State of the Union 2010: Integrity FAIL.
 

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100128/D9DGKDT00.html

By CALVIN WOODWARD


WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama told Americans the bipartisan deficit commission he will appoint won't just be "one of those Washington gimmicks." Left unspoken in that assurance was the fact that the commission won't have any teeth.

Obama confronted some tough realities in his State of the Union speech Wednesday night, chief among them that Americans are continuing to lose their health insurance as Congress struggles to pass an overhaul.

Yet some of his ideas for moving ahead skirted the complex political circumstances standing in his way.

A look at some of Obama's claims and how they compare with the facts:

---

OBAMA: "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."

THE FACTS: The anticipated savings from this proposal would amount to less than 1 percent of the deficit - and that's if the president can persuade Congress to go along.

Obama is a convert to the cause of broad spending freezes. In the presidential campaign, he criticized Republican opponent John McCain for suggesting one. "The problem with a spending freeze is you're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel," he said a month before the election. Now, Obama wants domestic spending held steady in most areas where the government can control year-to-year costs. The proposal is similar to McCain's.

---

OBAMA: "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."

THE FACTS: Any commission that Obama creates would be a weak substitute for what he really wanted - a commission created by Congress that could force lawmakers to consider unpopular remedies to reduce the debt, including curbing politically sensitive entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. That idea crashed in the Senate this week, defeated by equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. Any commission set up by Obama alone would lack authority to force its recommendations before Congress, and would stand almost no chance of success.

---

OBAMA: Discussing his health care initiative, he said, "Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan."

THE FACTS: The Democratic legislation now hanging in limbo on Capitol Hill aims to keep people with employer-sponsored coverage - the majority of Americans under age 65 - in the plans they already have. But Obama can't guarantee people won't see higher rates or fewer benefits in their existing plans. Because of elements such as new taxes on insurance companies, insurers could change what they offer or how much it costs. Moreover, Democrats have proposed a series of changes to the Medicare program for people 65 and older that would certainly pinch benefits enjoyed by some seniors. The Congressional Budget Office has predicted cuts for those enrolled in private Medicare Advantage plans.

---

OBAMA: The president issued a populist broadside against lobbyists, saying they have "outsized influence" over the government. He said his administration has "excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs." He also said it's time to "require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or Congress" and "to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office."

THE FACTS: Obama has limited the hiring of lobbyists for administration jobs, but the ban isn't absolute; seven waivers from the ban have been granted to White House officials alone. Getting lobbyists to report every contact they make with the federal government would be difficult at best; Congress would have to change the law, and that's unlikely to happen. And lobbyists already are subject to strict limits on political giving. Just like every other American, they're limited to giving $2,400 per election to federal candidates, with an overall ceiling of $115,500 every two years.

---

OBAMA: "Because of the steps we took, there are about 2 million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. ... And we are on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year."

THE FACTS: The success of the Obama-pushed economic stimulus that Congress approved early last year has been an ongoing point of contention. In December, the administration reported that recipients of direct assistance from the government created or saved about 650,000 jobs. The number was based on self-reporting by recipients and some of the calculations were shown to be in error.

The Congressional Budget Office has been much more guarded than Obama in characterizing the success of the stimulus plan. In November, it reported that the stimulus increased the number of people employed by between 600,000 and 1.6 million "compared with what those values would have been otherwise." It said the ranges "reflect the uncertainty of such estimates." And it added, "It is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package."

---

OBAMA: He called for action by the White House and Congress "to do our work openly, and to give our people the government they deserve."

THE FACTS: Obama skipped past a broken promise from his campaign - to have the negotiations for health care legislation broadcast on C-SPAN "so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies." Instead, Democrats in the White House and Congress have conducted the usual private negotiations, making multibillion-dollar deals with hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and other stakeholders behind closed doors. Nor has Obama lived up consistently to his pledge to ensure that legislation is posted online for five days before it's acted upon.

---

OBAMA: "The United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades."

