Ask…
Share your views on hot topics
How would you grade Obama’s State of the Union speech?
President Barack Obama proposed a five-year freeze on some government spending and struck a centrist tone in his annual State of the Union address on Tuesday, hoping to prove he has fiscal discipline and can work with resurgent Republicans.
Obama also said that voters want Democrats and Republicans to govern with “shared responsibility”. He offered a raft of proposals that some of his opponents might find appealing as he positions himself for a 2012 re-election bid, but stopped short of the massive spending cuts demanded by some Republicans.
He called for a job-creating “Sputnik moment” fed by new investments in research and education like the 1950s space race, saying what is at stake is “whether new jobs and industries take root in this country, or somewhere else.” In a nod to business, Obama also called for lowering the corporate tax rate.
What do you think of Obama’s call for a five-year halt on domestic spending to help rein in the national deficit? Do you think his approach to job creation will work? Grade his speech below.
How would you grade Obama's State of the Union speech?
- A
- A-
- B+
- B
- B-
- C+
- C
- C-
- D+
- D
- F
from Global Investing:
Is it time for a Scottish wealth fund?
Oxford SWF Project, a university think tank on sovereign wealth funds, is looking at reports that the latest entry in the field could be Scotland. The project has a new post about the Scottish government floating the idea of an oil stabilisation fund to use oil and gas revenues. It cites Scottish cabinet secretary for finance John Swinney looking abroad gleefully:
“We want to harness the benefit of oil revenues now for future years. An oil fund can provide greater stability, protect our economy and support the transition to a low carbon economy. Norway’s oil fund is worth over £200 billion – despite the first instalment being made as recently as the mid 1990s – and Alaska’s oil fund even gives money back to its citizens every year.”
The SWF project reckons the idea is a good one, but wonders if something other than meets the eye is at play. It had two questions.
First, it wonders whether the plan might just be a political rebuke for the UK government from the ruling (and separatist) Scottish National Party over a perceived lack of savings over the years. Second, it notes that the UK government floated the idea of a strategic investments fund back in April and questions whether "the Scottish SWF reflects a ‘whatever they have, we should have’ mentality".
Here's a third question. Is it not a bit late for an oil fund? UK oil and gas output, most of which is in Scottish waters, has more than halved since 1999.
“We should talk with al Qaeda”, ex-Blair aide says
The government should look at ways of opening communication channels with groups like al Qaeda and the Taliban if it wants a long-term political solution as well as a security solution, a former senior aide to Tony Blair says.
Jonathan Powell, who served as Blair’s chief of staff between 1995 and 2007, told the Guardian newspaper that such a policy helped secure a peace deal in Northern Ireland.
He was quoted as saying that a secret back channel between the British government and the IRA, first opened in the 1970s, was one of the key factors that contributed to a peace deal three decades later.
“It’s very difficult for democratic governments to do – talk to a terrorist movement that’s killing your people,” he was reported as saying.
“[But] if I was in government now I would want to have been talking to Hamas, I would be wanting to communicate with the Taliban; and I would want to find a channel to al Qaeda.”
The Foreign Office said it was “inconceivable” that it would ever seek to reach a mutually acceptable accommodation with al Qaeda, and has called on disaffected Afghans to renounce violence.
It has also told Hamas “dialogue is impossible so long as one party is dedicated to violence and the destruction of the other”.
Divided on Silda Wall Spitzer
Silda Wall Spitzer stood beside her husband, New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, as he resigned on Wednesday amid a scandal over a $1,000-an-hour prostitute. The mother of the governor’s three daughters also stood by her husband’s side at a news conference on Monday where he admitted he had violated his obligations to his family and his “sense of right and wrong.”
The public reaction to Mrs. Wall Spitzer’s stance to “stand by her man” has been mixed at best, New York Magazines notes . Political blog from N. Dakota, “Say Anything” , said it would have paid to see Silda Spitzer punch her husband on the podium.
