>Even when the national unemployment picture is good, the black unemployment rate is more than twice that of the white unemployment rate. This means that in what looks like good economic times nationally, most of black America is still experiencing a recession. When white America is in recession, black America is in an economic depression.</bq></ft> <ft>Answer: It's because he's not a socialist. Not even close. He's basically quite conservative and well to the right of Nixon. The center of America, as espoused by its wonderful media, has not just drifted, but surged to the right. That's how a conservative like Obama can even be considered left-wing by so many in America.</ft>