THE FACTS: Despite insisting early last year that they would complete the negotiations in time to avoid expiration of the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in early December, the U.S. and Russia failed to do so. And while officials say they think a deal on a new treaty is within reach, there has been no breakthrough. A new round of talks is set to start Monday. One important sticking point: disagreement over including missile defense issues in a new accord. If completed, the new deal may arguably be the farthest-reaching arms control treaty since the original 1991 agreement. An interim deal reached in 2002 did not include its own rules on verifying nuclear reductions.

---

OBAMA: Drawing on classified information, he claimed more success than his predecessor at killing terrorists: "And in the last year, hundreds of al-Qaida's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed - far more than in 2008."

THE FACTS: It is an impossible claim to verify. Neither the Bush nor the Obama administration has published enemy body counts, particularly those targeted by armed drones in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region. The pace of drone attacks has increased dramatically in the last 18 months, according to congressional officials briefed on the secret program.

---

Associated Press writers Jim Kuhnhenn, Jim Drinkard, Erica Werner, Robert Burns and Pamela Hess contributed to this report.

Obama restates plans: Leave Iraq, end gay ban (http://www.militarytimes.com/news/20...union_012710w/)


In his first State of the Union address Wednesday, President Obama said he is moving to keep his campaign promises. That includes getting U.S. combat troops out of Iraq by the end of August, focusing military might against terrorism and working this year to repeal the controversial “don’t ask, don’t tell policy.”

The first two issues have wide bipartisan support. His brief mention about his promise to try to end the military’s gay ban was a disappointment to those pushing for change but enough to provoke strong words from those opposed to change.

He also may have launched a battle within the Democratic party of plans to freeze federal spending for non-defense agencies for three years. The budget freeze, which would not apply to Social Security, Medicare and national security programs, would take effect with the fiscal 2011 budget.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi indicated before the speech she disagreed with the idea of exempting the defense budget, a sign that the economic plan could be in trouble.

Pelosi’s break with the administration was called “reckless and wholly irresponsible in time of war” by the veterans’ service organization Amvets. “Politics aside, our men and women are in the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. They need our continued support while overseas and long after they return home. Abandoning our military and our veterans to balance the budget is not an option,” the group said in a statement.

On the gay ban, Obama said nothing new.

“This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are,” he said, to the applause of most — but not all — Democrats sitting in the House chamber to hear the speech. Most Republicans sat silent.

His remarks were a bit anti-climatic after a key lawmaker said earlier this week that he had been asked to delay the announcement of hearings into changing the policy by administration officials until after Obama’s speech. That request for a delay raised expectations that the commander in chief was going to announce something specific, like a plan to appoint a commission to study the issue or that he now had senior military leaders on board to support a policy change.

While saying little on the ban, Obama did elicit opposition. Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon of California, ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said Wednesday that he saw no reason to change the law.

“With America’s sons and daughters fighting two wars, I’ve seen no data that would convince me that changing the current law or the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy would make their jobs easier or improve overall military readiness,” McKeon said.

“The ability of members of Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, to make a fully informed judgment about whether the current law should be amended or repealed is heavily dependent upon an ability to obtain objective and comprehensive information from the military services — not partisan political appointees or advocacy groups. If the military services have not done the in-depth analysis to conclusively answer the fundamental questions, then this issue is not ripe for discussion,” McKeon said.

Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, a strong supporter of the current law, said Obama is “out of touch” as commander in chief because there is “no national desire” repeal the policy. The only people pushing for change, she said, are civilian members of the gay rights community who “expect political payback regardless of the heavy burdens and problems that would be imposed on our men and women in the military.”

Before Obama’s speech, retired Army Gen. John Shalikashvili, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who had been urging caution in changing the law, said the time for change has come.

“When I was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, my support of the current policy was based on my belief that implementing a change in the rules would have been too burdensome for our troops and commanders at the time,” he said. “The concern among many at that time was that letting people who were openly gay serve would lower morale, harm recruitment and undermine unit cohesion.”