Others were not as generous. “What’s more disgusting than a lyin’ no good, cheatin, hypocritical, political man? Their wives that stand by looking dumbfounded as their unfaithful husbands apologize to the public. Do these women have no pride?” wrote New York City Moms blog. Dr. Laura went so far as to blame Mrs. Wall Spitzer for the scandal.
She’s not the first wife to stand silently by her husband as he apologizes or confesses. Dina Matos McGreevey wrote a book called “Silent Partner ” about her life with her ex-husband, the former governor of New Jersey, who resigned after announcing he was a homosexual.
What are your views? Can we or should we read much into the private decisions of a wife of a public figure?
As I am not american but french, I do not want to blame americans, but I am always extremely surprised by their taste for sexual scandals and the lack of separation between sex and politics.
My intention is not to blame or excuse Mr. Spitzer, but his “transgressions” have nothing to do with his political ability, except if he used public money.
Please understand me well : I would be very harsh and uncompromising if there had been any trace of sexual perversion as sadism or paedophilia. But, in this case, I only find a taste of scandals among some journalists who do not make the distinction between information and garbage.
There is some hypocrisy and perversion to always search the flaw and spread scandals.
Nevertheless, Mrs. Spitzer is a perfect example of bravery and dignity and her response to these events magnify her.
-
Resident Ask... Expert
-
There is no question that President Obama is an extraordinary communicator. I do not question his passion for his vision for America. However, I believe that President Obama‘s message left out three of the most important elements. The President, in my opinion, failed to accomplish three important items in his presentation.
1) The President is still focused on growing government. He made a few minor concessions to businesses that seemed to be directed at Republicans but he didn’t bother to even clarify any specifics to the American people. I assume one of his comments about reducing a burden to businesses refers to a part of the legislation that would require a massive amount of 1099 requirements. He did not give any clarification.
2) He referred to a trillion dollar cost to America if the health care reform law were to be repealed. Again, very vague and lacked any information on what he based this accusation on. For example, was his calculation based on an assumption that no legislation would replace the repealed legislation? The president made strong assertions that Health Care reform was largely about bending the cost curve. Now he seems content with an argument that it’s about getting more Americans insured. Interestingly, you don’t hear him or any other strong supporters of Obamacare pointing to other countries as evidence that they are a better model. He certainly isn’t pointing at Massachusetts, as the very recent research shows that this model, which is the primary model used to create Obamacare, reports higher costs on average than the rest of the country. To be fair, the real discussion (not a speech with a few sound bites and general statements) should determine what the cost (or cost savings) would be if the plan were repealed and certain elements and strategies were implemented in its place. This might produce a real picture for legislators and the individuals they serve with the needed transparency to participate in a real debate. Once again, the president alluded in his speech that he is open to listening to other ideas. However, he clearly held himself in a way that, in my observation, is a message to America that it’s either Obamacare or no plan at all. Over the coming months, now that there is more of a balance of Democrats and Republicans the American people will learn that there are in-fact other ways to reform health care and a real debate will begin.
3) The president stated that the economy is on the way back and pointed to the fact that the market is up. We need our president to give us a clear picture of where we are and not a sales presentation to make the picture look better than it is. Not one state is experiencing an increase in employment and some continue to experience a decline. Squarely, most of the energy of our President and our government has to be on getting people back to work. Most importantly, the president needs to avoid the moniker of being “anti-business.” The president must believe and must show that public that he believes the well being of American business is synonymous with the well being of Americans. American businesses may be showing increases in their stock prices, but this is largely because of sales from their foreign based operations and because they have cut costs in their US production. Their profitability has little or nothing to do with the number and quality of jobs here in the U.S. The only way to improve the number (and equally important–the quality) of jobs in the US is to build the productivity of American workers. The president did highlight the importance of education. Believing in American business means more than this. It means putting a lot more money into infrastructure. It most importantly it means sending out a real strong message that our President and our government recognizes and supports American business.