What's It Worth?
What Did Obama Omit From His State of the Union Address?
Speaking last night from the U.S. Capitol, President Barack Obama described the state of the Union as he sees it — strong and getting stronger, with future growth fueled by his pursuit of progressive policies and an expansion of government, all architected to bring about his brand of “fairness.” The President essentially redelivered his 2011 State of the Union address — complete with the same empty rhetoric, class warfare cloaked in “fairness,” and proposals for massive tax and spending increases.
The speech was notable for the items he did not mention, including many of the failed spending programs and policies he undertook over the past three years, the foreign policy and defense challenges he has exacerbated, and the economic actions he failed to take that would have created jobs and spurred economic growth.
Governor Mitch Daniels (R-IN), who delivered the response to the State of the Union address, shined a light on those titanic omissions — the state of America’s economic and fiscal crises, the President’s promise to fix them, and his failure to do anything but make matters worse, all amid a trillion dollars in stimulus spending and a rapidly expanding bureaucracy:
The percentage of Americans with a job is at the lowest in decades. One in five men of prime working age, and nearly half of all persons under 30, did not go to work today.
In three short years, an unprecedented explosion of spending, with borrowed money, has added trillions to an already unaffordable national debt. And yet, the President has put us on a course to make it radically worse in the years ahead. The federal government now spends one of every four dollars in the entire economy; it borrows one of every three dollars it spends.
Apart from the truth about the depths of America’s unemployment crisis and the scope of government spending, the President barely mentioned his signature legislative item, Obamacare, which is facing a Supreme Court constitutional challenge; Social Security and the country’s entitlement crisis; his decision to say “no” to the Keystone XL pipeline and the jobs it would bring with it; the Solyndra scandal and the failures of his green energy initiatives; the illegality of his appointments to the Consumer Financial Protection Board and the National Labor Relations Board; the Senate’s failure to pass a budget for 1,000 days under the leadership of his own party; the high costs that his additional regulations bring with them; his party’s opposition to free trade agreements; the fraudulent elections in Russia; the ongoing collapse of the Euro; warnings about his decision to slash defense spending; the remaining challenges in Afghanistan; and the violence that has erupted in Iraq after the departure of U.S. troops.
It’s not surprising, of course, that the President would want to hide from his failures, but it’s troubling to see that he plans to continue on the progressive course he has set for the country. In the President’s words, “We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.”
This “fairness” argument, which the President cloaked in the most moderate of terms, lays the foundation for a wholesale deconstruction of America as we know it. Instead of a country where individuals are free to rise and fall on their own merits, the President seeks a system where an all-powerful federal government guarantees equal outcomes, regardless of one’s merit. The Heritage Foundation’s Matthew Spalding explains:
In [Obama's] view, “fairness” flows not from opportunity and freedom of the individual, but from more government power, federal education programs, economic regulations, and infrastructure spending. And, of course, raising taxes on the wealthy to pay for these “investments” would only be fair.
Such policy prescriptions lead to a governing class that insists on enforcing political and economic ‘fairness’ rather than letting us govern ourselves, choose our own vocations and earn our own success. The idea that the government can and should step in to guarantee economic fairness is contrary to the founding principles that make America so great-and that enable its citizens to achieve success. It is contrary to the very meaning of the American Dream.
The United States faces significant challenges: a $15 trillion debt, 13.1 million unemployed Americans, exploding entitlement and health care costs, a broken education system, a military in disrepair, the continued threat of terrorism, a nuclear Iran, and the ongoing war in Afghanistan, among others. There is hope, but it does not emanate from a bigger, more powerful federal government that squelches entrepreneurship, ignores our fiscal crisis, and disregards the need for a strong national defense. The President says the state of the Union is getting stronger, but he is doing very little to ensure that happens.
The Heritage Foundation’s analysts provided in-depth, issue-by-issue expert analysis of last night’s State of the Union address. You can find our 2012 Reaction Roundup on The Foundry blog.
What did Mr. Smith omit when he cut & pasted this piece? Oh yes, where he lifted if from and what author he is stealing from.
A glaring omission was his avoidance of any mention about his undaunted support for Obamacare! He spent two years, and countless lying about Obamacare, and then helped to ram it through against the will of the people. Two years effort? Why not be proud of it. No mention of Obamacare?
clinchknot, clinchknot, clinchknot,
Ram it through??? Please.
You said so yourself, 18 months (not 2 years) was spent on this landmark legislation,...nothing was rammed.
You wanna see ramming? Wait until Obama is re-elected and the House switches leadership.
Need to pick up a few Senate seats though to beat that silly 60 vote cloture rule.
I like it when people say something was "rammed" down their throats. I must have heard that a million times from those fun loving Fox denizens. The imagery is simply sinful.
Oh, and it's the Heritage Foundation.
None of you care to hear truth? Why am I not surprised?
It wasn't rammed down our throats?
Wasn't it Nancy Pelosi that said, "We have to pass the healthcare, so you can find out what is in it?"
And due to opposition to the healthcare bill, wasn't she also the one that said, "You go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, you go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole-vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in. But we’re going to get health care reform passed for the American people." I pretty sure at the time, 2 out of 3 Americans did not want the legislation.
Ramming??? I think that is a good way to put it.
I see the usual bozo's did nt like your post Freek, don't worry about it. You all know I care less what they think.
