PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA'S STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS, JANUARY 25, 2011
KPFK Analysis by Lila Garrett, Interviewing John Nichols, Senator Bernie Sanders and Congressman Dennis Kucinich

President Obama's State of the Union Address - remarks as prepared for delivery. The State of the Union takes place at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 25, 2011 at 9:00 p.m. ET.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:

Tonight I want to begin by congratulating the men and women of the 112th Congress, as well as your new Speaker, John Boehner. And as we mark this occasion, we are also mindful of the empty chair in this Chamber, and pray for the health of our colleague - and our friend – Gabby Giffords.

It's no secret that those of us here tonight have had our differences over the last two years. The debates have been contentious; we have fought fiercely for our beliefs. And that's a good thing. That's what a robust democracy demands. That's what helps set us apart as a nation.

But there's a reason the tragedy in Tucson gave us pause. Amid all the noise and passions and rancor of our public debate, Tucson reminded us that no matter who we are or where we come from, each of us is a part of something greater – something more consequential than party or political preference.

We are part of the American family. We believe that in a country where every race and faith and point of view can be found, we are still bound together as one people; that we share common hopes and a common creed; that the dreams of a little girl in Tucson are not so different than those of our own children, and that they all deserve the chance to be fulfilled.

That, too, is what sets us apart as a nation.

Now, by itself, this simple recognition won't usher in a new era of cooperation. What comes of this moment is up to us. What comes of this moment will be determined not by whether we can sit together tonight, but whether we can work together tomorrow.

I believe we can. I believe we must. That's what the people who sent us here expect of us. With their votes, they've determined that governing will now be a shared responsibility between parties. New laws will only pass with support from Democrats and Republicans. We will move forward together, or not at all – for the challenges we face are bigger than party, and bigger than politics.

At stake right now is not who wins the next election – after all, we just had an election. At stake is whether new jobs and industries take root in this country, or somewhere else. It's whether the hard work and industry of our people is rewarded. It's whether we sustain the leadership that has made America not just a place on a map, but a light to the world.

We are poised for progress. Two years after the worst recession most of us have ever known, the stock market has come roaring back. Corporate profits are up. The economy is growing again.

But we have never measured progress by these yardsticks alone. We measure progress by the success of our people. By the jobs they can find and the quality of life those jobs offer. By the prospects of a small business owner who dreams of turning a good idea into a thriving enterprise. By the opportunities for a better life that we pass on to our children.

That's the project the American people want us to work on. Together.

We did that in December. Thanks to the tax cuts we passed, Americans' paychecks are a little bigger today. Every business can write off the full cost of the new investments they make this year. These steps, taken by Democrats and Republicans, will grow the economy and add to the more than one million private sector jobs created last year.

But we have more work to do. The steps we've taken over the last two years may have broken the back of this recession – but to win the future, we'll need to take on challenges that have been decades in the making.

Many people watching tonight can probably remember a time when finding a good job meant showing up at a nearby factory or a business downtown. You didn't always need a degree, and your competition was pretty much limited to your neighbors. If you worked hard, chances are you'd have a job for life, with a decent paycheck, good benefits, and the occasional promotion. Maybe you'd even have the pride of seeing your kids work at the same company.

That world has changed. And for many, the change has been painful. I've seen it in the shuttered windows of once booming factories, and the vacant storefronts of once busy Main Streets. I've heard it in the frustrations of Americans who've seen their paychecks dwindle or their jobs disappear – proud men and women who feel like the rules have been changed in the middle of the game.

They're right. The rules have changed. In a single generation, revolutions in technology have transformed the way we live, work and do business. Steel mills that once needed 1,000 workers can now do the same work with 100. Today, just about any company can set up shop, hire workers, and sell their products wherever there's an internet connection.

Meanwhile, nations like China and India realized that with some changes of their own, they could compete in this new world. And so they started educating their children earlier and longer, with greater emphasis on math and science. They're investing in research and new technologies. Just recently, China became home to the world's largest private solar research facility, and the world's fastest computer.

So yes, the world has changed. The competition for jobs is real. But this shouldn't discourage us. It should challenge us. Remember – for all the hits we've taken these last few years, for all the naysayers predicting our decline, America still has the largest, most prosperous economy in the world. No workers are more productive than ours. No country has more successful companies, or grants more patents to inventors and entrepreneurs. We are home to the world's best colleges and universities, where more students come to study than any other place on Earth.

What's more, we are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea – the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny. That is why centuries of pioneers and immigrants have risked everything to come here. It's why our students don't just memorize equations, but answer questions like "What do you think of that idea? What would you change about the world? What do you want to be when you grow up?"

The future is ours to win. But to get there, we can't just stand still. As Robert Kennedy told us, "The future is not a gift. It is an achievement." Sustaining the American Dream has never been about standing pat. It has required each generation to sacrifice, and struggle, and meet the demands of a new age.

Now it's our turn. We know what it takes to compete for the jobs and industries of our time. We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world. We have to make America the best place on Earth to do business. We need to take responsibility for our deficit, and reform our government. That's how our people will prosper. That's how we'll win the future. And tonight, I'd like to talk about how we get there.

The first step in winning the future is encouraging American innovation.

None of us can predict with certainty what the next big industry will be, or where the new jobs will come from. Thirty years ago, we couldn't know that something called the Internet would lead to an economic revolution. What we can do – what America does better than anyone – is spark the creativity and imagination of our people. We are the nation that put cars in driveways and computers in offices; the nation of Edison and the Wright brothers; of Google and Facebook. In America, innovation doesn't just change our lives. It's how we make a living.

Our free enterprise system is what drives innovation. But because it's not always profitable for companies to invest in basic research, throughout history our government has provided cutting-edge scientists and inventors with the support that they need. That's what planted the seeds for the Internet. That's what helped make possible things like computer chips and GPS.

Just think of all the good jobs – from manufacturing to retail – that have come from those breakthroughs.

Half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik¸ we had no idea how we'd beat them to the moon. The science wasn't there yet. NASA didn't even exist. But after investing in better research and education, we didn't just surpass the Soviets; we unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs.

This is our generation's Sputnik moment. Two years ago, I said that we needed to reach a level of research and development we haven't seen since the height of the Space Race. In a few weeks, I will be sending a budget to Congress that helps us meet that goal. We'll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology – an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people.

Already, we are seeing the promise of renewable energy. Robert and Gary Allen are brothers who run a small Michigan roofing company. After September 11th, they volunteered their best roofers to help repair the Pentagon. But half of their factory went unused, and the recession hit them hard.

Today, with the help of a government loan, that empty space is being used to manufacture solar shingles that are being sold all across the country. In Robert's words, "We reinvented ourselves."

That's what Americans have done for over two hundred years: reinvented ourselves. And to spur on more success stories like the Allen Brothers, we've begun to reinvent our energy policy. We're not just handing out money. We're issuing a challenge. We're telling America's scientists and engineers that if they assemble teams of the best minds in their fields, and focus on the hardest problems in clean energy, we'll fund the Apollo Projects of our time.

At the California Institute of Technology, they're developing a way to turn sunlight and water into fuel for our cars. At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, they're using supercomputers to get a lot more power out of our nuclear facilities. With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels, and become the first country to have 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.

We need to get behind this 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.

Now, clean energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they're selling. So tonight, I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal: by 2035, 80% of America's electricity will come from clean energy sources. Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all – and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen.

Maintaining our leadership in research and technology is crucial to America's success. But if we want to win the future – if we want innovation to produce jobs in America and not overseas – then we also have to win the race to educate our kids.

Think about it. Over the next ten years, nearly half of all new jobs will require education that goes beyond a high school degree. And yet, as many as a quarter of our students aren't even finishing high school. The quality of our math and science education lags behind many other nations. America has fallen to 9th in the proportion of young people with a college degree. And so the question is whether all of us – as citizens, and as parents – are willing to do what's necessary to give every child a chance to succeed.

That responsibility begins not in our classrooms, but in our homes and communities. It's family that first instills the love of learning in a child. Only parents can make sure the TV is turned off and homework gets done. We need to teach our kids that it's not just the winner of the Super Bowl who deserves to be celebrated, but the winner of the science fair; that success is not a function of fame or PR, but of hard work and discipline.

Our schools share this responsibility. When a child walks into a classroom, it should be a place of high expectations and high performance. But too many schools don't meet this test. That's why instead of just pouring money into a system that's not working, we launched a competition called Race to the Top. To all fifty states, we said, "If you show us the most innovative plans to improve teacher quality and student achievement, we'll show you the money."

