State of the Union
You can see how seriously Obama is taking the hot populist temper of the American people and their eagerness to strangle every banker with the entrails of every insurance executive. In an altogether welcome departure from past presidential form in State of the Union addresses at least since 1973 (the first time I listened to one), he shoved the rest of the world into less than five minutes near the end of an oration that lasted well over an hour, giving over at least 90 percent of his time to various pledges for economic cleanup on the domestic front.
Of course, there was a bit of ritual backslapping for Uncle Sam's benign role in the planet's affairs, starting with valiant rescue work in Haiti, a nation for which every U.S. intervention since the time of Thomas Jefferson has been an unmitigated disaster. But on Wednesday night, there was barely time for even a swipe at Iran and North Korea, reduced to offhand mentions, as opposed to the starring roles they enjoyed as members of the "Axis of Evil" in George Bush Jr.'s State of the Union speech in 2002. Yemen, now contending strongly for Axis ranking, wasn't even mentioned, though Guinea got a nod for its corruption.
Instead, Wednesday's night's Axis of Evil featured a home team, of the banks and the U.S. Supreme Court, whose members were mustered in a small clump almost directly under Obama's lectern. Last week, the court kicked away most of the few remaining restraints on the ability of corporations to buy the legislators and the laws they desire, and Obama—gazing down at Chief Justice Roberts, leader of the conservative majority of five out of nine on the court, which overturned a century's worth of laws and precedents—called on Congress to redress the situation with new laws.
It was amid Obama's speech last September to a joint session of Congress about health reform that a cracker congressman from South Carolina, Joe Wilson, shouted, "You lie," at the president. This time, Associate Justice Samuel Alito, an ultra-right Catholic on the court, started mouthing objections and I thought we'd be treated to the lively spectacle of a member of the U.S. Supreme Court heckling Obama, but Roberts' body language signaled "shut up," nudged him with his knee and the indignant Alito shut his mouth.
As State of the Union speeches go, Obama delivered his with jaunty aplomb, sometimes light-heartedly, matching the open merriment of Vice President Joe Biden, sitting directly behind him, next to House Majority leader Nancy Pelosi. It wasn't always clear exactly why Biden was laughing, though I assume it was the same reason that stirred many in the chamber to snigger when Obama started urging them to pass laws ending fiscal excess, along with deficits, earmarks and undue lobbyist influence on lawmakers. Obama himself seemed to chortle at the manifest absurdity of requesting Congress to do any such thing, and the legislators felt thus empowered to chortle along with him.
Obama got elected by pledging hope, change and calling for the nation to unite and banish divisiveness. This time he did admit room for undefined philosophical differences, which he promptly tried to bridge by offering an anthology of pledges, culled from Carter (green energy), Reagan (line-item veto and reducing the world's nuclear arsenal to zero), earmarks (John McCain), plus the usual commitment to lower the deficit (mandatory in every State of the Union speech in living memory).
Neither bankers specifically nor corporations generally are popular right now. On Tuesday, voters in Oregon approved raising taxes on corporations and the rich. The measures romped through, 54 percent to 46 percent, hiking taxes on households with taxable income above $250,000, and setting higher minimum taxes on corporations, with increased tax rates on upper-level profits. In Oregon, there hasn't been this kind of popularly sanctioned tax bite out of the backsides of the rich since the 1930s.
This sets the political stage for the November midterm elections, and every politician sniffs the popular mood. Hence Obama's belated dash to head the populist Jacquerie. But there's virtually no chance of any serious financial reform transpiring. Already, in dead of night, Wall Street lobbyists earlier this month crushed legislative language in a financial reform bill to ban Wall Street's "dark markets" trading in over-the-counter derivatives such as credit default swaps. It was these that impelled the financial crisis in 2008.
The bankers will resign themselves to a glancing glow like Obama's proposed $30 billion levy. But they will surely fight off Paul Volcker, for months languishing in obscurity as head of Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, until mustered last week to the president's side to preside over the White House's Great Leap Sideways into economic populism. He's been tasked with promoting legislation that will haul the banks back into the Glass-Steagall era, when the paltry sums in one's checking account weren't immediately securitized and packaged into a CDO squared. Already, the Los Angeles Times—normally in Obama's corner—has editorially savaged Volcker's plan, as have the Washington Post and, needless to say, the Wall Street Journal.
State of the Union addresses are mostly political window dressing. All those fine proposals have to become laws. It's one thing to hail Michelle Obama, as her husband did Wednesday evening, for spearheading a movement to combat child obesity. It's quite another to get through Congress a law banning Chicken McNuggets.
The longer Obama solemnly lectured the joint session about the need to change the way Washington does business, the more one had time to study the faces of the legislators and burnish one's utter confidence in Washington's unchanging ways. It was the one fact that evening that commanded total agreement, from Republicans, Democrats and the president himself.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
Entries(RSS)
It is my understanding that corporations are considered the equivalent of people under the law. Why then should they be denied the right to political speech? Nobody is more repulsed by the hold big business has on the country but intellectual honesty requires me to ask the question. Perhaps some here with the requisite legal training can help. Should corporate law be changed? Was the SCOTUS decision "correct"?
"This time, Associate Justice Samuel Alito, an ultra-right Catholic on the court, started mouthing objections and I thought we’d be treated to the lively spectacle of a member of the U.S. Supreme Court heckling Obama, but Roberts’ body language signaled “shut up,” nudged him with his knee and the indignant Alito shut his mouth."
I have never joined in the chorus of hooting Cockburn off the pages of Chronicles. As far as I was concerned he was just another liberal with the notable exception that he wrote well and rarely wrote lies. Yet,(and I should have known better) there is not one truth hiding in any of the six above conjoined phrases, or even a picture beyond the words, that could be recognized as a truthful utterance. Evidently he is just another resentment-ridden, runner willing to carry any burden, or tell any story on behalf of the ancient enemy of man. Sure, Alito is not a Cockburn kind of guy, but any dupe can watch the video and see that none of the alleagtions above are true. As far as Ultra-right Catholic goes, I imagine that allegation exists only in the mind of Mr Cockburn as well> In fact, and to be honest, I seriously doubt a man of Mr. Cockburn's caliber could recognize such a fellow if he was hanging on a crucifix before his very eyes.
Cockburn is clueless as usual. The decision protects free speech. If for example Exxon gave you money and you write a book about the importance of health care and how Harry Reid is working to destroy it and you begged people not to vote for him in the book, and if this book was published within 60 days of the upcoming November election, you would be a felon under this law that was struck down.
Then again, corporations are not people and have no legitimate right to vote or participate in the decisions of the commonwealth.
Dr. Wilson corporations don't vote in our elections, they simply purchase both candidates before the election so whoever the people pick is always "a winner."
So according to the decidedly liberal Cockburn, Representative Wilson correctly calling Obama a liar is just a cracker, but the lying half-black Obama is the President, a sacrosanct demi-god above being questioned.
Some animals are far more equal that others on the PC animal far.
Can anybody explain why Chronicles posts Cockburn?
"Can anybody explain why Chronicles posts Cockburn?"
Well, it is always good to have a few hogs on any farm. They are hardy, easy keepers, (even blind hogs can find acorns etc.)and they have large litters. Also most Americans love the name Cockburn because it reminds them of Cogburn, as in Rooster Cogburn, the old one-eyed federal Marshal for Judge Parker's hanging court before "all the petti-fogging lawyers from the East moved in and ruined it." Notice the picture of Alex Cockburn above, if that is not a marketing pose for lovers of "old Roster hisself," I don't know what is. Other than that, I can't think of a good reason.
I agree with Dr. Wilson's true, single sentence. But, I know little of the law. Could there be more to the story? I doubt it. In either case, I'm dismayed by reading in so many places that these justices are "conservative". Perhaps they are, and perhaps I am not.
The Supreme Court DID NOT overturned a century’s worth of laws and precedents. What BS!
#7.didn't a British admiral named Cockburn ordered the burning of Washington DC?
Yes,I believe it was Rooster Cogburn's great grandfather. The family split and changed the name from Cockburn to Cogburn after the war of 1812. Very modern family --one generation destroys what the next generation will rebuild. Rooster finnaly settled into his role as a Federal Marshal running outlaws and drinking whiskey in the Oklahoma Territory after his grass widow ran off with a yankee, nail salesman from New York.
While I agree to an extent with Dr. Wilson, the question remains: if an individual has a right to free political speech, why not a group of individuals banded together to advance their interests?
Also, it is important to keep in mind that whether or not the decision was correct and whether it will produce a positive or negative outcome are not at all related. I find the idea of corporate personhood to be repugnant, but we should also keep in mind that there are pro-life groups and other conservative advocacy organizations that are 'corporations', and this ruling enhances their ability to advocate for conservative causes. What seems to be missing, as far as I can tell, in this debate is any distinction between for-profit corporations and non-profit corporations.
I asked the question elsewhere but am curious as to how Chronicles readers would respond to this idea: An amendment to the constitution that allows greater restriction on the political speech of *for-profit* corporations only. This would cover news media organizations that are part of larger corporations, but *not* news organizations that are free-standing companies/corporations, which are subordinate to no larger corporate interest.
Toddard,
Some folks(such as Newt Gingrich) think that all donations to a candidates campaign should be posted on the web so voters can see for which corporations the candidate is working. It appears as a good idea but I am sure it would take another branch of homeland security to track all the fictitious corporations that would be springing up to ground. Gingrich mentioned in his recent talk in New Hampshire that what politicians desire is more secrecy and what voters need is more transparency. It is kind of telling that honesty was never mentioned in either scenario.
The whole purpose of McCain Feingold was to surpress issue adds by groups like right to life commitees and the NRA 60 days before the election. In 'Federal Elections Commission vs Wisconsin Right to Life' the Surpreme Court ruled that McCain Feingold violated constitutional free speech guarentees. I am proud to say that I have been a supporter and member of Wisconsin Right to life for over 2 decades. This most recent ruling expanded on the previous ruling. The whole movement for speech controls before elections is just more of the elites keeping the peons in line. The limosene liberals and countryclub Republicans don't like us.
The is the "conservative" court we are all supposed to vote Republican to get. Long gone are the days of Adams, Calhoun, Kirk, Weaver and Viereck. "Conservatism" today is nothing more than General Bullmoose-ism.
What's good for General Bullmoose is good for the USA and by Dow Jones and all their little averages, don't you forget it!
"Roberts’ body language signaled 'shut up,' nudged him with his knee"
It amazes me that people can attempt such blatant falsehoods in the YouTube era. Not only did no such nudge occur, but unless the Chief Justice possessed the legs of Inspector Gadget (a cartoon character of my youth), it was physically impossible.