Sen. Kirsten E. Gillibrand, D-N.Y., chief sponsor of Senate legislation to repeal the gay ban, said Obama’s speech “marks the beginning of a new era of equality and justice in America.

“The military’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy is an unfair, outdated measure that violates the civil rights of some of our bravest, most heroic men and women,” Gillibrand said.

On Iraq, Obama said the U.S. combat mission is coming to an end. “We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August,” he said to bipartisan applause.

“We are responsibly leaving Iraq to its people,” he said. “We will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promotion regional peace and prosperity. But, make no mistake, this war is ending and all of our troops are coming home.”

Sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan is part of “renewed” focus “on the terrorists who threatened our nation,” Obama said.

“We are increasing our troops and training Afghan security forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011, and our troops can begin to come home,” he said. “There will be difficult days ahead but I am absolutely confident we will succeed.”

Congrats. To the military times for being references on a fox news report concerning DADT.

POTUS showed poor taste in the remarks concerning SCOTUS. I dont blame Alito for what he did. The remark was hypocritical since he declined to take public financing in the 2008 election. If your gonna rail on a court decision like that you better be railing on the money involved in 527 groups, PACs, and the unions for that matter also.

Or actually understand the ruling. He was either knowingly dishonest about what the decision meant, or he was horribly incompetent.

I remember Ronald Reagan's "Trillion Dollar" speech not long after he took office. He tried to put the national debt at the time in perspective by saying that a stack of dollar bills totalling a trillion dollars would easily reach the moon. In Reagan's day, a trillion dollars was the total sum of the American national debt up to that point. It had taken over four decades to reach that point.

The current administration and congress have, by contrast, overspent 1.35 trillion in a single year. I'm not absolving RR of his overspending. He certainly made his contribution. But 1.35 trillion in a single year is disgusting.

We see eye to eye here. One of my biggest raised-eybrow moments was when he was talking about the spending that went on before he took office, when he voted for a majority (if not all) of the spending bills during his time as a senator.

Actually I did, but did you? Are you now? I get the impression that you werent paying attention to things during the clinton administration since you are hopping on the "past 8 years" rhetoric. I couldnt stand Bush as a president because he was liberal-lite. That said, he did experience two economic bubble bursts during his presidency, one at the beginning and one at the end. The .com bubble burst largely due to the clinton administration and we all know what brought down the real estate market bubble (FDR and Carter monstrocities Freddie and Fannie plus more progressive issues forcing banks to approve mortgages and loans to people who had no business getting them).

Hmmm mouthing words to yourself in response to a public inditement of your integrity is comparable to calling another branch of our nation out on national TV? Hardly. This is a ridiculous point.

The Executive Branch is a separate but equal branch of our government as established by the framers. Consequently, POTUS does not have to kotow to SCOTUS. You just said it yourself, it was in poor taste. That said, the current president is at least consistent in showing poor taste throughout his presidency so far.

This is nothing new Presidents have in the past and will continue to disagree with SCOTUS and say so. SCOTUS are not Gods. They are falliable men and women who have make some of the stupiest, most unethical and legally flat wrong decisions ever. Please give me some examples in this post-civil rights era.

The President is not the only Constitutional lawyer who stated that this SCOTUS decision was one of legislating from the bench. You are talking about the same person who also said that the cambridge police acted stupidly. The president is the LAST person who should be lecturing on constitutional law.

If the current men and women of SCOTUS had any sense they would follow Justice Rhenquist's lead when he recommended that they not attend the State of the Union address. Why are they there since they have nothing to do with politics, beleive that at your peril. As the then Justice Department lawyer John Roberts wrote,after losing a case in the Supreme Court, "we don't need new laws, what we need are different Supreme Court Justices." Indeed, apparently he meant what he wrote. What does this have to do with anything? Even if they were not in attendance, it still would have been in poor taste.