Race to the Top is the most meaningful reform of our public schools in a generation. For less than one percent of what we spend on education each year, it has led over 40 states to raise their standards for teaching and learning. These standards were developed, not by Washington, but by Republican and Democratic governors throughout the country. And Race to the Top should be the approach we follow this year as we replace No Child Left Behind with a law that is more flexible and focused on what's best for our kids.

You see, we know what's possible for our children when reform isn't just a top-down mandate, but the work of local teachers and principals; school boards and communities.

Take a school like Bruce Randolph in Denver. Three years ago, it was rated one of the worst schools in Colorado; located on turf between two rival gangs. But last May, 97% of the seniors received their diploma. Most will be the first in their family to go to college. And after the first year of the school's transformation, the principal who made it possible wiped away tears when a student said "Thank you, Mrs. Waters, for showing… that we are smart and we can make it."

Let's also remember that after parents, the biggest impact on a child's success comes from the man or woman at the front of the classroom. In South Korea, teachers are known as "nation builders." Here in America, it's time we treated the people who educate our children with the same level of respect. We want to reward good teachers and stop making excuses for bad ones. And over the next ten years, with so many Baby Boomers retiring from our classrooms, we want to prepare 100,000 new teachers in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math.

In fact, to every young person listening tonight who's contemplating their career choice: If you want to make a difference in the life of our nation; if you want to make a difference in the life of a child – become a teacher. Your country needs you.

Of course, the education race doesn't end with a high school diploma. To compete, higher education must be within reach of every American. That's why we've ended the unwarranted taxpayer subsidies that went to banks, and used the savings to make college affordable for millions of students. And this year, I ask Congress to go further, and make permanent our tuition tax credit – worth $10,000 for four years of college.

Because people need to be able to train for new jobs and careers in today's fast-changing economy, we are also revitalizing America's community colleges. Last month, I saw the promise of these schools at Forsyth Tech in North Carolina. Many of the students there used to work in the surrounding factories that have since left town. One mother of two, a woman named Kathy Proctor, had worked in the furniture industry since she was 18 years old. And she told me she's earning her degree in biotechnology now, at 55 years old, not just because the furniture jobs are gone, but because she wants to inspire her children to pursue their dreams too. As Kathy said, "I hope it tells them to never give up."

If we take these steps – if we raise expectations for every child, and give them the best possible chance at an education, from the day they're born until the last job they take – we will reach the goal I set two years ago: by the end of the decade, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.

One last point about education. Today, there are hundreds of thousands of students excelling in our schools who are not American citizens. Some are the children of undocumented workers, who had nothing to do with the actions of their parents. They grew up as Americans and pledge allegiance to our flag, and yet live every day with the threat of deportation. Others come here from abroad to study in our colleges and universities. But as soon as they obtain advanced degrees, we send them back home to compete against us. It makes no sense.

Now, I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration. I am prepared to work with Republicans and Democrats to protect our borders, enforce our laws and address the millions of undocumented workers who are now living in the shadows. I know that debate will be difficult and take time. But tonight, let's agree to make that effort. And let's stop expelling talented, responsible young people who can staff our research labs, start new businesses, and further enrich this nation.

The third step in winning the future is rebuilding America. To attract new businesses to our shores, we need the fastest, most reliable ways to move people, goods, and information – from high-speed rail to high-speed internet.

Our infrastructure used to be the best – but our lead has slipped. South Korean homes now have greater internet access than we do. Countries in Europe and Russia invest more in their roads and railways than we do. China is building faster trains and newer airports. Meanwhile, when our own engineers graded our nation's infrastructure, they gave us a "D."

We have to do better. America is the nation that built the transcontinental railroad, brought electricity to rural communities, and constructed the interstate highway system. The jobs created by these projects didn't just come from laying down tracks or pavement. They came from businesses that opened near a town's new train station or the new off-ramp.

Over the last two years, we have begun rebuilding for the 21st century, a project that has meant thousands of good jobs for the hard-hit construction industry. Tonight, I'm proposing that we redouble these efforts.

We will put more Americans to work repairing crumbling roads and bridges. We will make sure this is fully paid for, attract private investment, and pick projects based on what's best for the economy, not politicians.

Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80% of Americans access to high-speed rail, which could allow you go places in half the time it takes to travel by car. For some trips, it will be faster than flying – without the pat-down. As we speak, routes in California and the Midwest are already underway.

Within the next five years, we will make it possible for business to deploy the next generation of high-speed wireless coverage to 98% of all Americans. This isn't just about a faster internet and fewer dropped calls. It's about connecting every part of America to the digital age. It's about a rural community in Iowa or Alabama where farmers and small business owners will be able to sell their products all over the world. It's about a firefighter who can download the design of a burning building onto a handheld device; a student who can take classes with a digital textbook; or a patient who can have face-to-face video chats with her doctor.

All these investments – in innovation, education, and infrastructure – will make America a better place to do business and create jobs. But to help our companies compete, we also have to knock down barriers that stand in the way of their success.

Over the years, a parade of lobbyists has rigged the tax code to benefit particular companies and industries. Those with accountants or lawyers to work the system can end up paying no taxes at all. But all the rest are hit with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and it has to change.

So tonight, I'm asking Democrats and Republicans to simplify the system. Get rid of the loopholes. Level the playing field. And use the savings to lower the corporate tax rate for the first time in 25 years – without adding to our deficit.

To help businesses sell more products abroad, we set a goal of doubling our exports by 2014 – because the more we export, the more jobs we create at home. Already, our exports are up. Recently, we signed agreements with India and China that will support more than 250,000 jobs in the United States. And last month, we finalized a trade agreement with South Korea that will support at least 70,000 American jobs. This agreement has unprecedented support from business and labor; Democrats and Republicans, and I ask this Congress to pass it as soon as possible.

Before I took office, I made it clear that we would enforce our trade agreements, and that I would only sign deals that keep faith with American workers, and promote American jobs. That's what we did with Korea, and that's what I intend to do as we pursue agreements with Panama and Colombia, and continue our Asia Pacific and global trade talks.

To reduce barriers to growth and investment, I've ordered a review of government regulations. When we find rules that put an unnecessary burden on businesses, we will fix them. But I will not hesitate to create or enforce commonsense safeguards to protect the American people. That's what we've done in this country for more than a century. It's why our food is safe to eat, our water is safe to drink, and our air is safe to breathe. It's why we have speed limits and child labor laws. It's why last year, we put in place consumer protections against hidden fees and penalties by credit card companies, and new rules to prevent another financial crisis. And it's why we passed reform that finally prevents the health insurance industry from exploiting patients.

Now, I've heard rumors that a few of you have some concerns about the new health care law. So let me be the first to say that anything can be improved. If you have ideas about how to improve this law by making care better or more affordable, I am eager to work with you. We can start right now by correcting a flaw in the legislation that has placed an unnecessary bookkeeping burden on small businesses.

What I'm not willing to do is go back to the days when insurance companies could deny someone coverage because of a pre-existing condition. I'm not willing to tell James Howard, a brain cancer patient from Texas, that his treatment might not be covered. I'm not willing to tell Jim Houser, a small business owner from Oregon, that he has to go back to paying $5,000 more to cover his employees. As we speak, this law is making prescription drugs cheaper for seniors and giving uninsured students a chance to stay on their parents' coverage. So instead of re-fighting the battles of the last two years, let's fix what needs fixing and move forward.

Now, the final step – a critical step – in winning the future is to make sure we aren't buried under a mountain of debt.

We are living with a legacy of deficit-spending that began almost a decade ago. And in the wake of the financial crisis, some of that was necessary to keep credit flowing, save jobs, and put money in people's pockets.

But now that the worst of the recession is over, we have to confront the fact that our government spends more than it takes in. That is not sustainable. Every day, families sacrifice to live within their means. They deserve a government that does the same.

So tonight, I am proposing that starting this year, we freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years. This would reduce the deficit by more than $400 billion over the next decade, and will bring discretionary spending to the lowest share of our economy since Dwight Eisenhower was president.

This freeze will require painful cuts. Already, we have frozen the salaries of hardworking federal employees for the next two years. I've proposed cuts to things I care deeply about, like community action programs. The Secretary of Defense has also agreed to cut tens of billions of dollars in spending that he and his generals believe our military can do without.

I recognize that some in this Chamber have already proposed deeper cuts, and I'm willing to eliminate whatever we can honestly afford to do without. But let's make sure that we're not doing it on the backs of our most vulnerable citizens. And let's make sure what we're cutting is really excess weight. Cutting the deficit by gutting our investments in innovation and education is like lightening an overloaded airplane by removing its engine. It may feel like you're flying high at first, but it won't take long before you'll feel the impact.

