Last night President Obama addressed a joint session of Congress by giving the annual State of the Union address. Unfortunately I was not able to watch it as I was out trying to build my business but I did take a moment to read what the Star Tribune had to report. While I recognize this is just one source, even though they do import from other sources, I think they do an adequate job at hitting the high points. I will write more on this topic once I have more other outlets read. That being said, I did see a tidbit in the Star Tribune that caught my eye on what President Obama said last night. President Obama has a renewed focus on jobs and the creation of new jobs.
The area that President Obama plans, or suggests that Congress, focus in on is passing legislation aimed at the green sector. Even though reports from Europe have accurately displayed that green jobs are a net loss, I do applaud President Obama for doing something. The question will be is if he will have the political clout to pull it off after spending it on failed races, a failed bid for the Olympics, and on the Stimulus package that has save nothing. Another aspect of the article about Obama's speech that caught my eye was the announcement of spending freeze to take place in 2011.
In building my business this week I have heard the speeding freeze talked about on various radio stations. My understanding, prior to reading the Star Tribune this morning, that the spending freeze was going to take place this year and last three years and be only freezing 18% of the overall budget. When I first heard that President Obama was looking to enact a spending freeze it made me happy then I heard what was being frozen and that baffled me. As I wondered how he'd be able to get health care, energy, and job bills passed without spending more money but after last night's speech and the announcement of the freeze not taking hold until 2011 I found my answer.
So the plan is then to increase spending this year to heights never seen before and then freeze it at that level. Sounds great but hasn't anyone learned that expansion of government and increased spending does not create sustainable jobs nor does it turn around the economy? I did notice that President Obama mentioned his inheritance, an inheritance similar to President Reagan, and I asked myself why this is relevant. The man ran on hope, change and transparency which not one element has been implemented in this administration. Do not get me wrong, I applaud Obama for looking to freeze the budget but that is just not enough to turn around our economy. More to come but I thought I'd get the ball rolling. What are your thoughts on President Obama's speech? What are your thoughts on his first year in office? What do you think we need to do to move the country forward?
I recognize that the anonymous posting is getting a little out of hand as of late. I hope those that post will continue to post not as anonymous but as another more identifiable name. Please remind yourself that we want to have open, honest and respectful dialogue on The Hamburg Post.
Why do you keep bringing up the Olympics? Do you think the American voters are holding that one against him? I have honestly forgotten about it. It really seems to be a non-issue for the public.
ReplyDeleteHe also mentioned plans to eliminate the trillion in deficit that has been rung up under his watch in the next 10 years and wants to implement a joint group to find ways to reduce the trillions rung up by Bush.
I do agree that the freeze seems a little disingenious to do after a year of increased spending. In a way, it reminds me of how the Twins have handled their budget and the new stadium. They kept saying that they would be able to increase their budget by X percent when they moved into stadium. Then in 08 they drastically reduced the overall payroll. So essentially, they are adding not nearly as much as one was lead to believe.
What did he say we would do? I heard Chris Matthews forgot he was black.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I understand what you are referring to.
ReplyDelete"Now, even as health care reform would reduce our deficit, it’s not enough to dig us out of a massive fiscal hole in which we find ourselves. It’s a challenge that makes all others that much harder to solve, and one that’s been subject to a lot of political posturing.
ReplyDeleteSo let me start the discussion of government spending by setting the record straight. At the beginning of the last decade, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. By the time I took office, we had a one year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. That was before I walked in the door.
Now if we had taken office in ordinary times, I would have liked nothing more than to start bringing down the deficit. But we took office amid a crisis, and our efforts to prevent a second Depression have added another $1 trillion to our national debt.
I am absolutely convinced that was the right thing to do. But families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same. So tonight, I’m proposing specific steps to pay for the $1 trillion that it took to rescue the economy last year.
Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. 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.
We will continue to go through the budget line by line to eliminate programs that we can’t afford and don’t work. We’ve already identified $20 billion in savings for next year. To help working families, we will extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, investment fund managers, and those making over $250,000 a year. We just can’t afford it.
Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we will still face the massive deficit we had when I took office. More importantly, the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will continue to skyrocket. That’s why I’ve called for a bipartisan, Fiscal Commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can’t be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The Commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans. And when the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason why we had record surpluses in the 1990s."
Toph
ReplyDeleteYou will not get an argument from me that republican leaders spent like liberals over the past eight years. The final two years of bush was with a democrat led congress. The spending freeze is a good start but it falls short. $20 billion is a drop in the bucket. That is like me saying I am going to feeeze my spending on pop consumption which is less than one dollar a week. Plus adding an executive order for a fiscal commission sidesteps the seperation of powers put forth by the constitution. Again I ask what is going to take place that will right the ship. History has proven that tax cuts, reduced government spending, and allowing the private sector to work creates sustainable jobs not the government. So why are we not reducing entitlements and looking to make real change?
When was the last time we had tax cuts and reduced spending? Not in the Bush years. Not in the Reagan years. If you can tell me when in history, I'd be happy to look into it but it doesn't seem like it's in recent history.
ReplyDeleteFurther, he said that the government can only do so much to create jobs and that private sector has to create jobs. He laid out several inititives to help this.
He didn't say they were done looking, either. 20 billion was what was currently found. And he vowed to continue to go through the budget and use the veto if necessary. You asked what did he say, that's what he said. Now if he doesn't do it, then it's a problem.
I think he is working for change. Just because you don't agree with what he's doing, doesn't mean it's not change.
Chris, you sound like Herbert Hoover in the 1930's when he advocated and received freezes on Federal spending which directly contributed to another 7 years of the Great Depression.
ReplyDeleteA better way to reduce spending of government dollars would be to increase the Inspector General's office to monitor for fraud, provide transparency and impove oversight of spending. A second would be to end both wars as soon as is humanly possible. A third, increase some taxes - specifically those relating to corporate capital gains and high risk proprietary trading by businesses. This would dip into the profits of those very individuals that were directly and knowingly responsible for the economic downturn. (that in no way minimalizes the poor choices by millions of americans)
Combine all of that with a reinstatement of a required balanced Federal budget as well as pay-as-you-go legislation requirements and aggressive regulation of the banking industry to separate the proprietary trading and lending wings of these instututions to remove the possibility of "too big to fail".
I think those would be good places to start and would have a larger impact on the federal deficit than freezing the discretionary spending.
Toph...we did have a tax cut under Reagan and the Bush tax cuts are set to expire at year end. Now, we did not see reduced spending under Bush.
ReplyDeleteGovernment does not create sustainable jobs; rather the public sector does. If the Stimulus package that was passed to get us out of the decline we are in then why are we hearing talks of using paid back TARP funds and new stimulus packages taking place? Because Government cannot spend its way out nor can it create jobs.
President Obama did leave it $20B. He vowed not to touch military, Medicare, Medicaid, or SSN. What does that leave us with? And this will all take place after any spending done on Health Care Reform, Energy, and job creations. Again, we were told that the Reivestment Act was suppose to keep unemployment under 8% and create millions of jobs. Neither one took place.
The only change I see out of the White House is the pennies in my pocket.
Kevin..I agree that freezing spending is not a cure all; rather we need to reduce spending. I did see this afternoon that Congress increased the debt limit to an unstainable level. I am open to the Inspector General's office to monitor more.
ReplyDeleteIt was not the greedy Wall Street tycoons that got us in the mess. I think we should require any Congress member that voted for and believed that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were solvent ought to pay back their salaries. It was Congress that pushed the concept that everyone has the RIGHT to own a home and those in the banking industry found avenues to fit that.
I am all behind a balanced Federal budget requirement and also like to see that no amendments be allowed to be attached to bills - i.e. Hate Crimes expansion being attached to the Defense Spending bill.
If the bill has merit let it stand on its own.
How does the executive order mentioned above violate the separation of powers limitations in the Constitution?
ReplyDeleteAnon..no where in the Constitution does the President have explicit right to use executive orders. Although they have been used in the past by many president, they are have been restricted to the operation of federal agencies, the operation of the executive branch, and to carry out other statutory presidential duties.
