President Obama's 2012 State of the Union Address

President Obama gave his State of the Union address last evening, and essentially told Americans much that he was expected to say. While jobs are on the rise, the country is still hurting. The economy is not where it should be, and the middle class is in serious jeopardy. Is that supposed to be breaking news?

He did offer a counterpoint to the attention received by all of the Republican debates as of late. With the two frontrunners, Romney and Gingrich making seem likely, even perhaps inevitable, what recently seemed at some point impossible, and at least unlikely: the reelection of Barack Obama. But that is what you get when you get a self-proclaimed intellectual elite in Gingrich, who famously had to step down from his leading role in Congress back in the 90's after it was discovered that he had been having extramarital affairs. This, after proclaiming President Clinton a bad leader for such indiscretions, and advocating his impeachment. That is also what you get when you have a rich jackass like Romney who is out of touch with the average person, and condescendingly mocks those who are out of work and struggling by claiming that he knows what it is like to be without a job. Yeah, right. Like we all have two hundred million dollars to fall back on in the event we lose our jobs. We should all be so lucky. He famously was photographed seemingly getting his shoes shined, like a king with his servants kneeling before him.

President Obama's most important words, perhaps, were in trying to reestablish some measure of fairness in the tax code. The rich should pay more taxes, not less. This has become his most famous selling point, yet strangely, perhaps, the most controversial one, perhaps. He used himself and members of Congress as examples last night, telling the country:

"When I get a tax break I don't need and the country can't afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference - like a senior on a fixed income; or a student trying to get through school; or a family trying to make ends meet. That's not right. Americans know it's not right. They know that this generation's success is only possible because past generations felt a responsibility to each other, and to the future of their country, and they know our way of life will only endure if we feel that same sense of shared responsibility. That's how we'll reduce our deficit. That's an America built to last."

He went on to give a great sound bite (almost all politicians, save for perhaps John Kerry, are great at these kinds of sound bites, aren't they?), saying that a greater fairness can be established, but there needs to be, he said, "No bailouts, no handouts, and no cop-outs."

The President said that the middle class was in serious jeopardy, and that the "basic American promise" was in serious risk. This much is true, and the President believes that it is largely due to decades and decades of reforming the tax codes and changing the laws so that the rich can reap the most benefits, and programs intended to benefit people are cut year after year, making life less affordable if you are not rich. The famous "Robin Hood in reverse" policies that the republicans in particular seem to advocate, although they disguise it with language of "freedom" and fear mongering over European-style "socialism", even hinting at "communism", those age old catchwords that strike fear into many prejudiced American minds. Anyone familiar with the way Europeans have benefits might wonder why. What is so wrong with affordable medical care and medicines? What is so wrong with better public transportation and better worker rights and protections? What is so wrong with more affordable child care, or free university education (assuming you qualify)? What is so wrong with enjoying an abundance of vacation time? But those questions re not asked, at least not enough, here in the United States, and I believe we are the worse for it.

Now, I certainly do not agree with President Obama with everything. I have disagreed with him very strongly, most recently, with his signing the NDAA bill into law, which in effect gives the President the right to arrest and incarcerate indefinitely anyone he wants, in effect, without trial, or indeed, even without giving reasons. It eliminates the age old right of habeas corpus, and seems yet another of many steps this country is taking towards an end to freedom and the beginning of fascism. He had been vehemently opposed to it, supposedly, before he signed it into law. When signing it, he promised he himself would not use it. But then again, he had already promised to oppose it and not sign it into law, and he could not hold that promise, could he?

I also was aggravated by his stance, or perhaps more appropriately, his lack of a stance, in his environmental policies. He has been crafting his Clean Air Bill for some time, but without ever seeming to complete it. Much like Clinton, he seems to be keeping it on the backburner, since it seems not an important enough issue for him – most likely because it is not a politically profitable issue.

I am not overly fond of too many comparisons with Clinton, because Clinton was the consummate politician. He was not named "Slick Willy" for nothing, after all. For all of the talk (and it even sounded convincing at the time) of how important doing everything we can for the environment was, Clinton did not do nearly as much as he promised, and a huge bulk of the legislation that that administration passed was done in the final 72 hours of the administration, a slick political maneuver if ever there was one. He had eight years, ultimately, to work with, and yet the vast majority of the work came in the final three days that he was in office, knowing full well that the next incoming President would get rid of these measures in a hurry. Also, he proclaimed to have paid down more than 60% of the national debt, which technically was true, because these were paid off by short term loans. In other words, he simply transferred the nation's debts from longer term loans to shorter ones, but yes, technically, those longer term loans were in fact paid. America still owed the same amount of money, but it was to different people, and so his claim was correct – in a manner of speaking. But it was misleading, and the very symbol of political posturing. Is that the "change" we can look forward to with Obama?

Now, all that said, I do hope that he at least prevents the Republicans from getting the White House back in 2012, and believe that he will in fact win the election. I do not agree with everything that he has done, but hardly agree with anything that his predecessor did, and do not want a return to Republican rule. I am not a Democrat, to be sure, but I never voted for a Republican in my life, and they loudly proclaim the most ridiculous things, and double talk their way into securing the best privileged for the wealthy elite. It is amazing to me that they have enjoyed such a long and virtually undisturbed run of success, but the country simply cannot afford them right now. Obama's greatest value is to hold them in check, and I think he will do that much, at least.