Speech Thread

by publius

What do you think?  So far, it sort of sounds like he's self-consciously trying not to do Clinton's laundry list of small items.  He's going bigger.

Comments

[Cal Gal]

Home run.

[Bernard Yomtov]

All else aside, it is a great pleasure to hear a President who sounds like an intelligent adult talking to other intelligent adults.

[redwood]

I liked seeing all the females in their colorful fashions.

And boy, I don't those Republicans were playing on standing up as much as they did.

[redwood]

oops!

I don't [think] those Republicans were [planning] on standing up as much as they did.

[freelunch]

What a contrast between President Obama's speech and Gov. Jindal's.

"God bless Louisiana." Interesting ending.

[Gromit]

So Bobby Jindal thinks volcano monitoring is best left to the private sector. I wonder if he feels the same way about hurricanes.

[Gary Farber]

Transcript. Jindal.

[MaryL]

Video. Kenneth.

[biggerbox]

Do you suppose everyone will be too distracted by Jindal's cringeworthy delivery and the whole 'using Katrina as an example of government failure' thing to point out that he was just completely lying about the maglev from Vegas to Disneyland, and that it's been debunked over and over again by now?

[liberal japonicus]

I thought I saw a couple of folks with books, like this was an airplane flight. Looked to thick to be an advanced copy of the speech.

CNN also said that several Senators/Reps were Twittering during the speech. I'd be interested to see what they wrote when. Being the mean person I am, I'm kind of hoping for something like this

[KCinDC]

But did Michele Bachmann get an autograph and a kiss afterward?

[KCinDC]

OT: I was too lazy (and unsure of appropriateness) to blog this, but I was in the row in front of Rahm Emanuel watching The Wrestler on Saturday night when this happened.

[hilzoy]

I didn't watch it, but Obama's speech read wonderfully.

[maryQ]

Like Jindal, I really thought that whole Katrina thing would have gone so much better if Teh Government had just let those guys with boats rescue people.

At some point in the last eight years I adopted the view that Bush et al were f*cking up on purpose to prove the point that the government doesn't work. Now, Giggle me Almo up and says as much.

Words fail.

[hilzoy]

I just watched about half of Jindal. Yikes.

And what's wrong with volcano monitoring?

[hilzoy]

I mean, would things somehow be better if private citizens spent their own money monitoring nearby volcanos? Or maybe just hung around with no clue when one might erupt, and got to do a reenactment of Pompeii?

[KCinDC]

I have no idea how Republicans decide which government expenditures to pick out and try to make sound ridiculous, and I can't judge whether the attempts are effective because I'm not the target audience. Are there really people out there who think studying bear DNA is silly but studying seal DNA is A-OK, or that monitoring volcanos is the funniest thing ever, but monitoring hurricanes is serious business?

[maryQ]

And Jindal is one of the smart ones.

[KCinDC]

The stupidest thing is that instead of just saying "volcano monitoring", he said "something called 'volcano monitoring'", as if those two ordinary words were some opaque phrase unintelligible to normal humans.

[Omega Centauri]

If I was a governor of Lousiana (or any gulf coast state), I might well resent money spent on volcano monitoring (since I don't have any nearby). As a current resident of California I could complain about federal money spent monitoring hurricanes (which I bet is orders of magnitide greater than volcanoes).

[karen marie]

anybody ask palin about jindal's volcano suggestion?

they've got an active volcano up there in alaska that could well blow in the near future. it's being closely monitored by these folks:

The Alaska Volcano Observatory (AVO) is a joint program of the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the Geophysical Institute of the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAFGI), and the State of Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (ADGGS).

http://www.avo.alaska.edu/

and then

[liberal japonicus]

via TPM, these faux News reactions

BRIT HUME: It read better than it sounded… this was not Bobby Jindal’s greatest rhetorical moment.

NINA EASTON: The delivery was not terrific.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Jindal didn’t have a chance.

JUAN WILLIAMS: Childish.