Now, most of the cuts and savings I've proposed only address annual domestic spending, which represents a little more than 12% of our budget. To make further progress, we have to stop pretending that cutting this kind of spending alone will be enough. It won't.

The bipartisan Fiscal Commission I created last year made this crystal clear. I don't agree with all their proposals, but they made important progress. And their conclusion is that the only way to tackle our deficit is to cut excessive spending wherever we find it – in domestic spending, defense spending, health care spending, and spending through tax breaks and loopholes.

This means further reducing health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are the single biggest contributor to our long-term deficit. Health insurance reform will slow these rising costs, which is part of why nonpartisan economists have said that repealing the health care law would add a quarter of a trillion dollars to our deficit. Still, I'm willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs, including one that Republicans suggested last year: medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits.

To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations. And we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans' guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.

And if we truly care about our deficit, we simply cannot afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. Before we take money away from our schools, or scholarships away from our students, we should ask millionaires to give up their tax break.

It's not a matter of punishing their success. It's about promoting America's success.

In fact, the best thing we could do on taxes for all Americans is to simplify the individual tax code. This will be a tough job, but members of both parties have expressed interest in doing this, and I am prepared to join them.

So now is the time to act. Now is the time for both sides and both houses of Congress – Democrats and Republicans – to forge a principled compromise that gets the job done. If we make the hard choices now to rein in our deficits, we can make the investments we need to win the future.

Let me take this one step further. We shouldn't just give our people a government that's more affordable. We should give them a government that's more competent and efficient. We cannot win the future with a government of the past.

We live and do business in the information age, but the last major reorganization of the government happened in the age of black and white TV. There are twelve different agencies that deal with exports. There are at least five different entities that deal with housing policy. Then there's my favorite example: the Interior Department is in charge of salmon while they're in fresh water, but the Commerce Department handles them in when they're in saltwater. And I hear it gets even more complicated once they're smoked.

Now, we have made great strides over the last two years in using technology and getting rid of waste. Veterans can now download their electronic medical records with a click of the mouse. We're selling acres of federal office space that hasn't been used in years, and we will cut through red tape to get rid of more. But we need to think bigger. In the coming months, my administration will develop a proposal to merge, consolidate, and reorganize the federal government in a way that best serves the goal of a more competitive America. I will submit that proposal to Congress for a vote – and we will push to get it passed.

In the coming year, we will also work to rebuild people's faith in the institution of government. Because you deserve to know exactly how and where your tax dollars are being spent, you will be able to go to a website and get that information for the very first time in history. Because you deserve to know when your elected officials are meeting with lobbyists, I ask Congress to do what the White House has already done: put that information online. And because the American people deserve to know that special interests aren't larding up legislation with pet projects, both parties in Congress should know this: if a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it.

A 21st century government that's open and competent. A government that lives within its means. An economy that's driven by new skills and ideas. Our success in this new and changing world will require reform, responsibility, and innovation. It will also require us to approach that world with a new level of engagement in our foreign affairs.

Just as jobs and businesses can now race across borders, so can new threats and new challenges. No single wall separates East and West; no one rival superpower is aligned against us.

And so we must defeat determined enemies wherever they are, and build coalitions that cut across lines of region and race and religion. America's moral example must always shine for all who yearn for freedom, justice, and dignity. And because we have begun this work, tonight we can say that American leadership has been renewed and America's standing has been restored.

Look to Iraq, where nearly 100,000 of our brave men and women have left with their heads held high; where American combat patrols have ended; violence has come down; and a new government has been formed. This year, our civilians will forge a lasting partnership with the Iraqi people, while we finish the job of bringing our troops out of Iraq. America's commitment has been kept; the Iraq War is coming to an end.

Of course, as we speak, al Qaeda and their affiliates continue to plan attacks against us. Thanks to our intelligence and law enforcement professionals, we are disrupting plots and securing our cities and skies. And as extremists try to inspire acts of violence within our borders, we are responding with the strength of our communities, with respect for the rule of law, and with the conviction that American Muslims are a part of our American family.

We have also taken the fight to al Qaeda and their allies abroad. In Afghanistan, our troops have taken Taliban strongholds and trained Afghan Security Forces. Our purpose is clear – by preventing the Taliban from reestablishing a stranglehold over the Afghan people, we will deny al Qaeda the safe-haven that served as a launching pad for 9/11.

Thanks to our heroic troops and civilians, fewer Afghans are under the control of the insurgency. There will be tough fighting ahead, and the Afghan government will need to deliver better governance. But we are strengthening the capacity of the Afghan people and building an enduring partnership with them. This year, we will work with nearly 50 countries to begin a transition to an Afghan lead. And this July, we will begin to bring our troops home.

In Pakistan, al Qaeda's leadership is under more pressure than at any point since 2001. Their leaders and operatives are being removed from the battlefield. Their safe-havens are shrinking. And we have sent a message from the Afghan border to the Arabian Peninsula to all parts of the globe: we will not relent, we will not waver, and we will defeat you.

American leadership can also be seen in the effort to secure the worst weapons of war. Because Republicans and Democrats approved the New START Treaty, far fewer nuclear weapons and launchers will be deployed. Because we rallied the world, nuclear materials are being locked down on every continent so they never fall into the hands of terrorists.

Because of a diplomatic effort to insist that Iran meet its obligations, the Iranian government now faces tougher and tighter sanctions than ever before. And on the Korean peninsula, we stand with our ally South Korea, and insist that North Korea keeps its commitment to abandon nuclear weapons.

This is just a part of how we are shaping a world that favors peace and prosperity. With our European allies, we revitalized NATO, and increased our cooperation on everything from counter-terrorism to missile defense. We have reset our relationship with Russia, strengthened Asian alliances, and built new partnerships with nations like India. This March, I will travel to Brazil, Chile, and El Salvador to forge new alliances for progress in the Americas. Around the globe, we are standing with those who take responsibility – helping farmers grow more food; supporting doctors who care for the sick; and combating the corruption that can rot a society and rob people of opportunity.

Recent events have shown us that what sets us apart must not just be our power – it must be the purpose behind it. In South Sudan – with our assistance – the people were finally able to vote for independence after years of war. Thousands lined up before dawn. People danced in the streets. One man who lost four of his brothers at war summed up the scene around him: "This was a battlefield for most of my life. Now we want to be free."

We saw that same desire to be free in Tunisia, where the will of the people proved more powerful than the writ of a dictator. And tonight, let us be clear: the United States of America stands with the people of Tunisia, and supports the democratic aspirations of all people.

We must never forget that the things we've struggled for, and fought for, live in the hearts of people everywhere. And we must always remember that the Americans who have borne the greatest burden in this struggle are the men and women who serve our country.

Tonight, let us speak with one voice in reaffirming that our nation is united in support of our troops and their families. Let us serve them as well as they have served us – by giving them the equipment they need; by providing them with the care and benefits they have earned; and by enlisting our veterans in the great task of building our own nation.

Our troops come from every corner of this country – they are black, white, Latino, Asian and Native American. They are Christian and Hindu, Jewish and Muslim. And, yes, we know that some of them are gay. Starting this year, no American will be forbidden from serving the country they love because of who they love. And with that change, I call on all of our college campuses to open their doors to our military recruiters and the ROTC. It is time to leave behind the divisive battles of the past. It is time to move forward as one nation.

We should have no illusions about the work ahead of us. Reforming our schools; changing the way we use energy; reducing our deficit – none of this is easy. All of it will take time. And it will be harder because we will argue about everything. The cost. The details. The letter of every law.

Of course, some countries don't have this problem. If the central government wants a railroad, they get a railroad – no matter how many homes are bulldozed. If they don't want a bad story in the newspaper, it doesn't get written.

And yet, as contentious and frustrating and messy as our democracy can sometimes be, I know there isn't a person here who would trade places with any other nation on Earth.

We may have differences in policy, but we all believe in the rights enshrined in our Constitution. We may have different opinions, but we believe in the same promise that says this is a place where you can make it if you try. We may have different backgrounds, but we believe in the same dream that says this is a country where anything's possible. No matter who you are. No matter where you come from.

That dream is why I can stand here before you tonight. That dream is why a working class kid from Scranton can stand behind me. That dream is why someone who began by sweeping the floors of his father's Cincinnati bar can preside as Speaker of the House in the greatest nation on Earth.

That dream – that American Dream – is what drove the Allen Brothers to reinvent their roofing company for a new era. It's what drove those students at Forsyth Tech to learn a new skill and work towards the future. And that dream is the story of a small business owner named Brandon Fisher.

