State of the Union: Is the USA a Major Competitor?

Riley Sweeney is communications chair of the Whatcom Democrats and works as a campaign manager for local candidates. A 2008 graduate of Western Washington University with a degree in communication, Riley is originally from Olympia where he got his feet wet in politics. Read his blog: sweeneyblog.wordpress.com

Editor’s Note: On January 25, 2011, President Obama addressed both houses of Congress and the nation to speak about the state of our union. This tradition is drawn directly from the Constitution: “He shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution

The State of the Union address seems like a noble idea – the chief executive reports back to the legislative branch and the nation his intentions and philosophy for the coming year, right? Sometimes these speeches can be lively, with the president introducing far-reaching concepts and plans (think Bush 2003 with the buildup toward the war in Iraq and “Yellow Cake Uranium”). Or we find it’s just a rehash of old fights, laying out lines of attack on opponents or changing the national dialogue.

Today, I’ll provide some local analysis into the content and tricks of the trade used in this State of the Union address, as well as note the Republican response. I am going to try and avoid vague comments on the theme because there are plenty of other places to find those comments. I will look specifically at what Obama promised and how he promised to do it.

As you might have gathered from the news coverage, the president’s main ideas revolved around long-term planning for a solid economic future – in short, “Winning the Future.” So what did he promise to make that happen?

“We can break our dependence on oil with biofuels, and become the first country to have one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.” Wow, is this a tall order? President Bush had promised hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in almost every one of his State of the Union addresses but never followed through with the funding and initiative. President Obama promised to fund this measure by cutting the tax incentives we currently give to oil companies.

In a similar vein, “by 2035, 80 percent of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources. Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal and natural gas.” President Obama has been a fan of clean coal (to the disappointment of much of his liberal base) for many years. He supported Clean Coal initiatives as a state senator in Illinois.

On the other hand, the stimulus package passed in 2009 was the largest financial investment in wind and solar energy . . . ever. We will see how he shepherds this initiative through, but I’m excited to see a sharp focus on renewable energy, especially one that is not accompanied by “Drill, Baby, Drill!”

President Obama spent a solid third of his speech on education going over his education program, “Race to the Top.” Conceived as a response to “No Child Left Behind” (which cut off failing schools when they did not make the test), “Race to the Top” offers money to schools that are showing improvement, encouraging teachers to try new methods of engaging their students. It has been much less controversial and by many measures, more successful than previous methods. Obama made a personal plea to the young people of America, urging them to become teachers: “We want to prepare 100,000 new teachers in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math,” the president said.

The president reiterated his support for repairing our roads and bridges and building high-speed rail. Right now, the proposed high-speed rail line would run from Vancouver, BC to Portland, OR and continue south into California. This long-term project is scheduled for the next ten to twenty years, but would greatly reduce the sea of I-5 commuters.

The last leg of his speech addressed the debt. Obama proposed a freeze on domestic spending, a move which was surprising to those of us who heard his first half of the speech talking about investing in infrastructure. He proposed a restructuring of all levels of government to eliminate redundancies and, most importantly, to remove government regulation that does not provide for the common good (i.e., protecting our food, safety, etc.).

The president concluded by noting some of his accomplishments in the past year: the continued drawdown in Iraq, as well as the support of democracy using diplomacy in nations around the world. Additionally, he noted the call on Congress to set aside scoring points and just get solutions passed.

The Republican response was delivered by Paul Ryan, Republican congressman from Wisconsin, most famous for his plan, as chairman of the budget committee, to severely curb Social Security benefits and turn Medicare into a voucher program. His response painted a grim picture of our country: “We face a crushing burden of debt. The debt will soon eclipse our entire economy, and grow to catastrophic levels in the years ahead ... Job creation is being stifled by all of its taxes, penalties, mandates and fees.”

Ryan laid out some short statements on the Republican’s vision and role of government and promised: “Our forthcoming budget is our obligation to you – to show you how we intend to do things differently ... how we will cut spending to get the debt down ... help create jobs and prosperity ... and reform government programs.” He railed against the Obama administration saying that they will “transform our social safety net into a hammock, which lulls able-bodied people into lives of complacency and dependency.”

The most striking difference between the two speeches was the lack of concrete promises in the Republican response. Both contained a great deal of rhetoric, talking about the role of government and the economy, but the president laid out a number of specific programs he wanted to enact or do away with, while the Republican response seemed to say: “Wait, and see our budget.” §