ReplyDeleteOne of those duties does not include calling for a Fiscal Committee made up of elected members of Congress. Now, the president could use the executive order to call a special session of Congress. We have seen the executive order used to circumvent the Constitution in the past. Ask yourself when the last time that Congress issued a Declaration of War?
Even though the President overseas foreign affairs, the president does not have the Constitutional ability to wage war at will. Vietnam is the first war that I recall that Congress did not issue a Declaration of War on and sent America down a slippery slope every since.
Are you suggesting that all executive orders have been and continue to be unconstitutional? Do you honestly believe that a President would issue an unconstitutional executive order considering the resources (in terms of great legal minds) available to him? It just doesn't seem plausible.
ReplyDeleteI am not saying that all executive orders violate the Constitution, but that being said the great legal minds you speak of have become more of political pawns than staying the course of law. Case in point, President Bush and his administration consulted with lawyers to determine if waterboarding and other methods of interrogation were torture. In so, if the methods were deemed torture then would it be in violation of the Geneva Convention. The lawyers gave President Bush the green light. Now comes along President Obama and his team of lawyers who say that waterboarding is torture and violates the Geneva Convention. Who is correct? Which great legal minds do we listen to?
ReplyDeleteJust look at the Supreme Court's latest decision too. The President lambasted the decision because it would allow foreign corporation to donate or run ads in elections. The trouble is that the case dealt nothing with foreign corporations and the Court decided in a 5-4 vote based on ideological lines. If the Supreme Court is suppose to uphold the Constitution why is there such a rift in this decision on free speech?
Executive Orders have gone unchecked and by allowing that to take place we have seen abuses in them. I went back to re-read my pocket Constitution on the Executive Branch and I still cannot find where the President of the United States has the ability to submit an executive order.
Imagine what the world would think of us and how our budget may look if we struck down the executive orders by the President just in the cases where war was ordered. Only Congress can issue a Declaration of War not the Executive or the Judicial Branch of government.
We didn't see reduced spending under Reagan, either. My larger point, which I don't think I articulated well, was lost. You said "History has proven that tax cuts, reduced government spending, and allowing the private sector to work creates sustainable jobs not the government."
ReplyDeleteI just want to know when in history you are referring to that we had tax cuts, reduced spending, and job creation based on the private sector alone? Like I said earlier, I'll happy to look into it when you point me in the direction. Even if it is a state or other country. I just can't think of anytime in recent history. I know Pawlenty has cut spending, not sure on taxes, and I know that hasn't worked out very well.
I don't believe we can tax our way out of this anymore than we can spend our way out. But tax cuts to the private sector, even if they do create some jobs, will take time to create. Spending now, when done in the right way, creates jobs immediately. It's about finding the right balance.
I don't know what the balance is and you don't. How can I be so sure you don't, you might ask? Because the top economic minds in the country disagree.
And the President didn't leave it at 20 billion. He said to date they had identified 20 billion and that they will CONTINUE to go through the budget line by line.
Reagan cut the capital gains tax rate and the top income tax rate for individuals. Reagan did slash spending on social programs but did raise spending on military in a successful attempt to end the Cold War. I forget the exact number but millions of jobs were created during Reagan's administration.
ReplyDeleteDuring the debates in 2008, we heard how effective the capital gains tax cut was in increasing revenues to the Federal Government. Are we at a happy medium right now? I am not sure on that.
Spending now will not create sustainable jobs and that is what our economy needs. We do not need a flush of temporary jobs to kick start it. Now I was happy to hear the president touch on nuclear energy as that is a great way to create jobs now and sustainable jobs in the future. I'd like to see Obama remove the Carter executive order so each state can start builing nuclear reactors.
So, by your own admission, Reagan cut taxes and spent money. You agree he ran up the deficit, right?
ReplyDeleteIf we are talking about over his entire tenure then yes but to get us out of the rutt we experience with Carter I'd say no. The cuts Reagan made and by not interferring with the private sector, i.e. bailouts, he allowed for America to grow in the best way possible to which history can attest.
ReplyDeleteBailouts and nationalization of the private sector is not going to improve America. If that were the case the USSR would still be a super power. Socialism does not work, big government does not work.
Despite the fact that his first budget added 70 billion to the deficit and every year of his presidency added to the deficit.