That is going to leave a mark.

[d'd'd'dave]

This is my favorite quote from the speech:

"A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future."

Letting people keep their own money is called a transfer of wealth to the wealthy. If people keep their own money they are missing an opportunity to invest in their future. The implication is that the only valid investment is one made by the government and not by individuals.

Up is down and down is up.

bigger box says: "Do you suppose everyone will be too distracted by Jindal's cringeworthy delivery"

I spent the first half of the Obama speech adjusting the tuning on my TV. I kept hearing a whistling sound every time there was a word with an 'S' in it.

[now_what]

Troll on you crazy diamond.

[KCinDC]

Dave, (1) if there's a surplus and we have a huge debt, shouldn't some thought be given to paying it down? (2) If you decide instead to spend it on tax cuts, and you give those disproportionately to the wealthy rather than the middle and lower classes, why is that better described as "letting people keep their own money" than "transfer[ring] wealth to the wealthy"?

I mean, if you do something that results in a greater share of the wealth being in the hands of the wealthy, then that seems to be transferring wealth to the wealthy by the normal definitions of words, but language may be different in Libertopia or Wingnuttia or Newtland or wherever you're living these days.

[russell]

I thought it was a great speech. Obama said all the right things, which sounds like faint praise, but it's not.

Jindal has quite a set to call out Katrina as an example of government failure.

Dear Bobby Jindal: when the levees gave out, you were a member of Congress from LA. Now, you're the governor of the freaking state.

Who's the government? Hey, look in the mirror! It's you, dude!

Get off your d@mned @ss.

[d'd'd'dave]

//Troll on you crazy diamond.//

It is trolling to mock or disagree with Obama but not to mock or disagree with Jindal.

Up is down and down is up.

[gwangung]

Up is down and down is up.

That's the thing about Einsteinian physics. There's no preferred frame of reference.

Could you try and get to the 20th Century, at least?

[russell]

Letting people keep their own money is called a transfer of wealth to the wealthy.

Let's get crazy and stipulate, for just a moment, that we want a public sector, that the public sector costs money, and that we fund that public sector with taxes.

Humor me for a minute.

Now let's imagine a situation where we actually have a surplus. Revenues exceed expenditures.

We respond to that by changing the tax structure so that folks who are wealthier have their taxes reduced by a greater proportion than less wealthy folks.

How do you describe this?

"something called 'volcano monitoring'"

When Krakatoa exploded it was heard 2,000 miles away. Ships anchored off of South Africa rocked from the shock wave. The shock wave is estimated to have circled the earth seven times, and was still measurable up to five days after the explosion.

The ash expelled into the atmosphere causes the ambient temperature of the earth's atmosphere to drop by a couple of degrees, for a couple of years. The force of the explosion is estimated to be about four times the largest nuclear explosion ever tested.

Doesn't happen every day, I'll grant you. That's the point.

[now_what]

I'm all for volcano monitoring, but how much does it cost to tie some grad student to a tree, give him a radio and tell him when he sees an explosion, yell "Vancouver, this is it!" real loud?

[d'd'd'dave]

kcindc
1. Yes. Pay down the debt. That is the best use.
2. // if you do something that results in a greater share of the wealth being in the hands of the wealthy,[as compared to when?] then that seems to be transferring wealth to the wealthy by the normal definitions of words// Everyone seems to have a different idea of what disproportionate is. I compare the pre-tax condition to the post-tax condition. Some others compare the post-tax condition pre-cut to the post-tax condition post-cut. Suppose A and B have a ratio of pre-income-tax wealth of 10:1, the ratio of their post-income-tax wealth is going to be something like 8:1 as a result of progressive tax rates. Now suppose you cut the marginal rates in such a way that the ratio of the post-income-tax wealth is 9:1. In my view, the cut has not transferred any wealth to A because the income tax system is still progressive and still takes a higher proportion of A's wealth than B's. Others seem to hold the view that a tax cut is regressive unless it leaves the after-income-tax ratio at the same or better for B (8:1 or less, such as 7:1). In my view, the latter case is absurd because in the case where there are zero net tax revenues, A would have to have a positive tax rate and B a negative tax rate to achieve an 8:1 ratio after tax.