Brandon started a company in Berlin, Pennsylvania that specializes in a new kind of drilling technology. One day last summer, he saw the news that halfway across the world, 33 men were trapped in a Chilean mine, and no one knew how to save them.

But Brandon thought his company could help. And so he designed a rescue that would come to be known as Plan B. His employees worked around the clock to manufacture the necessary drilling equipment. And Brandon left for Chile.

Along with others, he began drilling a 2,000 foot hole into the ground, working three or four days at a time with no sleep. Thirty-seven days later, Plan B succeeded, and the miners were rescued. But because he didn't want all of the attention, Brandon wasn't there when the miners emerged. He had already gone home, back to work on his next project.

Later, one of his employees said of the rescue, "We proved that Center Rock is a little company, but we do big things."

We do big things.

From the earliest days of our founding, America has been the story of ordinary people who dare to dream. That's how we win the future.

We are a nation that says, "I might not have a lot of money, but I have this great idea for a new company. I might not come from a family of college graduates, but I will be the first to get my degree. I might not know those people in trouble, but I think I can help them, and I need to try. I'm not sure how we'll reach that better place beyond the horizon, but I know we'll get there. I know we will."

We do big things.

The idea of America endures. Our destiny remains our choice. And tonight, more than two centuries later, it is because of our people that our future is hopeful, our journey goes forward, and the state of our union is strong.

Thank you, God Bless You, and may God Bless the United States of America. [LC]

Pacifica Radio: Connect the Dots – Lila Garrett, January 31, 2011: 6:59 p.m.

[Transcribed from podcast by Tara Carreon, American-Buddha Online Librarian]

I’m Lila Garrett. Next on Connect the Dots we’ll analyze the fallout from Obama’s State of the Union address. Journalist John Nichols, Senator Bernie Sanders and Congressman Dennis Kucinich join us right now on Connect the Dots.

Good Monday Morning. Welcome to Connect the Dots. I’m your host Lila Garrett noticing that ever since the President made his State of the Union speech last Tuesday, as many Republicans have come out praising it as Democrats. Certainly more than progressive Democrats. And why not? Ten minutes after he finished his State of the Union Speech, the Chamber of Commerce enthusiastically endorsed it. This was followed by a whole slew of right-wing business organizations who went from giving him a pat on the head to sheer ecstasy. And who can blame them? In an effort to include a little something for everybody, the lion’s share of the goodies went to the right-wing.

We have guests who are going to talk about this today, great guests, John Nichols, Senator Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, but first, if you’re a corporation, would you not be thrilled to have nuclear power, clean coal, and natural gas labeled “clean energy”? Yes. The three most dangerous sources of energy were lumped in with turning sunlight and water into fuel for our cars. Of course, Obama did request Congress to eliminate billions in taxpayer dollars for the oil companies. But hey, we need those dollars for the 55 nuclear plants he wants to build. He waxed eloquent about our future on the Internet. He said, “it’s about connecting every part of America to the digital age.” He said, “It's about community in Iowa or Alabama where farmers and small business owners will be able to sell their products all over the world or a patient can have a face to face video chat with her doctor.” When he shared his dreams of high-speed Internet, he did however neglect to mention that his choice for chair of the FCC was Julius Genachowski who has approved the dismantling of Net Neutrality which begins with serious slowing down of the Internet going to downright censorship. So let’s hope that that patient that Obama mentioned lives long enough to reach her doctor.

Obama pledged to concentrate on our infrastructure and after inspiring us with images of new highways, smooth roads, and bridges to somewhere he mentioned in passing that this will of course involve a partnership with the private sector. Save your dollars America! Here comes tolls! Chock another one up to privatization!

He praised Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ willingness to cut the defense budget, which represents 59 cents out of each dollar we spend nationally, and since that is at the center of our huge deficit, we figure it should be cut at least in half. Nothing like it! What Gates wants to do is get rid of the obsolete stuff that doesn’t kill as efficiently as drones, and weapons laced with nuclear material. He wants that upgrade, and his tradeoff is cutting the defense budget by about 8%. The Republicans are hesitating. Makes you wonder where they are in the food chain, doesn’t it? With 14 million Americans unemployed, and 1 out of every 50 children homeless, he announced that “the worst of the recession is over.” That’s a quote. He proposed that “starting this year, we freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years.” “What!,” we say. He admitted it would cause pain. “This means further reducing of Medicare and Medicaid,” he said. And of course, the Republicans’ favorite was mentioned by him, making it just about impossible to sue a doctor for malpractice unless you are very rich in the first place. The Republicans and the Blue Dog Democrats went wild for that one.

Social Security was trickiest of all. We should strengthen social security, he said, without putting current retirees at risk, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities, and without subjecting Americans to the whims of the stock market. Sounds good. If you’re on social security now, you’re safe. Then, banking on the basic indifference of most people for laws that don’t involve them personally, the Republicans are counting on the selfishness of the American people not to care what happens to future generations. Unfortunately, we have found in voting on proposition that this i
s a good bet. So, if you doubt that social security is in trouble, don’t. It is.

He said, in fact to every young person listening tonight who is contemplating their career choice, “if you want to make a difference in the life of our nation, become a teacher. Your country needs you.” Sure, become a teacher and hope you can get a job slinging hash. This is the middle of the greatest firing and intimidation of teachers in our history.

He made a pledge to get taxes from corporations that don’t pay taxes, which is a good thing, and to cut taxes for corporations that do, which is clearly a bad thing. He pledged to create more jobs at home. He said, “I will only sign deals that promote American workers.” Sounds good. But this new head of the Committee on Jobs is Jeffrey Immelte, who was the CEO of Connecticut’s General Motors, and his claim to fame is sending American jobs to China.

And while the President made a speech for the Dream bill which would open a decent path to citizenship for immigrants, and he praised the end of “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” literally, in the next sentence, he sais, “And with that change, I call on all of our college campuses to open their doors to our military recruiters and the ROTC.” Combine that terrible suggestion with the heating up of the First Lady’s campaign to work with military families, and what have you got? A guarantee to shore up our permanent war policy.

With us now, to continue the discussion of this remarkably contradictory speech are three people eminently qualified to do so: John Nichols, Senator Bernie Sanders, and Congressman Dennis Kucinich.

Let’s begin with John Nichols. John Nichols writes about politics for the Nation magazine as its Washington correspondent, he’s a contributing writer to the Progressive and In These Times, and the associate editor of the Capital Times daily newspaper in Madison, Wisconsin. His articles have appeared in the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, and good papers everywhere.

John Nichols, welcome to Connect the Dots.

[John Nichols] Well, I’m delighted to be on with you, Lila.

[LG] It’s so good to be on with you, again. It’s been much, much too long. Okay, so Obama’s speech has brought us together, his State of the Union speech has brought us together, who knows who else it will bring together, but at least there’s you and me. But I have some notes here from you that I got on the Internet, which I’d like to ask you about, it says, “What President Obama shouldn’t say in the State of the Union address.” Okay, Senator Bernie Sanders and Progressive groups are urging the President to avoid any talk of cutting social security, instead Sanders says he should use the State of the Union speech to stand by your campaign promises to strengthen social security, and Bernie Sanders will be with us in a little while, but what did you think the President said about standing by social security?

[JN] Well, I thought that was the one place where Progressives might have claim to bit of a victory. About two weeks ago, there was a general sense on Capitol Hill and among the punditocracy, if we can call it that, all the people who comment on our politics, that President Obama was very likely to use this speech to outline some sort of support for his deficit commission proposal to undermine social security. Instead of doing that, the President made a relatively robust defence of social security, actually outlining the things that he found unacceptable, certainly looking like he was opposed to any effort to do privatization, mentioning specifically not wanting to gamble people’s futures on the stock market. So what he said there was pretty good. What’s frightening to me is that almost in the same context however, he did talk about Medicare and Medicaid and cutting them, or at least addressing them, in the context of deficit reduction. That is dangerous talk. So while there may have been a little bit of a victory on social security, and one that Progressives ought to recognize as such, there are also dangers on Medicare and Medicaid.

[LG] And he didn’t really rule out any kind of cuts in social security, did he? He talked about those people who are on social security now definitely need to be protected.