Believe me brother, I could care less as well. it just annoys me when some people live in fantasy world, and they have selective memories about liberal idiocy.
hoski..18 mo. and lots of attempts by Republicans to debate what was in the bill. Changes were made. The last changes were never debated, or even disgust. Just passed in by the democrats with Pelosi saying, "Pass it, because so we can see what is in it" Does that sound like GOP participation? The polls overwhelmingly stated that the voters, the people didn't want it. I think the appropriate word was "rammed through"
whitetailfreek,
Forgive me for not getting back to this thread as I was temporarily sidetracked by an imposter.
When you (and others) refer to the ACA as being rammed down our throats, I always point out the fact that over 18 months was spent on the legislation...hardly what anyone could consider being rammed.
To your point of N. Pelosi's most unfortunate words, you are absolutely correct, they were thoughtless.
A quick check of "fact check" produced the following.
Despite the partisan vote on the bill, the fact is that the Affordable Care Act was a product of exhaustive bipartisan compromise. Indeed, some of the most important provisions in the bill were actually GOP ideas:
A high-risk pool for uninsured people with preexisting conditions
Allowing insurance companies to sell coverage across state lines
Pools where the self-employed and small businesses could buy insurance
In February, The Washington Post's Ezra Klein described in detail how all four health care planks on the GOP's Solutions for America website were incorporated into the bill. In fact, even the individual mandate itself has a strong history of support within the Republican Party, including from the Heritage Foundation, Mitt Romney and Chuck Grassley.
According to a HELP Committee document about bipartisan aspects of the health reform bill the committee passed July 15, 2009, its final bill included "161 Republican amendments," including "several amendments from Senators [Mike] Enzi [R-WY], [Tom] Coburn [R-OK], [Pat] Roberts [R-KS] and others [that] make certain that nothing in the legislation will allow for rationing of care," and reflected the efforts of "six bipartisan working groups" that "met a combined 72 times" in 2009 as well as "30 bipartisan hearings on health care reform" since 2007, half of which were held in 2009 [HELP Committee document, 7/09]. And according to the Senate Finance Committee's September 22, 2009, document detailing the amendments to the Chairman's Mark considered, at least 13 amendments sponsored by one or more Republican senators were included in the bill.
Post a Reply
What did Mr. Smith omit when he cut & pasted this piece? Oh yes, where he lifted if from and what author he is stealing from.
None of you care to hear truth? Why am I not surprised?
whitetailfreek,
Forgive me for not getting back to this thread as I was temporarily sidetracked by an imposter.
When you (and others) refer to the ACA as being rammed down our throats, I always point out the fact that over 18 months was spent on the legislation...hardly what anyone could consider being rammed.
To your point of N. Pelosi's most unfortunate words, you are absolutely correct, they were thoughtless.
A quick check of "fact check" produced the following.
Despite the partisan vote on the bill, the fact is that the Affordable Care Act was a product of exhaustive bipartisan compromise. Indeed, some of the most important provisions in the bill were actually GOP ideas:
A high-risk pool for uninsured people with preexisting conditions
Allowing insurance companies to sell coverage across state lines
Pools where the self-employed and small businesses could buy insurance
In February, The Washington Post's Ezra Klein described in detail how all four health care planks on the GOP's Solutions for America website were incorporated into the bill. In fact, even the individual mandate itself has a strong history of support within the Republican Party, including from the Heritage Foundation, Mitt Romney and Chuck Grassley.
According to a HELP Committee document about bipartisan aspects of the health reform bill the committee passed July 15, 2009, its final bill included "161 Republican amendments," including "several amendments from Senators [Mike] Enzi [R-WY], [Tom] Coburn [R-OK], [Pat] Roberts [R-KS] and others [that] make certain that nothing in the legislation will allow for rationing of care," and reflected the efforts of "six bipartisan working groups" that "met a combined 72 times" in 2009 as well as "30 bipartisan hearings on health care reform" since 2007, half of which were held in 2009 [HELP Committee document, 7/09]. And according to the Senate Finance Committee's September 22, 2009, document detailing the amendments to the Chairman's Mark considered, at least 13 amendments sponsored by one or more Republican senators were included in the bill.
A glaring omission was his avoidance of any mention about his undaunted support for Obamacare! He spent two years, and countless lying about Obamacare, and then helped to ram it through against the will of the people. Two years effort? Why not be proud of it. No mention of Obamacare?
clinchknot, clinchknot, clinchknot,
Ram it through??? Please.
You said so yourself, 18 months (not 2 years) was spent on this landmark legislation,...nothing was rammed.
You wanna see ramming? Wait until Obama is re-elected and the House switches leadership.
Need to pick up a few Senate seats though to beat that silly 60 vote cloture rule.
I like it when people say something was "rammed" down their throats. I must have heard that a million times from those fun loving Fox denizens. The imagery is simply sinful.
Oh, and it's the Heritage Foundation.
It wasn't rammed down our throats?
Wasn't it Nancy Pelosi that said, "We have to pass the healthcare, so you can find out what is in it?"
And due to opposition to the healthcare bill, wasn't she also the one that said, "You go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, you go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole-vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in. But we’re going to get health care reform passed for the American people." I pretty sure at the time, 2 out of 3 Americans did not want the legislation.
Ramming??? I think that is a good way to put it.
I see the usual bozo's did nt like your post Freek, don't worry about it. You all know I care less what they think.
Believe me brother, I could care less as well. it just annoys me when some people live in fantasy world, and they have selective memories about liberal idiocy.
hoski..18 mo. and lots of attempts by Republicans to debate what was in the bill. Changes were made. The last changes were never debated, or even disgust. Just passed in by the democrats with Pelosi saying, "Pass it, because so we can see what is in it" Does that sound like GOP participation? The polls overwhelmingly stated that the voters, the people didn't want it. I think the appropriate word was "rammed through"
Post a Reply