[rook]

I didn't watch it, but Obama's speech read wonderfully.

Same here. Pure genius. I'm slightly concerned about the warnings about making hard choices to work on the deficit. He knows every cut means more unemployment, right? I hope we're not doing this until things stabilize a bit. Otherwise, the stimulus is really just a clever way to rapidly shift government spending to Dem priorities (which I generally agree with, but I'm convinced the stimulus really is necessary).

I'm totally on board with balancing the budget and reducing the debt, but as Obama said tonight:
"...the cost of inaction will be far greater, for it could result in an economy that sputters along for not months or years, but perhaps a decade. That would be worse for our deficit, worse for business, worse for you and worse for the next generation."

[gwangung]

I'm all for volcano monitoring, but how much does it cost to tie some grad student to a tree, give him a radio and tell him when he sees an explosion, yell "Vancouver, this is it!" real loud?

Actually, David Johnston was a vet at the US Geological Survey...

*sigh* EVERYBODY thought it was safe....

[publius]

they need to fire the person in charge of picking individual expenditures to demagogue.

volcano monitoring? i mean, jesus

[liberal japonicus]

Dave, you shouldn't have bought that TV second hand from the neighbor who bought it with his welfare check. You cut corners like that, you'll end up with the problems you mention.

[liberal japonicus]

And Jindal's speech was so bad, no one has said anything about his tie.

My fave line is what Nate Silver said

If it sounds like Jindal is targeting his speech to a room full of fourth graders, that's because he is. They might be the next people to actually vote for Republicans again.

[bago]

d'd'd'dave:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu5B-2LoC4s.

Argue with that.

[Brett Bellmore]

"why is that better described as "letting people keep their own money" than "transfer[ring] wealth to the wealthy"?"

Um, because it's "their own money", and you're "letting them keep it"? "Transfering wealth to the wealthy would, technically speaking, involve taking wealth the wealthy didn't already have, and giving it to them.

As far as volcano monitoring, I'm all in favor of that, but why isn't it best done at the state level? Most states don't, after all, have volcanoes, and the states that do have a rather direct interest in what they're up to.

[Gary Farber]

"As far as volcano monitoring, I'm all in favor of that, but why isn't it best done at the state level?"

Because states don't have the expertise or infrastructure. How many states have satellite launch capability?

[Gary Farber]

Studying and monitoring volcanos, and other geological phenomenon is a national and international discipline. These aren't things that stay within state boundaries.

[Account Deleted]

Незаконное порно на новом интернет-портале http://rukablud-com.narod.ru

[david kilmer]

Um, because it's "their own money", and you're "letting them keep it"?

They collectively owned the money?

Technically, the gap between rich and poor got bigger due to government policy. So technically, the wealthy got more money than they already had. Or does it only count if you can handcuff the hand that takes?

Also - I'm all for the privatization of government reduction, but shouldn't it be done at the state level?

[gwangung]

Studying and monitoring volcanos, and other geological phenomenon is a national and international discipline.

Also, fault lines, tectonic plates and other geologic structures don't necessarily follow state lines.

[ral]

It's called "volcano monitoring" but it's actually throat warbler mangrove!

[efgoldman]

I think the GOP chose volcano monitoring as an egregious federal expenditure because there aren't any volcanos in the red-white-and blue US, where we love our country and all the libruls hate it anyway. All the volcanos are only in foreign places like, you know, Hawaii or Alaska or Vancouver.

I stand by a comment I made a month or so ago: you can't parody these people - they've got self-parody raised to Michael Jordan levels of performance.

[gwangung]

All the volcanos are only in foreign places like, you know, Hawaii or Alaska or Vancouver.

And Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Idaho....

Small loss to the REAL America...

[efgoldman]

No RIGHT=> thinking 'murricans in those places. Screw 'em.

[ThatLeftTurnInABQ]

And Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Idaho....

And Wyoming and Montana.

And Arizona and New Mexico, and...

Why even bother. They are beyond parody. For Obama's next major address the GOP might as well save the money spent on a live response and just queue up a video clip of the "What have the Romans ever done for us?" scene from The Life of Brian.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd say YOU'VE gone beyond parody; Once again this notion rears it's head that, if someone thinks something shouldn't be done at the federal level, they think it shouldn't be done.

It's like you don't really think states exist, have governments, and do things. Wierd!

Guess what: I don't think Hawaii should be chipping in for snow removal, either. (Yes, I'm aware there's snow on Hawaian mountain tops.) But that doesn't mean I think the northern tier states should spend their winters snow-bound.

[ThatLeftTurnInABQ]

I'd say YOU'VE gone beyond parody; Once again this notion rears it's head that, if someone thinks something shouldn't be done at the federal level, they think it shouldn't be done.

It's like you don't really think states exist, have governments, and do things. Wierd!

Why don't we just dismantle the US Forest Service while we're at it, since different ecological systems are found from state to state, and the wildfire hazards of Georgia and Southern California are distinctly different? And let’s break up the weather service while we're at it - why should somebody in the interior of the US pay to monitor and predict hurricanes, huh? Or what about the Coast Guard and the Navy? Why should I care about the security of our coasts? Not my state’s problem.

What about threats closer in, but which fall astride the boundaries of multiple states? There is an active volcanic field right on the eastern Colorado – New Mexico border right now, in the vicinity of Raton. Shall we have endless haggling between Denver and Santa Fe about who pays to keep an eye on it? Or how shall the cost of monitoring the volcanoes of the Pacific Northwest Cascades range be apportioned between Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and other states further downwind but likely to be affected by a large eruption? Do you have any idea what the geographic range of the effects felt in the event of even a small eruption is likely to be? There are some things such that states are not the appropriate level for organizing and funding govt. activities, and funding and organizing highly complex scientific research regarding broad scale natural systems is one of them.

I take this sort of nonsense personally, seeing as how I live in an active tectonic rift zone. A 90 min drive from my home is a lava flow only 10,000 years old. Geophysical studies of heat flow, S-wave attenuation, electrical conductivity, and gravity anomalies strongly suggest that an active magma chamber exists at mid-crustal depth in the vicinity of Socorro, NM right now. It is plausible that in this part of the US an eruption could occur which would directly threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and disrupt agriculture, power transmission, and transportation over the territory of several large western states. Or not - it is very difficult to predict these things, and the cost of false positive predictions leading to needless evacuations could rise into the hundreds of millions of dollars on a per event basis. I'm hardly unique in this - millions of people throughout the western US live in tectonically active areas where earthquakes and volcanoes are hazards that need to be studied and monitored. Many of them are much more densely populated, and would be much more expensive to evacuate, than my neck of the woods.

In the meantime, the scientific expertise needed to understand and monitor these hazards is beyond the capacity of all but a few of the richest states in the western US to independently fund and would lead to an expensive and pointless duplication of the administrative infrastructure already in place at the USGS, on a state-by-state basis. In fact these states already have their own departments dedicated to these issues, but they concern themselves with public policy rather than attempting to fund big science, and rightly so. So I guess in your ideal world only a tiny handful of the wealthiest states deserve a publically funded effort to study and predict these kinds of low frequency, high impact natural hazards. The rest of us are just living in the wrong place, huh? (And never mind the broader implications for the country as a whole when highways and railroads become impassible and power grids are affected) If you think these high risk areas should simply be abandoned on account of these hazards, good luck with that. Let me know how much mileage your political movement gets with telling a fifth of the US population to just GTFO.