[JN] He did mention young workers. I think that the best way to read what he said is that he’s not going there at this point. And I think that that’s good, that’s again, I believe, a response to the very strong organizing by labor unions, religious groups, community organizations as well as members of Congress, like Bernie Sanders. However, I think we have to be very, very careful. Sometimes we get so busy fighting to defend social security that we forget that it’s part of a broad social safety network, especially for our elderly, but also for our disabled, and a lot of young people. And if we keep social security without any cuts, don’t do anything harmful to it, but then go and start to make cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, the end result will be just as devastating. And so I think the key thing here is to shift our focus. Don’t forget about defending social security – that’s essential – but shift our focus over to some of those cuts on Medicare and Medicaid because I really do believe that that’s the danger zone as regards the social safety net. I think that there’s a genuine chance that this Congress is going to start playing with Medicare and Medicaid funding issues in a way that could be very harmful, not merely to the elderly but also to the tens of millions of younger Americans who rely on Medicaid.

[LG] And it really is getting the elephant’s nose, or I guess it’s the camel’s nose, isn’t it, under the tent?

[JN] You know, Lila, it’s an elephant in this case since we are talking about some very conservative republicans.

[LG] So it is about getting the elephant’s nose under the tent when it comes to social services, if in fact we do allow these cuts. Good point.

[JN] A way to see it is broadly, even if we have a victory on social security, I don’t think that’s enough.

[LG] But Paul Ryan and the right wing are planning a really diabolical attack on social security, and then we’ll move off that subject, and that is that those who are on it now will stay on it. This new choice between accepting a private plan for social security, or a public plan, will start with those who from now on, or when it passes, will start then at the age of 45 or whenever social security actually starts. So what they’re saying is, “Don’t worry, folks. If you’re now on social security, you can vote for this, because to hell with the other people.” And the Republicans are depending upon the fact, and this is a very sad thing, John, that people are self-interested. They don’t really worry about other generations. They worry about here and now, what’s happening to me. And they feel that’s how they’re going to pass it. That’s what you got from Paul Ryan, didn’t you?

[JN] Oh, I think there’s no question of that, and this is one of the important things to understand. Paul Ryan is an extreme figure within the Republican party. You know, many of his fellow Republicans are very ill at ease with where Ryan takes the debate. But, he is a rising leader within that party, and at this point they are giving him a tremendous amount of leeway. Obviously, he was chosen to deliver the response to the State of the Union, but something much more important happened yesterday. While his response was televised, and we all talked about it, on the floor of the Congress yesterday, they passed a resolution that essentially authorizes him, Paul Ryan, to set the spending limits for the country, because he’s chair of the budget committee – that’s an unprecedented power handed to an individual member of Congress and it’s one that we should be very, very frightened by because the game that Paul Ryan will play is not to propose cutting social security, Medicare, Medicaid, or other programs, what he will do is simply say “Here’s how much money you have for them. Here, you can’t spend above this level. I’m the budget committee chair, and this is what I’m going to authorize.” Now you understand it, once you’ve got somebody like him setting a top, a cap on the amount of money that can be spent, you begin a slow process of squeezing those programs down to a size that they’re dysfunctional. And this is what Thatcher did in England in the 1980’s to the National Healthcare Program, really bringing it to the brink of destruction, and it’s a very dangerous thing.

[LG] How could the Congress vote to give one individual, even if he is Chair of the Committee, the right to unilaterally decide what the spending cap will be?

[JN] Well, I agree with you, Lila. You’re asking exactly the right question. But the problem is, we have a Congress now that plays by its own set of rules, and that set of rules is not one that is outlined in the Constitution, it’s not one that the American people are familiar with, and frankly, we have a media in this country that doesn’t report on substantive politics very often. More often than not it reports on personalities and style. And Paul Ryan is a nice looking young man, and that’s about as far as they get.

But here’s where the problem lies. He will not be able, in and of himself, to do anything, but he might be able to cause harm, and the difference there is it’s not a matter of passing legislation, it’s a matter of limiting, squeezing the flow of money. And putting someone like that in a position to basically decide how much money is available, is going to be a real challenge as we go through this coming year. And it’s one that the Democrats in the House of Representatives especially have to get much more sophisticated about. They have to be yelling and screaming about these issues, focusing on the barriers that Republicans are erecting to the functional operation of the federal government. Forget about the debates, about what you believe in, policy-wise. Forget about the questions whether you like Obama, whether you like the Republicans, or anything like that. There’s the basic level of functioning in the federal government that some of these people, like Ryan, would like to throw off course. They’d like to make the federal government such a mess that then people really will throw their arms up and say, “Screw it. Let’s privatize.” And that’s their hope, it’s a monkey-wrenching tactic, one that’s very dangerous.

[LG] Well, the President gave them hope yesterday when he just slipped in that when we do all these wonderful things with infrastructure, we are going to need private money. He just slipped that in, and he also slipped in during his energy discussion, he talked about clean energy in such a glowing way and then suddenly he just slipped in, “We will also be using nuclear energy, and clean coal and natural gas” – you know, three of the most dangerous energy sources in the world. There’s no such thing as clean coal, there’s no such thing as a nuclear facility that doesn’t eventually leak, and there are terrible dangers also with natural gas. I mean, he just slipped it in.

And here’s another little something that he slipped in last night, and I want to ask you what your attitude was about that, because I had a few people over for this and the minute he said this, they all yelled, “What!” Before that they were calm, I thought even bored, but this really got their attention. It says, “Starting this year, no American will be forbidden from serving the country they love because of who they love.” And there was deserved applause on that, because he was talking about Don’t ask, don’t tell being over, thank goodness. “And with that change, I call on all of our college campuses to open their doors to our military recruiters and the ROTC. It is time to leave behind the divisive battles of the past. It is time to move forward as one nation.” Is that our idea of moving forward as one nation?

[JN] You noticed that, hey? Yes, that was a very, very serious statement there, because he’s essentially undermining all of the campaign promises, largely to Vietnam veterans, to assure that our public schools do not become recruitment zones, particularly for poor Americans who don’t have other options. You know, going into the military is the only thing you can do. And so by saying that, the President clearly aligned himself with a push to let military recruitment deep into, not just our colleges through ROTC, but ultimately into our high schools and even our junior highs. You are right to notice, and it’s one of many statements in this speech that should be unsettling to progressives.

Look, the bottom line about this speech is it wasn’t as bad as some people feared it might have been. But our standards shouldn’t be “not horrible.” Our standards should be fighting for progressive ideals we know are not just political talking points, but necessary steps to create a fair and functional society. And Obama really didn’t go there in so many areas.

One of the most troubling areas was the discussion of foreign policy. He failed to even mention what’s going on in Cairo right now. You have hundreds of thousands of people going into the streets to object to a corrupt and brutal government that has been shored up for decades by the United States. He didn’t mention what’s happening in Lebanon. He didn’t mention some of the incredible revelations in the last two or three days as regards the Middle East peace process. And for a President of the United States, a Democratic President of the United States to give less attention to the Middle East and political hot spots than George W. Bush did, is frankly embarrassing.

[LG] We are talking to the journalist, John Nichols, are we are discussing the President’s attack, or not attack on foreign policy in his speech. And not only that but he was very, very vague about Afghanistan, except to give us what we were supposed to accept as good news, and it would be good news if it was really true, that we are going to pull back from Afghanistan starting during the summer. And yet, the last I read, we were going to send 30,000 more troops. So what’s he talking about?

[JN] Well, this gets to the great crisis of Afghanistan, and this is the problem there. President Obama accepted a fantasy as regards Afghanistan, roughly a year and a half ago, and that was that the United States could win a war there on the ground with a surge of additional troops. It was never going to be the case. And it’s fascinating that when the President made those statements last night, I was doing commentary on Al Jazeera and a number of other networks, and it happened that they went to their Afghanistan correspondent after the President talked about this, and she said that what he was saying in the State of the Union address was simply out of synch with the reality out on the ground in Afghanistan where there are all sorts of problems, huge challenges with the corruption of the existing government, a resurgent Taliban in many regions, and very little evidence that things are moving towards stability or a positive play-out of the U.S. occupation. So you have the President in a disconnect here. I hope that he does ultimately decide to do the painful thing. And it is painful. And that is simply to withdraw. To say, look, we’ve screwed a lot of things up here, we’ve created a lot of messes, but to remain on the ground and try and manage this situation militarily is not going to work. And so we’re going to pull U.S. troops out and hopefully provide a lot of funding for humanitarian programs and development programs that might actually do some good. But I am very dubious about the President on this, and the weird thing is the only thing that plays in our favor, the favor of those of us who would like to get out of that mess, is politics. The odd reality is that Barack Obama might well withdraw U.S. troops, not because a war has been won or circumstances have stabilized on the ground, but simply because he doesn’t want to be managing a bad fight anymore. It’s a painful reality that politics might play in our favor this time.

[LG] Yeah, but as I say, he’s sending 30,000 more troops there. Isn’t he just replacing …

[JN] Believe me, I’m with you. I agree.

