If we know nothing else, we know by now that Obama can give a good speech, and he did so again today. There’s a fair bit to like in the speech, in particular I agree with Ed O’Keefe that this was significant:
"We will double this nation’s supply of renewable energy in the next three years," Obama said. "We will soon lay down thousands of miles of power lines that can carry new energy to cities and towns across this country. And we will put Americans to work making our homes and buildings more efficient so that we can save billions of dollars on our energy bills."
That’s some of the vision I’ve been looking for from Obama—not just generalities, but a real vision with some specifics. With 50 billion a year behind energy, for two years, some real good could and should be done. I’d like to have seen even more, but 100 billion isn’t chickenfeed.
Obama seems to understand that the risk of inaction on banks is Japanification—an economy that just never really gets good:
Still, this plan will require significant resources from the federal government – and yes, probably more than we’ve already set aside. But while the cost of action will be great, I can assure you that the cost of inaction will be far greater, for it could result in an economy that sputters along for not months or years, but perhaps a decade. That would be worse for our deficit, worse for business, worse for you, and worse for the next generation. And I refuse to let that happen.
The details on the plan are still rather vague, and long on talk of responsibility and short on using hard words like nationalization, but talk of responsibility and of making sure that banks actually lend again is welcome.
The healthcare talk was likewise good to hear, though I worry about the specifics. And there was a bit in the discussion of Social Security which left me wondering:
To preserve our long-term fiscal health, we must also address the growing costs in Medicare and Social Security. Comprehensive health care reform is the best way to strengthen Medicare for years to come. And we must also begin a conversation on how to do the same for Social Security, while creating tax-free universal savings accounts for all Americans.
I’m curious what this means. Does this mean Obama wants tax-free universal savings accounts as part of Social Security reform? Will there be required savings, or is it optional? When can you take the money out? Is the money expected to be used to make investments, if so what kind of investments and who makes the decisions?
Overall though, another excellent speech and some policy proposals and rhetoric in it that the most die hard liberal can believe in.
(Oh, and Bobby Jindal just did himself immense amounts of damage with his rebuttal. Ouch.)



110 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Bobby Jindal Rocked!!!!
;~P
I liked that Obama hit health care hard…..we need to have this discussion and we need to have it now.
If yer an idjit
Tax cuts are the answer!! Jindal is genius.
Bobby who?
Ian !
Can you please explain the Tax- free savings Canada has and the +/- of it ?
I tried to do so earlier but botched it … I blame the Highland Park !
digg
Quit telling fibs.
Wrap up: I declared Obama the winner in the candy cane tie-off by a neck.
I’m already working on the Jindal-Palin in 2012 bumper stickers.
Oh, I left you an economists’ A two threads ago. Did you see it, or must I reeducate?
Jindal’s Montgomery Burns- like shoulders looked even more ridiculous with that fat Tie he wore.
Bobby J has a great future in the GOP. Of course the GOP has no future, but that is his problem.
I’ll go look … orrrr … I could pour you a nice glass of Shiraz whilst you re- edumacate me …
LOL !!!
We come to the same conclusion by different paths. I didn’t notice the shoulders. A guy thing?
Petro: never looked into them in depth, but the basic idea is that savings and invstments accumulate tax free. You take the money out when you’re in retirement and pay tax on it then, when your earnings are much less so it’s a lesser rate. So you get tax free accumulation of earnings (which is a huge deal) and you get a lower end tax rate.
Nothing wrong with such accounts, as long as the pension that exists seperate from them is large enough for people who weren’t able to make use of the accounts. If the account is expected, that becomes an issue.
Here are a couple of comments from over at Think Progess:
No smirk! What a joy! I could actually watch a presidential speech to Congress. I was going to say “without anger”, but I couldn’t even watch after the first year of Bush. The folks that live-blogged a Bush speech deserved hazardous duty pay. They were/are the finest examples of Democracy in action.
I’m really glad Obama laid out the cost of our stupid health care system in a way that regular folks could actually follow.
Here is a comment from David Brooks (Think Progress again):
Obama was able to shame the rightwingers and make them stand, smile and applaud at the same time. No small feat.
That of course in reaction to Jindal.