[KCinDC]

Why get whole states involved? Surely we can leave dealing with volcanoes to the individual counties where those volcanoes are located. If one crops up in a city, the city council and mayor can handle it.

[Bernard Yomtov]

TLT,

But, but... federalism!

State lines are the single most important geographical feature in the US. Surely no lava flow would ever cross a state line.

[Bernard Yomtov]

BTW, on the subject of volcanoes, Nate Silver provides this interesting link.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Why don't we just dismantle the US Forest Service while we're at it, since different ecological systems are found from state to state, and the wildfire hazards of Georgia and Southern California are distinctly different?"

What truly amazes me is that you think that's an outrageous proposal.

The principle of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity>subsidiarity is the notion that all activities should be handled at the level closest to the individual that's capable of doing them. It sometimes appears to me that liberals operate on the exact opposite principle: That nothing should be done at a lower level of organization if a higher level is available to do it.

And, yeah, that's an exaggeration. But not much of one...

[gwangung]

What truly amazes me is that you think that's an outrageous proposal.

he principle of subsidiarity is the notion that all activities should be handled at the level closest to the individual that's capable of doing them.

Methinks that what you think the service does is not what the service actually does, which would skew the level most appropriate.

[ThatLeftTurnInABQ]

What truly amazes me is that you think that's an outrageous proposal.
The principle of subsidiarity is the notion that all activities should be handled at the level closest to the individual that's capable of doing them. It sometimes appears to me that liberals operate on the exact opposite principle: That nothing should be done at a lower level of organization if a higher level is available to do it.

Subsidiarity is a good principle, but it doesn’t support your contention here as you think it does, because it also applies to natural systems, not just human ones, and the US Forest Service is a spectacularly ill-chosen example if you are arguing in favor of state level federalism.

Why is that? Because the US Forest Service is misnamed – it was originally created not to satisfy tree huggers but to protect a vital national resource, namely American rivers. Rivers you ask? Why isn’t it called the US River Protection Service instead? Therein hangs a tale.

At the close of the 19th Cen. rivers were vital economic assets (essential both as transportation networks and to providing water for both agriculture and industry) which were gravely threatened by the destabilizing effects of heavy soil erosion in their hinterlands on account of unregulated logging and mining. This was a very serious problem and the folks who created the US Forest Service were not a bunch of hippies, they were powerful men very much concerned with the health of the US economy and its implications for our national power.

Now for the purposing of protecting a river from the effects of soil erosion, siltation and the resulting flood control problems it creates, there is a natural unit of local interest, to which subsidiarity can be applied. But it isn’t the political unit which we call a US state, instead it is the topographic unit which we call a watershed – meaning the catchment basin composed of a major river (or lake) and its tributaries. Soil and water conservation policies have to be decided at the level of a watershed to be effective, because everything which happens within that watershed all affects the same river.

And states are not watersheds - in fact far from it. If you pull out two maps of the US, one political and the other topographic, this will become clear. Most of the boundaries between states in the US are straight lines which completely ignore local topography. Even the state boundaries which are irregular are a problem, because for the most part they run along rivers rather than along topographic highs, so instead demarcating watershed boundaries they cut watersheds in half. In fact the ID – MT border and the borders in the southern Appalachians between the coastal states of Virginia + NC and the interior states of TN + KT + WV are the only state boundaries in the entire US which are also major watershed boundaries.

So using the states for a federalist distribution of the functions of the US Forest Service would be a terrible way to achieve best fit to local conditions because it would dismember most of the watersheds in the country. What would be the point of a system which could have one kind of soil and water conservation policy in say Indiana and Ohio, and a radically different policy across the Ohio river in Kentucky, given that both sides drain into the same river? That would be insane.

Fortunately that isn’t the system we have – instead we have a Federal system (getting aroung the problem that states aren’t watersheds) which is then internally organized into regional and subregional units which make more sense.

This has been another addition of "Why it is a Bad Idea to apply abstract political principles to every problem without paying attention to the details".