[LG] But isn’t that just replacing the troops he may withdraw and give a vacation to?

[JN] Look, I mean, again, go back to the courthouse. This war is not going well. So the troops that are sent there are going to continue to manage an occupation that isn’t working. And, you know, President Obama can keep them there, he can remove them, but the choice is not going to be made on the basis of the war having gone well, of things turning in a proper direction. The reality is that if we withdraw our forces from there, it will be a political choice made to get out of a mess, not a choice made based on the sort of progress that the President was talking about in his speech. I fear that, you know, we end up again in obviously a classic Vietnam situation where they keep saying we’re winning, they keep saying we’re winning, and then they send more troops. That’s a scary thought.

[LG] John Nichols I have to ask you this question not to put you on the spot but because you know everything: Why are we in Afghanistan?

[JN] Well, there’s a whole bunch of reasons that we’re in Afghanistan, and they go back to questions that were raised in 2000, 2001, before September 11, based on the development of an oil pipeline coming out of the former Soviet republics which are very oil rich but don’t have easy routes to transport that oil out of their region. The United States government has a huge military presence in Afghanistan, but we also have a huge military presence in Pakistan and in many of those former Soviet republics. So there is an oil politics overlay to this even though there’s very little evidence that Afghanistan is particularly an oil rich country. That’s one thing.

Secondly, we are there managing things for Pakistan. Pakistan has a problem with Afghanistan, particularly because of the very fluid borders. So we are very, very politically tied to Pakistan, and Pakistan has concerns about Afghanistan. We are doing some of their bidding there.

And finally, we’ve put ourselves into a bad situation, very unthinking, as regards to how to extract. So you have this oil politics, you have the geopolitical situation in the region, and finally you have the situation of a Barack Obama becoming President of the United States after a campaign in which he and an awfully lot of unwise Democrats referred to Afghanistan as “The good war.” So Iraq was the bad war, Afghanistan was the good one. That was never the case; it’s not the case now; but, there’s a political overlay there where they developed this fantasy that somehow Afghanistan was something positive. There was something good going on there. That’s not the case.

But for all of those reasons, these explanations are in play on any given day, and the ultimate reality, the only thing that people really need to know, is that just about every country that ever tried to occupy Afghanistan, they have all failed. It is an unoccupiable country, a country where ultimately an attempt to control it by an outside force will be upset and defeated. That’s what happened to the British Empire, that’s what happened to the Soviet Empire, and if the United States tries to remain there long-term, it will happen to us.

And one hopes that Obama was serious in his speech when he was saying that ultimately he wants to begin serious withdrawal. It’s the only logical route. It’s not because we want to stabilize things, we would withdraw simply as a political move to get out. I fear, however, that the oil politics of the former Soviet republics in that region may lead us to try and maintain some sort of long-term, if not direct military presence, an extended military presence, be it NATO or other forces, ultimately propping up the incredibly corrupt Karzai government and feeding into a situation that at some point along the line is going to blow up. It has blown up, realistically, but could become much worse.

[LG] The President recommended a five-year freeze on discretionary funding. I mean, what could he possibly be thinking? I have to tell you, foreclosures are so rampant that three members of my family have had the threat of foreclosures and their response was “What?!” I mean, these are three members of my family who pay their mortgage every year. And you know, they spited the banks, I have to tell you one happy story here, so brilliantly, that each one of them had their mortgages reduced dramatically. That was after a long, long legal effort. But the foreclosures are so epidemic at this point people are on the street, one out of every fifty children is now homeless, healthcare is so expensive, even for Veterans who are not really getting enough to cover their healthcare, that people are dying, they are literally dying, they can’t get work – what was the President talking about when he said the economy was better? Just that Wall Street is better? How in the world can he say that he is going to freeze funding for five years? Could he possibly be serious?

[JN] Oh, I think he’s quite serious, he’s also quite wrong. I mean, look, this is the bottom line. You ask if he is serious, and that gets to a deeper issue. The fact of the matter is any President who says he is going to freeze discretionary spending but only is going to do so on the domestic side, not on military spending, and then starts to make all sorts of other exceptions, talks about spending in other areas of construction development, rail development, wireless buildout – things of that nature – we know he’s not serious. I mean, that’s just a rhetorical point. That’s a little fantasy you throw into your speech because it sounds good, it suggests that you’re recognizing your opposition’s obsession with deficits. But no, he’s not serious, frankly. Unfortunately, he is buying into a dialogue, a discourse we’re having, which suggests wrongly that we have a financial crisis in this country rooted in deficits or federal spending. We’re not in a crisis position. This is an interesting thing. We have a host of easy remedies that would allow us to avoid most of the challenges that the President and even his most ardent Republican critics talk about. We can develop a fair tax policy that makes billionaires pay their taxes, that makes millionaires live by some basic estate taxes, and these are simple things we can do that can rectify a lot of the problems. We can cut wasteful defense spending and still keep America the safest most secure country on the planet but cut massive, wasteful defense spending. And yes, there are areas where you can reform the federal government, make it more efficient. There’s a lot of stuff you can do. All those things are legit.

And then on top of it, let me give you the final thing, Lila. The fact is we have moved toward an economy that is driven by financial speculation. And yet financial speculation, unlike your property, your purchases, your income, is not taxed. We need a financial speculation tax, sort of like the old token tax. You know, when people are trading hundreds of thousands of shares of stock back and forth just to make a slight margin call, when you have all of these different instruments for, again, speculating on everything from oil price rises to food prices and everything else, we should be taxing that. It’s a way to control the excessive speculation, and it’s also a way to get some useful result from all this shifting of money back and forth. And it’s interesting that this is not some liberal or left-wing idea. Sarkozy, the president of France, has begun talking about this. Many European leaders are talking about the need for a financial transactions tax. And we have a handful of people in our U.S. Congress that have brought it up, led by Peter DeFazio from Oregon and Tom Harkin from Iowa, but this needs to be a much bigger deal. Because if we simply did a tiny amount of taxation, just a micro-cents on every stock transfer above a certain level by the speculators, we would have more than enough money to pay for healthcare, to pay for education, to stabilize our state and local budgets. The money is there. The fact of the matter is we just don’t have a federal government that is willing to go out and collect it in a reasonable way and then to use it for needed, and substantive purposes rather than going off and occupying countries that don’t want to be occupied.

[LG] Exactly! And on that note, which is a great note of truth, we will thank you John Nichols for this wonderful interview. It’s been a big help and we hope we can call on you again but not such a big space between interviews, okay?

[JN] I am honored to be with you always, Lila. Thank you for having me.

[LG] We’ve been speaking with journalist John Nichols. With us now is Senator Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006 after serving 16 years in the House of Representatives. He is the longest serving independent member of Congress in American history. So, Senator Bernie Sanders, welcome to Connect the Dots.

[BS] Good to be with you, Lila.

[LG] Thank you. Now, I would love to know what your response was to the State of the Union speech. I have something here that I got on the Internet. President Obama used the State of the Union address Tuesday to ask the nation to meet the challenges of a global economy. Senator Sanders said creating jobs, cutting deficits, and protecting social security to be the top priorities. Do you think they were?

[BS] Well, I mean, I think the President said some good things, but I think maybe equally important is there are some very important things that he did not talk about. I think what was good was he focused on infrastructure, which I think is an issue we have got to deal with. I know it’s not a sexy issue, but we can create over a period of time millions of good-paying jobs rebuilding our crumbling bridges and roads and water systems, making broadband available to every American which is very important, dealing with high-speed rail, and generally improving our public transportation system. So the President dealt with that. The devil is in the details. His budget is obviously not out yet. But I hope there is in fact a very substantial investment in those areas, because we need to do it, and we create jobs.

Where I think the President was not strong is in really articulating where we are as a nation today and where we’ve got to go in the sense that I don’t believe, I could be wrong, that he even used the word “middle class,” or “working class” in his whole speech.

[LG] He didn’t. He did not.

[BS] And you know, the reality is, and it’s not casting blame, but the reality is that right now the middle class of this country is collapsing, poverty is increasing, and the gap between the very wealthiest people and everybody else is growing wider. So the truth is the economy is in fact doing really, really good for the people on top at Wall Street and corporate America, the economy is doing rather badly for almost everybody else.

I don’t think he set that stage. I don’t think he set that tone. So, he was not as strong as I would have liked. And maybe my ears are a little bit sensitive to this because I am the chairman of the Green Jobs subcommittee. And also playing a very important role on social security, he left a little wobble room, I think, in terms of social security, and making it very clear that he was going to oppose any effort to cut benefits or to raise the retirement age. And I didn’t quite hear that. He talked about working on some bipartisan agreement with Republicans who have been very, very bad on this issue.