ReplyDeleteSo if you are not saying that all executive orders are unconstitutional, then why is this particular one unconstitutional? While the comparison to the torture issue is instructive, it's an apples and oranges comparison. Torture vs. deficits? Quite different.
ReplyDeleteFinally, let's be clear that there was no "nationalization of the private sector" under Obama. It's misleading to say so and then conveniently mention the USSR. Yes, there was government intervention and some control, but it was limited, temporary and absolutely essential to saving our economy from a depression or collapse.
The only reason torture vs. deficit is apples to oranges is because of the nature of each item. They are not apples to oranges when it comes to issuing an executive order however.
ReplyDeleteObama did "Nationalize" the private sector as we still own controlling shares in Chryslers and GM. We, the Obama administration, still pulls the strings as to who the CEO is or is not. That is nationalization. Unlike the banks, we still own GM and Chrysler. Ironically it was Ford that has come out the best without government control.
The beauty of the free market and Capitalism is that there is no such thing as Too Big Too Fail. If a company goes under there will be others there to pick up the slack. That is of course if Government does not intervene as it did with TARP.
Why, in your view, is this executive order unconstitutional?
ReplyDeleteI'm still waiting for the "when" in the "history has proven" comment. Is it the earlier years of the Reagan administration you are referring to above that seem, well, unlikely?
ReplyDeleteYou continue to avoid answering it. Which seems strange, because I would assume you had support for it when you made it, otherwise it would be irresponsible to make that comment.
Reagan cut the top tax rate and cut capital gains tax rate when he came into office. The result, per the CATO Institute, was "real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent compared to 2.8 during Carter and 2.1 during Bush-Clinton years. Real median family income rose by $4000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1500 post-Reagan." Plus, tax revenue increased. I do not have the exact number but it was discussed in when McCain and Obama sparred in a town hall format.
ReplyDeleteI did talk about in a blog earlier, will have to search it out though...
Still waiting for an answer on why you, Ardent Viper, believe that this executive order is unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteSimply put, I do not see where in the Constitution that gives the President or anyone in the Executive branch the authority to issue an executive order. If you can enlighten me, I appreciate it.
ReplyDeleteStop turning the question back on me. You made the claim that this executive order was unconstitutional and I would like to know why you believe that to be the case.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that you do not see explicit language in the Constitution granting the President the right to issue an executive order is a non-answer. There are any number of powers and/or privileges which are exercised by any of the three branches of government that are not explicitly set forth in the Constitution. That does not automatically make them unconstitutional.
Please keep in mind that virtually every President has issued executive orders; even George Washington issued a few. The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order.
In the end, it may simply be that you jumped the gun and just couldn't wait to cry foul. What do I mean by this? Obama hasn't even issued an executive order to establish the commission. Before you say it though, I'll be sure to state that he's not reviewing the constitutionality of such a commission. He's hoping Congress will act of its own volition.
I acknowledge that President Washington issued the first executive order to inform his department heads to keep "clear account" of thier dealings. I recognize, as I stated above that certain aspects of communication within the Executive Branch is done via the Executive Order. The Executive Order, to me, is a lot like a memo issued by the President to establish guidelines for the Executive Branch.
ReplyDeleteThe trouble is that we have seen an abuse of this power in recent decades. That is where I raise the Constitutional flag. You are correct that President Obama has not issued an Executive Order to establish a Fiscal Commission but he threatened the Legislative Branch of our Government with it. It is not the role of the President to establish such a commission nor is it Presidential to threaten another Branch of our Government. When I hear threats like that it resonates Tyranny to me.
The Supreme Court has decided that Executive Orders were unconstitutional. Case in point was President Truman's Executive Order to seize (nationalize) steel mills during the Korean War. Now the Supreme Court should have made similiar decisions when past president's used the Executive Order to deploy troops to fight a war that was not declared by Congress.
Much like Implied Consent, the Executive Order has been interpretted to exist from the Constitution even though the words do not exist. The phrase many point to is in Article II, Section 3 that states, "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." As I said, Executive Orders are not in the Constitution and since they carry the same weight as enacting law in the land they should be considered Unconstitutional as the Legislative Branch is the only branch of Government that can make laws.