Speech Highlights? I've Got Two

If there were more specific bits to fly your flag at anything higher than half-mast, leave them in the comments. Full speech transcript here.

First highlight:

My administration has also begun to go line by line through the federal budget in order to eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs.  As you can imagine, this is a process that will take some time.  But we're starting with the biggest lines.  We have already identified two trillion dollars in savings over the next decade.

In this budget, we will end education programs that don't work and end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don't need them.

Here's Reason on unilaterally ending ag subsidies. Then there was this:

Finally, because we're also suffering from a deficit of trust, I am committed to restoring a sense of honesty and accountability to our budget.  That is why this budget looks ahead ten years and accounts for spending that was left out under the old rules – and for the first time, that includes the full cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. For seven years, we have been a nation at war.  No longer will we hide its price.

Here's the groundbreaking Veronique de Rugy cover story on the "Trillion Dollar War" that I hope like hell Obama was referring to.

There was much to dislike about this speech, most notably (for me anyway) the effortless way in which the new president talked out of both sides of his mouth. We will not govern in anger! No more drapes for you, fatcats! Etc. More on which tomorrow.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • GHW Bush||

    "Now that Obama's had his say, here's a few words from OUR little brown one ..."

  • ||

    My administration has also begun to go line by line through the federal budget in order to eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs.



    Have you discovered the Stimulus Package yet? If you're starting with the biggest lines, as you say, it's the one on top. It has your name on it.

  • BDB||

    What the fuck is up with Jinda's inflection? He sounds like he is teaching first graders.

  • Post-Game Highlights||

    Tonight's economic game: The Browns vs. The Bears

  • ¢||

    "Now that Obama's had his say, here's a few words from OUR little brown one ..."

    It's like, "How much more beige could a man be?" And the answer is none. None more beige.

  • Orange Line Special||

    It's not surprising to find Reason believing the quotes, but as part of my educational program:

    we will end education programs that don't work and end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don't need them.

    "we" could mean "I tried but they didn't let me"

    "will" has no date

    "end" could mean end, or it could mean "end"

    "don't work" could mean lots of things, and it could turn out that nothing that serves BHO's interest would be found wanting.

    Likewise with everything else in that quote.

    If anyone wants to actually have an impact on the stimulus, you know the question to ask.

  • SIV||

    If anyone wants to actually have an impact on the stimulus, you know the question to ask.

    Chris,


    Is this the question for Weigel to ask about the birth certificate again?

  • ||

    In this budget, we will end education programs that don't work and end direct payments to large agribusinesses...

    Ok, that's promising.

    ...that don't need them.

    and that's his opening for weaseling out. Whether they need it or not is beside the point. It's wrong from the get-go.

    I hope he follows through on this and kicks ADM and Cargil off the taxpayers' teat, but I'll believe it when I see it.

    -jcr

  • Cabeza De Vaca||

    Jindal wasn't giving a rebuttal, he was giving a campaign speech.

  • ||

    "end" could mean end, or it could mean "end"

    Heh. Remember when Bill Clinton promised that the era of big government was over?

    -jcr

  • BDB||

    Dude, you believed it? It was CLINTON speaking. If his lips are moving he is lying.

  • PantsFan||

    shut the fuck up, lonewacko?

  • ||

    "If anyone wants to actually have an impact on the stimulus, you know the question to ask."

    Holy fuck, I thought this bullshit stopped a couple of months ago when the "Obama isn't an American" campaign got its ass handed to them.

    Now, its illegal immigration......

  • Barack Obama||

    Oh, and lastly I want to thank the new capitalists in Asia for buying US Treasury bonds. You are going to buy them, aren't you?

  • ||

    My local NPR station, WMFE, managed to lose its feed halfway through, presumably because of evil spending cuts (never mind that as long as I can remember they always manage to lose the feed halfway through whether it's important news or the Metropolitan Opera).

    What I found intriguing was that in the intro Mara Liasson still gets the teenage girl thrill from Democrat politicians that she always has. I haven't heard her this excited since Bill Clinton won in 92. I was wondering if she was fingering herself through her clothes she sounded so stimulated.

    You'd think after this many years she'd've grown up a bit, wouldn't you?