So in terms of trade, I think most Americans perceive that our trade policies, whether it’s NAFTA or trade relations with China, etcetera, etcetera, have been a failure, that they’ve cost us millions of good-paying jobs. People want new trade policies that are designed to protect workers, and not just heads of corporations. And he kept touting that old line we’ve been hearing for 30 years now about how great these trade agreements are. So I found that disappointing as well.

[LG] When you talk about the fact that people are poor, they don’t have jobs, they’re struggling, and I’ve heard that in a lot of letters like that, and I’m sure you’ve gotten thousands, maybe millions, the President talked about freezing for five years funding, discretionary funding, what are the people going to do who are losing their homes, who can’t find jobs, who are finding healthcare too expensive, who are literally dying and starving? One out of every 50 children is now homeless. What is he talking about?

[BS] Well, I think you make a very, very good point. And when we talk about the collapse of the middle class and the increase in poverty, what we are talking about in this country is more people who are homeless, more people who have lost their homes through foreclosure, we already have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world, over 20%, more people are losing their health insurance, and those people are in desperate straits. And if you talk about freezing discretionary spending, you are suggesting that those people are not going to get the help that they need, and that means people will go hungry, people will go cold, people will be out in the streets. And then you add to that the fact that states all over this country, California, Vermont, many others, are also facing huge deficit situations, that they are making cuts. So they are cutting back on Medicaid, they are cutting back on their programs, the federal government is not there to help. There is no question but there’s going to be a lot of terrible suffering out there.

[LG] Right! So what is he talking about? I mean, when he talks about lowering the taxes for corporations, and at the same time previous to that he talked about the fact that some corporations get away with not paying at all. Well, those are the ones who went offshore and are only obligated to pay taxes on their profits that they bring back to this country. But why does he talk about lowering the taxes for corporations?

[BS] Well, what he’s talking about, and like everything else, the devil is in the details. What he is talking about is doing away with loopholes, which certainly exist. For example, this year Exxon Mobil, which made 19 billion dollars in profits last year, is paying zero federal taxes. Okay. So you’ve got all kinds of tax havens out there. And his suggestion is that if we can do away with these loopholes, we bring in more revenue, and you can lower the rates. Maybe. But, on the other hand, I think what we know is that corporate America is today paying lower rates than they have in the past. They are sitting on a whole lot of money. So that would not necessarily be my major priority. My major priority would be to figure out how we start rebuilding manufacturing jobs in the United States of America, how we rebuild our infrastructure, how we transform our energy system, and when you do all of those things, it’s not only good for the future of the country, it creates jobs right now.

[LG] Of course we have to bring jobs back to this country, and that’s what the President implied he believed in. At the same time, he’s just taken on Jeffrey Immelte as Chair of the Council on Jobs. I mean, this man was the CEO of the Connecticut General Electric, he is famous for shipping jobs to China. He openly believes in this.

[BS] Right. And that’s exactly right. You know, I’ve been on the floor of the House talking about that. A number of years ago Immelte gave a speech in which he spoke to his investors, and he said that he believes that the future of his company is in China, China, China. So you’re absolutely right. Why he would pick somebody whose company has engaged in outsourcing, in fact building a manufacturing base, unfortunately it’s in China and in other countries, not in the United States, is a very good question.

[LG] And he also said, “I call on all our college campuses to open their doors to our military recruiters and ROTC. It is time to leave behind the divisive battles of the past. It is time to move forward to one nation.” Is that the way we should move forward to one nation by supporting our permanent war economy? Are we looking forward to more wars?

[BS] Well, that’s again a very important issue. He talked about cutting military spending, but given the fact that we’ve almost tripled our military spending I think since 1997, the cuts that he is talking about are fairly minimal. And I think if we are serious about dealing with the deficit, we gotta know how that deficit accrued, which had a lot to do with tax breaks for the rich, two unfunded wars, and the Wall Street bailout. And that I think that there are substantial cuts that can be made in weapons systems that are no longer relevant to the current military issues that we have to deal with. So, again, I think we can do a lot better than what he is proposing over a five-year period, which given the size of the military budget is not all that significant.

[LG] Yeah, but what I really was asking you about, Senator Sanders, is the morality of sending these recruiters into our schools. Because once you put that elephant’s nose under the tent, and you open the doors to colleges and welcome them in, then the high schools will fall, then the grammar schools will fall.

[BS] Well, I’m not sure that that’s an issue for us here. I think that’s an issue for the schools, Lila. If that’s what they want to do, and they think that’s an opportunity for kids, I think that is their right.

[LG] But when the President suggests it, it really makes a huge difference. Well, you did speak about the infrastructure, and I notice that he said in order to do this, we have to partner with private money in order to really build this infrastructure. He kind of sent that right over the radar. How do you feel about that?

[BS] I’m not crazy about that, and obviously, again, he mentioned that in one sentence, so we have to learn more about that. But I think that when you have according to the American Society of Civil Engineers, some Two Trillion dollars of infrastructure work that has to be done, I think we should make that investment, I think the American people obviously should own their own infrastructure, not some private companies. Thank you very much.

[LG] We’ve been speaking with U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders. With us now is Dennis Kucinich. Dennis Kucinich has represented the 10th Congressional District of Ohio in the United States House of Representatives since 1997. He’s the author of the Department of Peace proposal, and the former Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Dennis is the consummate champion of the people, but in 2011 the country is going to be redistricted giving the Republicans a wide advantage. Some districts will be eliminated. Dennis Kucinich’s may be one of them. We’ll ask about that, but first, Congressman Dennis Kucinich. Welcome to Connect the Dots.

[DK] Thank you, Lila. It’s good to be with you.

[LG] Yes, and it’s wonderful to have you. So I saw you on Tuesday night. You’re looking very healthy and hardy behind the President, and now we would like to know what was your reaction to his speech?

[DK] You know, there was a lot in the speech about the President seeking to unify the country. It is particularly important to try and do that after the tragedy in Tucson, and at the same time, I, of course, do not agree with staying in Iraq, staying in Afghanistan. I think it’s a serious mistake. And I’m also looking forward to hearing more from the Administration about what they’re going to do to create jobs. It’s important to talk about energy efficiency and about sustainability, but we have an economy that is lagging because we haven’t addressed those issues in the past, and I think we’ve missed a lot of opportunities. You know, I’m not happy about 15 million people out of work, another 12 million people underemployed, 50 million people without healthcare. Look, the President has a tough job on his hands, but frankly, I think Wall Street is calling too many of the shots there.

[LG] Well, the President said that we are in the middle of a great recovery, and that things are much, much better, and so he has decided to freeze spending for the next five years. Discretionary spending.

[DK] Well, it’s a jobless recovery, and a freeze on discretionary spending for five years, when you have the Pentagon taking up more and more of the discretionary budget. Right now it’s just over 50%. What that means is if you freeze spending, and you don’t freeze the Pentagon, they will eventually become the tomato that ate Washington, and we’ll end up being in a situation where all of the domestic needs that are pressing right now for education in particular will not be able to be met. The money just won’t be there. And so I’m VERY concerned that we’re setting forth economic policies that are not going to be successful, and that they’ll actually end up exacerbating the problem we have. The government needs to invest right now. Now the President did talk about infrastructure, but the kind of infrastructure investment that’s needed is trillions of dollars, if you listen to the American Institute of Architecture and their assessment of America’s infrastructure: bridges, roads, water systems, sewer systems, and all. So I think we have a very minimalist approach here towards the economy. We have a jobless quote “recovery” unquote. Wall Street is recovering famously but Main Street is not.

[LG] Now in terms of the Pentagon, and the fact that we have this huge budget, which is like a trillion dollars, they say it’s 700 billion but we know that it’s much more, he congratulated Robert Gates for the fact that he wants to cut back on the defense budget. As a matter of fact, we had the figure, it was like 10% of what the defense budget is supposed to be like. He wanted to cut back 70 billion dollars, and the Republicans went into orbit. You know, “Oh no, that’s the one thing we can’t cut.” So who’s at fault here?

[DK] Well, we have a culture which causes the Pentagon budget to have priority over everything else. Look, we have an obligation to defend our country but is not a well-educated child part of the defense of the country? Is not a healthy populace defending the country? We seem to have a misreading of the preamble of the Constitution here where providing for the common defense basically is the only thing we’re hearing about anymore. We’re not really talking about promoting the general welfare. So I’m very concerned that we’re not creating the jobs that are necessary to bring us out of this economic mess. And you know, Wall Street’s holding on to its profits. The businesses who the government helped recover, the banks the government helped recover, they’re not investing in job creation, they’re investing in mergers and acquisitions which is still going on, and some very big ones, too.

