May 24, 2012

Obama Speech: Ambitious Goals Overshadow Spending Restraints

President Obama’s State of the Union address met its promise for civility but the math behind his proposals didn’t entirely add up.

For all his talk of reining in federal spending and cutting the deficit, Obama proposed an ambitious spending spree ranging from new clean energy technologies to expensive bridges and high-speed rail projects. He offered very few specifics about where spending cuts would come from, and one of the ideas he offered for offsetting some of his spending — eliminating oil and gas tax breaks — couldn’t get passed by Congress when the Democrats controlled both chambers. Now Republicans, typically more friendly to industry, are in charge of the House.

Last year he proposed a three-year spending freeze that couldn’t pass a Democratic Congress; on Tuesday he proposed a five-year spending freeze.

The speech was also noteworthy for what it omitted. There was no mention of climate change and only a passing reference to financial regulation, two of Obama’s major legislative measures. There was also no mention of Guantanamo Bay, nor of gun control-issues many expected to come up in light of the recent Tucson shootings.

In describing his plans for the future, the president often left out facts that would help Americans judge the likelihood of successes. For instance, he mentioned a desire to expand nuclear, wind and other “clean” energies as he promised to make America 80 percent reliant on clean energies by 2035. But the Obama administration has only been able to achieve a single new loan guarantee for a new nuclear reactor, and Congress recently drastically reduced the Obama administration’s request for more nuclear loan funds.

And after spending billions of dollars trying to incubate the wind and solar industries, the United States last year reported its smallest number of new wind farms since 2007, well before the stimulus bill was passed. The lackluster record left the United States trailing China for the first time in wind production at the end of 2010.

The Republican responses had a few of their own omissions. Both Reps. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Michele Bachmann of Minnesota criticized Obama for running up $3.1 trillion in debt in his first two years without mentioning that Republican President George W. Bush increased the national debt by $4.4 trillion during his presidency. Bachmann also criticized the stimulus program without mentioning the letters she wrote requesting stimulus funds for pet projects, as documented in the Center’s story “Stimulating Hypocrisy.”

The Center collaborated with the Sunlight Foundation, Huffington Post and the National Journal to use Sunlight’s technological advances to fact check the president’s speech live. Read a full replay of the analysis by clicking the widget below.

Reprinted by Permission © 2012, The Center for Public Integrity®. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Chief Digital Officer

Award-winning investigative journalist John Solomon joined the Center for Public Integrity in March 2010,. During his quarter-century career in print and broadcast media, Solomon has covered a variety of issues, from the convicted serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer to an in-depth look at teachers who returned to classrooms after child molestation convictions. In 2008 Solomon joined The Washington Times as executive editor.  Under his leadership, the paper won the Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award in 2008 and the Society of Professional Journalists’ 2009 National Public...

202-466-1300

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.