Let me see it was in poor taste for POTUS to call out the Supreme Court, but it was in good taste for Justice Alito to mouth those words? The Executive Branch is a separate but equal branch of our government as established by the framers. Consequently, POTUS does not have to kotow to SCOTUS. This is nothing new Presidents have in the past and will continue to disagree with SCOTUS and say so. SCOTUS are not Gods. They are falliable men and women who have make some of the stupiest, most unethical and legally flat wrong decisions ever. The President is not the only Constitutional lawyer who stated that this SCOTUS decision was one of legislating from the bench. If the current men and women of SCOTUS had any sense they would follow Justice Rhenquist's lead when he recommended that they not attend the State of the Union address. Why are they there since they have nothing to do with politics, beleive that at your peril. As the then Justice Department lawyer John Roberts wrote,after losing a case in the Supreme Court, "we don't need new laws, what we need are different Supreme Court Justices." Indeed, apparently he meant what he wrote.

Do you also remember that this same President Reagan went on to runup deficits exceeding those of all previous Presidents combined? Do you also remember that this same President who called for the Unconstitutional line item veto, and a balanced budget amendment never expended a single ounce of political capital to acheive either goal. Do you also remember that in his entire tenure he never once vetoed a spending bill. Do you also remember that this President who spoke frequently about smaller government, actually increased the size of government? Perhaps all of this is in the distance past. So do you remember and more importantly did you protest the profligate spending of the last administration that set us on the path to huge deficits. For the first time in history the last President decided to fight two wars and also give huge tax cuts without paying for any of it. You do remember a surplus existed when the last President took office?

Umm....are you oblivious to the rampant spending and out of control deficit of obama's administration? It dwarfs anything in the history of our nation. You guy's can't pin it on anyone but obama. At some point the left has to accept responsibility for what is being done right now...quit passing the buck. Just curiuous...where does obama expect to get the $$ for this utopian health care bill? How many trillion?

You can't have it both ways with Obama. Obama has continually complained about the situation he was left in when Bush left office. He has touted how Bush is responsible for the economy and the wars. He hasn't taken responsibility for anything yet. If you are going to do that you also have to give credit where credit is due. Bush was still in office when the "stimulus" package was started. If Obama is saying that the stimulus package has been successful, then that also has to be credited to Bush, because he was still in office when it started. You can't pick and choose what you want to BLAME on someone else and try and steal credit at the same time.

Additionally, Obama has spent more money, and increased the defecit by more than Bush did. Keep in mind, that Obama did this in 1 year compared to the 8 years Bush was in office.

Obama is also the ONLY US PRESIDENT IN HISTORY to BOW to a foreign government. He is a disgrace and a sham. He ought to be removed from office.

His healthcare bill alone will rework the American Economy. It will FOREVER MORE take credit for 1/6th of all Amercian Tax Dollars. This isn't some small change he is proposing, and he really doesn't care if the American people want it. His party is trying to get it passed using an "obscure" law that allows them to "cheat" the system and have it voted in, without having it properly pass the Senate. Obama has stated that he doesn't care about the procedures used to get it pased, so long as it is passed. He is the President, and if He won't follow the rules who will? This man is so bad for America.

You....you watch alot of Fox News....don't you? You sound like one of their morning/afternoon/evening hosts....

He sounds like a LOT of americans, based on gallup, a majority of them.

Ahhh....you liked Gore's inconvenient truth...what about this one? Pull your head out of the sand already. You progressives are funny though. You wouldn't know truth if it bit you in the a$$.

Last time I checked, Congress controls the purse and spending. And if I remember correctly, the dems were in control of the house during reagans terms of office and the senate for most of his terms. So, why didnt the intrepid leadership of the dems during that time make an effort to cut spending? Im sure they would have been all for cutting defense, but hell would freeze over before they would touch any entitlement program. Reagan had to compromise on the budget to build the military back and get his tax cuts, with congress not doing thier part in cutting spending in other areas.

As for the last time we had a surplus, who was in control of congress?

You hit the nail on the head Mitch. The only time conservatives fail is when they try and compromise with the left. It never works because the left is not operating on reality based thinking. They operate strictly on dreams and fairy tales.