[LG] That’s not what we want, is it? Do we want those huge mergers?

[DK] It’s not productive spending. Right now we need jobs, and this is a national problem. If you have a job in this economy, because of the high degree of unemployment, there’s a downward pressure on wages, there’s a downward pressure on pensions, downward pressure on health benefits. So we have to start thinking about the knock-down effects of a nearly official 10% unemployment rate, and the long-term effects of the deepest economic troughs of a post World War II recession. This is the deepest recession we’ve had, and you know what? It keeps getting deeper.

[LG] So why does the President say that we’re getting out of it, you know, it’s turning around? If we need jobs in this country, why in the world would he have given Jeffrey Immelte the Chair of the Council on Jobs? Here’s the man who is the CEO of Connecticut’s General Electric Company, and not only that, but he’s a prime supporter of shipping jobs to China. Now why would the President do that? I mean, he’s part of the problem, isn’t he?

[DK] Well, you have to realize that a number of the President’s key economic advisors have come from an economic discipline known as behavioral economics. It’s where they use psychology to convince people that things are better. And if you say it, you might actually convince people. But if people don’t have a job, it’s a hard-sell. If they’re worried about their healthcare, it’s a tough sell. If they’re worried about their retirement security, and they think they might lose their pension it’s going to be hard to tell them, “Things are getting better.” But this behavioral economics is actually an approach that’s being used to try to massage the public into believing that things are improving. You want to say that and somehow you hope that the psychology will help propel a self-fulfilling prophecy to actually get people to spend again. The problem is that people are maxed out on their credit cards, if you don’t have a job you can’t spend, if you’re worried about whether you’re going to have a job tomorrow you’re not going to spend, if a business isn’t investing it’s not moving money in the economy, it’s hoarding the money, you know. You can wish things, but it doesn’t mean that things are going to happen. And we need some solid economic policy instead of wishful thinking.

[LG] So what do we do to get that, Dennis?

[DK] Well, I think at some point, the situation is going to be so manifestly bad that the Administration will be forced by events to at least propose massive job programs, and I guess the Republicans would defeat them only at their peril. The problem is that we didn’t do this with the Democrats fully in control of the government with the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. We did the America Recovery Act, but that, you know, helped to sustain a number of State governments. Only a fraction of it, about 20% of it perhaps, went for actual creation of infrastructure jobs. If you have a couple of hundred billion dollars in infrastructure, that’s not chickenfeed, but frankly, when you have trillions of dollars that are needed to be invested, it doesn’t rise to the level of the need. So the President refused to consider the highway bill, he told James Oberstar that he wasn’t going to move it, they refused to consider loan modification or cram down, to help keep people in their homes. Instead they helped bail out Wall Street. And now that Wall street is quote “recovering” unquote, and Main Street is suffering, you start to wonder “Who was this for in the first place? We were told that the bailout was going to help Main Street.” So we have to now ask, What are we going to wait for? What are we going to wait for? It may be that the physics of the 2012 election, as we get into the orbit of that election season, you may see the unemployment conditions starting to drive the American people towards a desire for some powerful change from the White House.

[LG] But you can’t wait for that, because by that time the damage will be so enormous that I don’t really see how it can take less than 20 years to correct it.

[DK] You’re right. It needs to happen now.

[LG] It needs to happen now, but what about thinking of another person to run in 2012, or is that just sacrilegious for me to mention that?

[DK] It’s not sacrilegious. It’s a legitimate question. I don’t know if the President is going to get a full-fledged challenge from any liberal. Is there an opening there from a policy standpoint? Of course there is. But practically speaking, if a candidate would come forward to beat the President in a primary, then you have to worry about the effects of fracturing what remains of the coalition that elected the President, and it would be very difficult to win in the general and if you just caused the President to be damaged politically in the primary, then you help the Republicans take the White House. Now some people might say, “Well, good.” But no, it’s not. There are some things that President Obama has been able to do which I doubt very seriously that a Republican President would do. So I think we need to keep pressing the White House on these issues, and if they don’t feel that people will be incentivized to turn out in a November election, they’re astute enough politically to read the tea leaves in the next year, and know they may have to start sending to Congress a whole different set of proposals in order to gain the confidence of the American people, and especially on matters of the economy and also on matters of peace.

[LG] Those are two huge matters. And then there’s the matter of education. I just want to read you something that he said here. First of all, he was very good on gays. I mean, he didn’t work very hard to end “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” but once it was ended, he said, “Starting this year, no American will be forbidden from serving the country they love because of who they love,” and that was deserving of its applause. And then he said, “With that change, I call on all our college campuses to open their doors to our military recruiters and ROTC.” How about that? “It’s time to leave behind the divisive battles of the past. It’s time to move forward as one nation.” Do you think that’s moving forward as one nation?

[DK] I think that if the country is under attack, I think every American would want to be of service. But I think that simply using “Don’t ask, don’t tell” to open up the doors of colleges and universities to recruiters, I don’t know. I think that’s problematic. People should want to serve, and what you have in the recruiting is a certain approach that in a time of high unemployment might provoke some skepticism. You know, I’m not going to be critical of those who serve our country, I think it’s a very high calling, and they ought to be thanked for wanting to serve, but I also think they’re trying to use “Don’t ask, don’t tell” to open up the gates for recruitment of people on campus. I don’t know about that.

[LG] Well, I’m going to use the word. It’s sleazy. It’s sleazy and hypocritical and outrageous. But that’s my word. And so the other thing that he talked about, aside from the freeze, was in the middle of discussing clean energy, he suddenly said, he just sort of tucked it in at the end, nuclear energy, clean coal – which of course doesn’t exist -- and natural gas. You know, three of the most dangerous energy sources in the world. So what do we do about all this now? I had Lily Tomlin here today, and Elayne Boosler, and I said to them, “When you mention Obama in real life, it splits the room.” Let’s say, in a room full of Democrats. It splits the room. There are those who will absolutely attest to the fact that he can do no wrong, because if he does wrong, we can’t acknowledge it because the other side will use it to beat him with. And then there are those who say, “Look, we’re not abandoning him, he is abandoning us. We have to make him understand that.”

[DK] You just said it. It splits the room. Imagine if it splits the nation. And so we’re really looking at the importance of members of Congress raising a challenge on a regular basis to the policies of the Administration in an attempt to try to push them in the direction of being more responsive on the economy, on peace, on energy. But, you know, the President I think has probably taken a pretty good measure of conditions in Washington. And there’s a fundamental disjuncture between the Washington that exists inside the beltway and the United States that exists from sea to shining sea exclusive of the beltway. We have so many people who are ready to really get behind very dramatic change in America which, the election of President Obama, many people thought he was a harbinger of that, and yet as soon as you come inside the beltway it’s like, “Abandon hope all ye who enter within.” We have to start insisting on a reconnection between the aspirations of The People and what we expect government to do. Washington is just under the control of so many of these diverse and powerful interest groups that even the President of the United States would be reluctant to bring a challenge and may in some areas have concluded it’s better to join them than to fight them.

[LG] I’ve made this statement before, but in order to become President, you have to have a fire in your belly. It has to be there. It has to be for some reason, you know? And one gets the impression more and more strongly that the fire in Barack Obama’s belly is to get reelected. One gets that impression. Yesterday he kissed up to the Republicans to such an extent that even I was shocked. And I’m very critical of him, because he started his term with so much momentum, he could have done anything he wanted to do. And the first thing he did was pick a right-wing cabinet. You know, the only one in it that was at all progressive was Hilda Solis who was Secretary of Labor, and he hasn’t mentioned her since. So the question is, “Who is he?“ Who do you think he is, Dennis?

[DK] I think the broader question is “Who are we, and what do we stand for?” And are we ready to speak out to challenge a Democratic administration which has gone in a direction which we believe is not consistent with the practical aspirations of the American people, for jobs, healthcare, education, retirement security, peace, and a clean environment. You know, “Who are we?” And so we cannot simply insist that it’s the President, who if we vote for him, he’s going to set us free. No, we have to maintain an ongoing involvement. I’ve always been concerned about the fact that a very active peace movement collapsed after we went to war in Iraq. We really need to wake the town again, and tell the people and to encourage a very powerful civic response to things and not simply get caught up on our … [recording ended]

_______________

Librarian's Comment:

Murdoch, the Ventriloquist and His Two Favorite Dummies: Barack Obama and John Boehner, by Tara Carreon