  • new capitalists in Asia||

    "You are going to buy them, aren't you?"

    Not unless you tell your tax-cheatin' Treasury secretary to STFU about us manipulating our currencies to boost exports.

    You boys need to learn not to bite the hand that bails our asses out.

  • new capitalists in Asia ||

    bail YOUR asses out I meant to say

  • nonPaullogist||

    More soldiers. higher Pay.
    cure cancer!
    more money for banks!
    universal health care!
    free education through college!

    Jindal's even worse. Jindal has done' NOTHING to curb the growth of government in LA.

    We are so screwed.

  • HammeredHead||

    Sorry, nothing to offer.

    Didn't even bother watching the Challenged One tonight. Enjoyed a couple episodes of Firefly on Hulu instead.

  • Adam||

    I really have a hard time with the way this President continually uses the language of coercion -- "We *MUST* act...", "this is no longer an option", etc.

    This was at its worst when the President started talking about how dropping out of school was no longer an option, and that it meant "failing your country". Scary stuff!

  • Designated victim #23,768,134||

    Every time I hear about what "we" must do, I know its about what he will do and I will pay for.

  • voxpo||

    BDB beat me to it. GOP really needs to find somebody who doesn't sound like they're auditioning for Sesame Street. Less sing-song, more sincerity, please.

  • ||

    Cutting back on farm subsidies, wonderful. But what education programs would a liberal Democrat want to cut? ROTC? Charter schools?

    And I'll bet lots of the other programs he wants to cut are cutting-edge military programs that give us a technological edge: missile defense, advanced aircraft, etc.

  • ||

    In this budget, we will end education programs that don't work

    He means vouchers (because getting the same results in DC means that they "don't work," even if the parents are happier and government is spending one-fourth the money) and Reading First (because phonics is evil).

  • ||

    end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don't need them.



    Right, just as was proposed in every single one of GWB's budgets, and laughed off in a bipartisan nature by Congress. Every President sends a budget to Congress that ends farm subsidies to farms over a certain income; it never happens.

    Actually the inclusion of "direct payments" is a potential worrying sign too. Does that mean that tariffs are ok, if they benefit large agribusinesses? What about the insanely complicated "quota on sugar imports plus a indirect loan program based on valuing sugar as collateral at a certain price per pound and then letting it be forfeited if the price of sugar falls below that level?" It's not a direct payments.

  • jgr||

    "What the fuck is up with Jinda's inflection? He sounds like he is teaching first graders."

    He's talking to news reporters and other people who would give up an hour of their lives to listen to Obama lie at them.

    In other words, he IS teaching first graders.

  • ||

    but as part of my educational program:



    No Wingnut Left Behind?

  • ||

    In this budget, we will end education programs that don't work



    Like Lonewacko's!

  • nonPaullogist||

    Governor Bobby talks like that because he is used to talking to Louisianans. Those people are stucking fupid. How dumb to you have to be to live below sea level in a hurricane zone?

    I once heard this conversation in a Morgan City bar:

    A: Where is California?
    B: West of Berwick.

    I rest my case.

  • ||

    My favorite part was the last thing you mentioned. The trust and openness bit. So, then, what's this about?

    Note: normal First Amendment press protection might not function if they sign an undated non-disclosure agreement because civil tort law might come into play, with all the disclosure, etc. that applies. I just hope this clown doesn't expect me to do the stiff arm salute to that stupid logo of his.

    DoD officials vow secrecy on budget
    By JOHN T. BENNETT , Defense News
    February 19, 2009
    The Obama administration has directed defense officials to sign a pledge stating they will not share 2010 budget data with individuals outside the federal government.
    In an undated non-disclosure agreement obtained by Defense News, the administration tells defense officials that "strict confidentiality" must be practiced to ensure a "successful" and "proper" 2010 defense budget process.
    The secrecy pact comes as dozens of Bush-era Pentagon appointees remain on the job, asked to stay on by the Obama administration until replacements are confirmed to ensure continuity during wartime.
    The Pentagon and Office of Management and Budget have agreed on a fiscal 2010 defense budget top line figure of $537 billion. That level is nearly $50 billion lower than the $585 billion defense plan created during the final months of the Bush administration, and $24 billion higher than the already enacted $513 billion 2009 defense budget.

