2012 State of the Union
A State of the Union address is often difficult to fact check, no matter who is president. The speech is a product of many hands and is carefully vetted, so major errors of fact are so relatively rare that they sometimes can become big news – think of George W. Bush’s “sixteen little words” about Iraq seeking uranium in Niger. At the same time, State of the Union addresses are very political speeches, an argument for the president’s policies, so context – or the perspective of opponents – is often missing.
Here is a guide through some of President Obama’s more fact-challenged claims, in the order in which he made them. As is our practice with live events, we do not award Pinocchio rankings, which are reserved for complete columns.
“For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq. For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country. Most of al Qaeda’s top lieutenants have been defeated. The Taliban’s momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home.”
The killing of bin Laden, which Obama used to open and close his speech, is an achievement that few partisans would quibble with. But the story about Iraq and Afghanistan is much more muddled.
Yes, U.S. troops have left Iraq, in part because the Obama administration was unwilling or unable (take your pick) to extend a security agreement with Iraq. Since the U.S. departure, Iraq has descended into violence as the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has targeted Sunni opposition figures. The country at times appears to teeter on the edge of a new outbreak of sectarian violence.
Barack Obama.
Moments ago, President Obama concluded his 2012 State of the Union Address. Council President and CEO, Deborah L. Wince-Smith offered the following statement -
“We urge the President and Congress to work together to address the many issues raised tonight that are critical to America’s competitiveness, many with direct connections to the initiatives undertaken by the Council in recent years. Infrastructure, investment, technology and talent undisputedly constitute the core of our ability to succeed in global markets and ensure a higher standard of living for all our citizens. Most essentially tonight, the President stressed urgency in supporting an American manufacturing sector that will be pivotal in moving our economy from recessionary to robust.
“If you watched tonight’s address, you likely recognized that our work, especially the Manufacturing Competitiveness Initiative, is at the forefront of the Administration’s agenda. Indeed, the State of the Union Address highlighted many of the insights and recommendations in the Council’s recently-released report Make: An American Manufacturing Movement.
“The President is correct in recognizing a fundamental belief held by the Council – that an invent here, make there model is not a path to economic prosperity. We must aggressively pursue policies that ensure America remains a global manufacturing destination. Manufacturing transcends political ties and ideological boundaries. It is a cornerstone of American independence, economic prosperity, and national security that we must not surrender. We support the President’s intentions, but stress that some of his proposals need to more fully recognize the realities of the global marketplace. The Council stands ready, and we are well positioned to work with the Administration, Congress, and other key stakeholders to ensure America’s enduring leadership in global manufacturing.”
Council President & CEO Deborah L. Wince-Smith will host a press briefing at 9:30 AM EST on Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2012 to respond to President Obama’s State of the Union Address. The briefing will be held at the Council’s offices located at 1500 K Street, NW, Suite 850, Washington, D.C. 20005.
The central theme of President Obama’s State of the Union address on Tuesday night was the notion that in America, everybody deserves a fair shake (and that his policies will help make sure they have one).
The central theme of Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels’ Republican response was that Mr. Obama has shown himself to be a divisive failure that has chosen class warfare and stifling big government over economic progress.
The outcome of the 2012 presidential election depends in large part on which of those arguments Americans decide to embrace.
The centerpiece of Mr. Obama’s call for economic fairness was the so-called “Buffett Rule” – which is predicated on the notion that the wealthy investor should pay as much as his secretary in taxes. (Mr. Obama said Tuesday night that anyone making more than $1 million per year should pay no less than a 30 percent tax rate. We learned earlier in the day that one of the chief contenders for the GOP presidential nomination, Mitt Romney, paid less than 14 percent on $21.7 million in income in 2010.)
“Now, you can call this class warfare all you want” – he said. “But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.”
Class warfare is exactly what Republicans are calling it. House Speaker John Boehner (who sat behind Mr. Obama during the speech, along with Vice President Joe Biden) suggested earlier in the day that the president’s politics of “division and envy” are “almost un-American.” Daniels said that “no feature of the Obama Presidency has been sadder than its constant efforts to divide us, to curry favor with some Americans by castigating others.”
Mr. Obama would seem to have the advantage in this fight – A CBS News/New York Times poll out Tuesday found that 55 percent of Americans think upper-income taxpayers pay less than their fair share. And in the wake of the emergence of the “Occupy” movement, a Pew survey earlier this month found that two in three Americans now see a strong conflict between rich and poor. Even the two leading Republican presidential candidates, Romney and Newt Gingrich, have gotten into a fight over whether Romney’s former company Bain Capital engages in heartless capitalism that rewards the rich while leaving average Americans behind.