| Free Trade
For the first several minutes of the speech, I thought Obama was nailing everything. So much so, in fact, that I posted to Facebook "If Obama governed like he gave speeches, he'd be a great president. Maybe we should nominate his speechwriter for Prez in 2012?" Then I got to this:
Third, we need to export more of our goods. (Applause.) Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America. (Applause.) So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America. (Applause.) To help meet this goal, we're launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security. (Applause.)
We have to seek new markets aggressively, just as our competitors are. If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores. (Applause.) But realizing those benefits also means enforcing those agreements so our trading partners play by the rules. (Applause.) And that's why we'll continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets, and why we will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South Korea and Panama and Colombia. (Applause.)
Wow. That's bad. I'd first like to refute the idea that we should focus on food exports. Food exports can be a good thing, some of the time. I don't think most Americans would want to give up coffee or bananas. Likewise, I'm sure people in countries with climates that aren't conducive to growing some American crops would rather buy our exports instead of giving up foods they like entirely. And if a country that can normally feed itself has a crop failure, of course we should sell them food so they have enough to eat. But that's not really what we're talking about here.
America likes to subsidize our own farmers so that they sell commodities for below the cost of production. Then foreign farmers (who don't have the same subsidies) can't compete. That brings us to the free trade agreements, like the ones he's calling for in Columbia and Panama. If America just subsidized our farmers and other countries didn't want to allow a flood of cheap American imports to put their own farmers out of business, they could slap a tariff or quota or something on American products. But then we sign free trade agreements with these countries and, under those agreements, they cannot do that.
Often these ideas about exporting agricultural products are sold as "feeding the world" but our goal should not be feeding the world. Our goal should be helping the world feed itself. This concept is called Food Sovereignty, and it's the major goal of the international peasant organization La Via Campesina.
Student Loan Debt Forgiveness
The idea of student loan debt forgiveness as a way to help new farmers came up on Civil Eats the other day. The U.S. has an aging farmer population and we need some new farmers fast. Many would-be farmers are prevented from becoming farmers by financial barriers, including student loans. Here's what Obama said about that:
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. (Applause.)
Good call, Obama. He's not targeting farmers specifically, but if a new college grad becomes a farmer, at least there's a cap on their payments under this idea.
Spending Freeze
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. (Applause.)
This is exactly what McCain campaigned on - AND HE LOST. Hoover tried to cut spending during the Depression and it failed. Roosevelt was succeeding with his New Deal and he tried to cut spending in 1937 and that didn't work either. This is entirely antithetical to Keynesian economics, and America's middle class was built on Keynesian economics. Bad idea, Obama.
However, there's a good idea buried in here. Getting rid of useless spending in the budget is a good thing. If something is costing taxpayers money but bringing them no benefits, get rid of it. That is part of what Obama wants to do here and I'm for it. I just don't see why we need to call for a spending freeze in order to do it. In fact, that's exactly what Obama said to McCain during the debates. McCain called for a spending freeze and Obama said we should use a scalpel instead of a hatchet to take care of wasteful spending.
Partisan Politics
This is the part that I am perhaps most frustrated about. Obama has both large majorities in both houses of Congress, and he spent much of the year with a supermajority in the Senate. And yet... we got very little for it. The Democrats are wimps. The Republican strategy is to say no to everything. If the Democrats have a bad idea, then the Republicans win by saying no to it. If the Democrats have a good idea, then the Republicans win by killing it and not letting the Democrats get credit for helping the American people. Here's what Obama said about this:
Of course, none of these reforms will even happen if we don't also reform how we work with one another. Now, I'm not naïve. I never thought that the mere fact of my election would usher in peace and harmony -- (laughter) -- and some post-partisan era. I knew that both parties have fed divisions that are deeply entrenched. And on some issues, there are simply philosophical differences that will always cause us to part ways. These disagreements, about the role of government in our lives, about our national priorities and our national security, they've been taking place for over 200 years. They're the very essence of our democracy.
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. Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can. The confirmation of -- (applause) -- I'm speaking to both parties now. The confirmation of well-qualified public servants shouldn't be held hostage to the pet projects or grudges of a few individual senators. (Applause.) ...
So, no, I will not give up on trying to change the tone of our politics. I know it's an election year. And after last week, it's clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to govern.
To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills. (Applause.) And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town -- a supermajority -- then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. (Applause.) Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it's not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. (Applause.) So let's show the American people that we can do it together. (Applause.)
After a year, Obama is still totally missing it. Calling on the Republicans to work together is not going to lead us to some post-partisan kumbayah moment. The Democrats should not bother trying to work with the Republicans. Instead they should push ahead with their agenda WITHOUT the Republicans. If the Republicans want to filibuster everything, the Democrats should pass everything they can through reconciliation (which requires 51 votes) or they should get rid of the filibuster altogether. Period. And that's Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats' failure more than it is Obama's, but it's still entirely stupid that Obama doesn't get it.
All in all, Obama is basically giving us more of the same (which has not been great) plus a conservative and stupid spending freeze. And, sadly, the alternative to voting for the Democrats is voting for the Republicans. If you don't like bad, the alternative is worse. I'm very frustrated and I wish there was a viable third party to vote for. |