I think this is the comment she was referring to.
Re-ed: It is stupid to get a tax break for extracting savings from mattresses and lock boxes. It does not increase personal savings (the amounts were already saved, just in zero yielding returns), and it decreases govt savings by the amount of the tax subsidy.
Now you might argue that putting those zero yielding savings into an interest bearing account would increase productive economic activity, like housing construction, but the macroeconmic difference probably does not overcome the tax subsidy.
Any numbers on total amount of energy saved with increased insulation, better windows etc? How long to install when can we expect to see the savings really effect the economy?
How much savings for government buildings and for low income homes?
How much would the cost of these improvements go down as volume goes up?
He just described the Republican Party and its future.
I thought the $$$ from the Tax Free Savings Account can be removed at any time and without penalty, unlike RSP.
I’d better call my Accountant tomorrow …
A question enquiring minds want to know – did Diaper Dave crap in diapers during the speech?
Ian, read my 24. The empirical studies showed that the tax-deferred plans mostly switched savings from tax paying into tax deferred for a net decrease in savings for the economy as a whole. As I recall, the evidence was seriously dispositive.
It has a future?! You sure?
Ha! Do his people think that by wearing red, they’ll seem to be more bipartisan? The Obamas wore read in Chicago on the night of the election, and then it’s been lots of purple.
Thanks !
Glad I gave you the good wine … *g* … Wolf Blass.
Ya know, this is a favorite Repub talking point, and it’s completely false IMHO. Left and Right have been saying this ever since he declared, yet I noticed early on that he gives more “specifics” than just about any politician I’ve ever seen. His campaign Web site had almost too much detail in his various plans, since we know it’ll all get
The quote you picked to demonstrate these specifics isn’t any different than just about any other speech he’s given.
Plenty to criticize Obama on, but I don’t think Repub “specifics” complaint is one of them.
Depending on the building and the climate, I have seen estimates that you can save as much as 20% of your energy use through improved insulation (though I doubt most government buildings would produce that great a savings). Add other energy saving measures (green machines, etc.) and you could be talking real money.
It had one in the past, now its future is past.
I’m with eCAHN … stripes are terrible to TeeVee but I understand the whole Flag thing vis a vis red & white stripes.
Obama said the cost of health care is one of the reasons American jobs are ”sent” overseas. This is a terrific and simple point that links heath care with jobs! I thought that was very powerful.
Does anybody know the specifics on the tax credit for college tuition? Does it apply if you have a loan?
Perhaps tax free savings are a way to give what looks like a tax break that really has little or no effect. Here in Canada, I’m of a mixed feeling about RSPs and the effect of the new tax free accounts is so small that it’s really meaningless. I used to save enough that it might have made a difference, but not anymore for years and years. And the next batch of cash I come across is going in to solar panels on the roof.
Really?! Interesting, I did not know that. Thanks Ecahn.
(I’m generally not all that positive to the idea anyway, but mostly because I see it as an excuse to cut back on pensions. The Canadian Federal pension is seriously small. If you have to live on it alone, you’re eating dog chow, at best.)
*sigh* McCain on with Larry King. ergh.
Poorer people will get hurt too if there are penalties for removing the cash before you retire since they are more likely to have a need to.
Thats my big concern I’m wondering if there are other problems?
Also could stocks be put tax free in the account? For rich folk who live off their investments this seems like a loophole in the higher tax rate (the end of the Bush tax cuts).
Without that expected cash Obama’s budget should fall apart.
Also these accounts would be held by banks right? As rich folk line up to protect their cash from the end of the Bush tax cuts banks would gain funds and that should help them.
But how much will it help them? A giveaway like this might make bank stocks worth something…if I trusted their books and thought the economy would get better.
Maybe it will show up in an antique shop some day.
Junk store more likely.
I’ve been saying that for some time. What I’ve been looking for is a mission statement for the economy, similiar to Kennedy’s “we’re going to put a man on the moon in 10 years.”
Not, “we’re going to spend x billion dollars on y” but “we’re going to make sure every home in America has broadband” or “we’re going to build a high speed train from Boston to New York” or “we’re going to refit every building in America to be energy efficient and if possible to even generate energy”.