  • ||

    A: Where is California?
    B: West of Berwick.



    This is correct. California, PA does indeed lie west of Berwick, PA.

  • gmatts||

    No mention of Obama's line that when you don't finish your education that you're not only cheating yourself, you're cheating your country?

    I thought that was a creepy sentiment.

  • Paul||

    The culture of bailouts is filtering its way through popular culture. Watch this... seriously. It's only about 30 seconds and it's an insight into how popular 'bailouts' are.

  • Jeff Balla||

    Politicians promise a lot of things.

    Come on, Matt. Don't fall for the charisma.

  • ||

    No mention of Obama's line that when you don't finish your education that you're not only cheating yourself, you're cheating your country?

    Yeah, fuck that lazy ass Bill Gates.

  • Rictor Rockets||

    So apparently in Libertarian-land, it's the worst kind of "anger" to hold CEO's that we bail out with taxpayer dollars (because they were "too big to fail") accountable, and demand that they not selfishly piss away the money we give them?

    WTF?

  • ||

    No, Rictor, it's the worst kind of anger to bail them out. Period.

  • ||

    Look at it this way, Rictor.

    Its bad enough to give private business taxpayer dollars.

    Its just compounding the damage to have the government micromanage those businesses.

  • ||

    To be fair, he's giving budgetary restraint almost as much lip-service as the GOP.

    possibly more.

  • ||

    Its bad enough to give private business taxpayer dollars.

    Its just compounding the damage to have the government micromanage those businesses.


    If taxpayers own a portion of those business, why should they not have a say in how they are managed? As in, "don't be greedy and incompetent with our money as you were with your own."

  • LarryA||

    My administration has also begun to go line by line through the federal budget in order to eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs.

    It would be much more efficient to go chapter by chapter and eliminate wasteful agencies.

    That is why this budget looks ahead ten years...

    Our first Ten Year Plan?

    If taxpayers own a portion of those business, why should they not have a say in how they are managed? As in, "don't be greedy and incompetent with our money as you were with your own."

    "Congressional oversight" is not remotely related to "taxpayers having a say." As in, "don't be greedy and incompetent with our businesses as you are with our taxes."

  • ||

    If taxpayers own a portion of those business, why should they not have a say in how they are managed? As in, "don't be greedy and incompetent with our money as you were with your own."

    It's not the taxpayers who have a say. It's all political constituencies. Which tend to vote to gut the business for their own benefit.

    The people who are "greedy" and "incompetent" are the fools who expect to live off government largess indefinitely. Which includes government forcing businesses to provide them with free shit.

    It's "greedy" to want to run your own damn business and make a profit, but it's not "greedy" to feel entitled to free education, health care, housing, and food - provided by other people?

  • Jordan||

    That is why this budget looks ahead ten years and accounts for spending that was left out under the old rules



    And yet, still no mention of our $70 trillion unfunded liabilities.

  • Russ 2000||

    Don;t have the stupidity to watch the speech, but from the half-dozen sounds clips I was forced to hear on news radio, Obama sounded an awful lot like Nixon.

  • Paul||

    Obama sounded an awful lot like Nixon.

    Price and wage controls are comin', I'm tellin' ya.

  • ||

    If taxpayers own a portion of those business, why should they not have a say in how they are managed?

    Taxpayers don't own a portion of those businesses, the government does.

    Taxpayers don't have a say in how they are managed.

    Having the government co-invest in private business, thus socializing the losses while allowing gains to remain private, is a key element of fascistic/corporate socialism. Having government functionaries micro-manage those businesses only ensures that the investment will be wasted.

  • ||

    "There was much to dislike about this speech, most notably (for me anyway) the effortless way in which the new president talked out of both sides of his mouth. We will not govern in anger! No more drapes for you, fatcats! Etc."

    This, along with his redistributive communitarian interests, seems to be his salient feature as a politician.

  • Russ 2000||

    Price and wage controls are comin', I'm tellin' ya.

    I didn't mean in content, since I barely heard more than 45 seconds of content. I meant in tone and attitude. He sounded pissed off and slightly paranoid.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement