SOTU reax, Washington Post [1]:
PRESIDENT OBAMA entered office promising to be a different kind of politician – one who would speak honestly with the American people about the hard choices they face and would help make those hard calls. Tuesday night’s State of the Union Address would have been the moment to make good on that promise. He disappointed.
[2]Jennifer Rubin
SOTU Reax, Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post [3]:
If you were expecting a moderate Obama or a bold Obama, you were disappointed, most likely, by Tuesday’s State of the Union Address. In a nutshell: Obama proposed a ton of new domestic spending, promised to freeze discretionary spending (attained by savaging defense), abstained from offering specifics on entitlement reform and largely ignored major foreign policy changes. Moreover, the delivery was so listless that this State of the Union address likely garnered less applause than any address in recent memory.
Barry doubles down on failure. The entire premise of the stimulus package was to spend our way out of the recession. Oh by the way, it failed.
Where is the energy? Dumbo is backasswards on energy, from the SOTU:
We need to get behind this [green] innovation. And to help pay for it, I’m asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but they’re doing just fine on their own. So instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy, let’s invest in tomorrow’s.
Dumbo apparent strategy is to punish success but to reward failure. Successful energy production, like petroleum would be taxed. Whereas failed energy schemes like wind and solar would be subsidized.
More, Vladimir, Red State [4]:
Those billions of dollars we “give the oil companies”? Prior Congresses, going back nearly 100 years, purposely tweaked the tax code to encourage drilling. Their “investment” resulted in the stable, secure and affordable energy supply that enabled our nation’s industrial might. By taking those benefits away, drilling becomes less attractive to the investor. Fewer wells will be drilled, and more jobs will be lost. Energy prices will rise, making the U.S. less competitive in international markets and more dependent on foreign energy producers
SOTU reax, Dirty Harry Reid, from ABC News [5]:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told ABC News that earmarks will return to Capitol Hill despite President Obama’s vow in last night’s State of the Union to veto any spending bill that includes them.
[…]
“I think it’s taking power away from the legislative branch of government and giving it to the executive branch of government,” Reid said of the president’s plan. “The executive branch of government is powerful enough and I think that I know more about what Nevada needs than some bureaucrat down on K Street.”
Reid crying over spilled milk, from Mo Lane [6]:
Reid not happy about Obama’s earmark ban pledge. [6]
I don’t know why he’s bothering to yell at the President [7] over this, though: the question of whether Harry Reid has the ability to get earmarks passed into legislation was abruptly settled last November. The House has banned them [8], and in case anybody was wondering whether the Republican base considers that ban to encompass the conference process where the differences between the Senate and House versions of a bill are resolved, let me clear that up: the Republican base does so consider
Later.