The reason you want something like that is that it gives businesses the green light to invest in serious hiring and captial expenditures because they know the revenue stream is going to be around for a long time.
It’s also easier to sell politically, imo.
You & I have a disconnect that I noticed yesterday when you were explaining what Obama was doing with the fiscal responsibility thingy. Your comment at 37 may explain part of the disconnect. I, and many of us here at FDL, have known for years that med costs have sent U.S. jobs overseas.
So perhaps voters really didn’t know that? (Seems hard to imagine, but perhaps it’s so.) And so Obama is educating those folks. If that’s so, I’m all for it. But if that’s so, I wonder if there’s enough time for the education, which I think was my last comment in yesterday’s thread.
I think we need more details about Obama’s plans for these accounts.
So am I. How precisely will these differ from the current existing array of 401(k), 403(b), IRA, Roth-IRA and probably other versions of Tax Code Alphabet Soup that I don’t know about?
Are we going to divert a portion of the OASDI payroll tax into these things? Crummy idea, that. In my opinion, at least. Despite what the biodiesel troll was rattling on about earlier this afternoon, SS (and other government pensions like CalPERS) are extremely efficiently run.
McCain sez budget is just a collection of 1,000s of earmarks. Luverly.
McCain luvs him deJindal.
I still don’t see the difference between a tax free savings account and already existing IRA plans… I no long look AT my IRA portfolio,but FOR it. Oh, there it is, right under the lettuce!
Scroll down.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/education/
Talks about “completely free” for most college students, who more often than not have loans, so good guess yes. Although, more specifics, to receive the $4,000 you’re required to conduct 100 hours of community service. Depending on how well that’s monitored, this will greatly improve America.
More details Obama has a Great Idea now we need Official Government Numbers to sell it:)
if bush were making the proposal for tax-free universal savings accounts i think we’d be understanding it as an attempt to open the door to privatization.
does it make sense to put $ into tax cuts for people who can afford to save (and let’s be clear that means larger tax cuts for people with higher incomes if they are paying a higher marginal tax rate) or to put $ into SS (especially given how much of that has been spent on other things and now must be paid back)?
I think he is laying the political groundwork for healthcare reform and making it bulletproof by stating what should be obvious, but that a lot of people have never thought about. That part of the equation gets no play at all in the MSM. Framing healthcare reform this way will even draw in some of the rednecks who might otherwise be blinded by the right.
Righto. Kay in MA linked to a Lakoff analysis of how great Obama’s speeches are because he’s stating a values based mission. My reaction was that I don’t give a FF what he sez his values are, I want to determine that for myself by what he does, which is evinced by the programs he proposes. BTW Lakoff sez programs are a red herring. But if the goals are not shown in definitive programs, then all the speeches are empty air.
OK. Bedtime for me. Actually have to lecture in the morning. Might have forgotten how, it has been so long since I did it. 8-)
You mean 101(k)s.
As political strategy, taking up the challenge of fiscal responsibility is really smart. If Obama can co-opt that theme and drive a stake through the heart of the myth of the Repubs as the party of fiscal responsibility (milk spurts from nostrils), it will be a major long-term achievement.
re tax-free universal savings accounts
my guess is that this is something like clinton’s 10/2007 proposal.
clinton’s retirement account proposal
Ummm, that would be 100.25(k^[1/4]), maybe?
It does seem a bit odd, which is why I highlighted it. You’ve already got IRAs, why do you need these?
OTOH, you could do it as a backdoor way to start nationalizing banking. But I don’t think they think that way.
It sucked when Clinton made it, it still sucks now.
Ding. Tax deferred savings accounts is a giveaway to the rich and a net negative to aggregate (personal plus govt) savings.
Now it’s a small giveaway to the rich compared to W’s tax cuts, but a giveaway nonetheless.
But maybe yours is outperforming mine… which might make it a 101(k).
amen.
Carbon Tax…greenhouse gas reduction…through alternative energy…getting off of oil and gas.
Did I hear Obama say that tonight?
Lakoff seems impervious to the link between speech and accomplishment. A serious lacuna inmo.
Another under sold talking point point many jobs are high energy users like aluminium smelting that require allot of energy.
Lower energy costs will bring these jobs back.
Again I want Government numbers how low do energy costs have to get before it makes more sense to smelt aluminium here than in Iceland with all its free Geothermal power?
Yup, that’s what you heard. Carbon tax to encourage the shift to renewables, reduction in fossil fuels use.
McCain is complaining about Pelosi. ”That’s not bipartisanship.”
eCAHN: I think the major task Obama has is to educate everyone. For 30 years now there’s been no real knowledge being shared: it’s been lies and propaganda. I’m thinking now it’s got so bad that the propaganda has just collapsed. But it’s also true that Obama has worked very hard to develop and maintain messages that are meaningful to a broad range of Americans, because that’s what this takes. He always has to tell the truth, or they will peck him to death and he knows it. But he also has to deliver messages that ”work” in this environment.
I can’t remember how long I have known that health care has driven jobs away … but I have never heard it said on the national stage that I can remember. Not even by Michael Moore. The ”democratic” argument is health care is a good that should be shared by everyone in a civil society. Unfortunately that argument doesn’t sway everyone. On the way to a more perfect, more compassionate union, Obama understands that he must use arguments like the crippling cost of health care on the economy. That’s the universally pursuasive point of pressure. And it’s true.
I remember predicting he’d implement health care reform BECAUSE of the economy because the value of such reform would outstrip any other unfusion of raw money into the economy.
oh, my I do go on!
I am also coming to understand that I certainly am not in the mainstream of thinking anymore. Speaking only for myself: it’s been a bit painful to see all these things that just are ahead of their time at best. And I am just one little mind who can only follow a couple of threads a day.
ian @ 61 – lol, i don’t think they think that way either. we’ve got lots of history for evidence on summers.
bc @62 – i agree (thought that in 2007 and still think it now)
bb @66 – i think i heard carbon cap (as in cap and trade?) NOT carbon tax?
ecahn @67 – yep.
Just scanned some speeches from the campaign trail, some almost two years old, and saw many quotes, almost verbatim, to what you suggested. Gotta run, but there were easy to find. I think he’s been doing just what you were wishing for quite some time. Not sure why that seemed to be ignored so much, which was the point of my original comment about this. Adios.
One thing for sure; Obama can give a speech that is more ’leader like’ than what American’s have heard in quite awhile.
BUT:
BushCo. Accountability – Bupkis.And if such is not done, the precedent for Obama and future Presidents is set to violate the law and not be held accountable;so when he talks about accountability, I want to see some REAL accountability occur.
Civil rights/liberties – Closing Gitmo, speedy trials, no torture
”And that is why I can stand here tonight and say without exception or equivocation that the United States of America does not torture.”—maybe not now, but we sure as hell have over the past century. He needs to speak with Binyan Mohamed
”while creating tax-free universal savings accounts for all Americans.”
”and end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don’t need them.”—- good luck getting that by Harkin, et al.
”In the midst of civil war, we laid railroad tracks from one coast to another that spurred commerce and industry. ”—huh? where did that fantasy come from?
”and yes, probably more than we’ve already set aside.”—–don’t you mean already wasted?
And it was Obama who said that we can solve anything unless we solve everything; or something very close to that.
nope. cap and trade – not carbon tax. at least that is how i read this (from ian’s link):
my bold.
Well, if your description is accurate, it may well be too late. Too soon to be conclusive, but with economy in the crapper, a real possibility.
“For 30 years now there’s been no real knowledge being shared: it’s been lies and propaganda.”—-been going for a lot longer than 30 years !
dennis blair wouldn’t even say waterboarding is torture during his confirmation hearings.
oh god: new GOP talking point on Larry King … ”great speech but all these things have been tried and they have failed.”
yikes, they could at LEAST stop stealing Obama’s stuff! May up your own shit, people!
i’m convinced that i would like the Ds much more if i would only go back to watching more tv (especially the crap that they call news).
i mean only that the Ds look so much better when compared to media personalities and the Rs.
Did you see this
You are in the Mainstream:) We are the 70%ers! the GOP and the Dems are to the Right of us its Democracy vs unofficial Plutocracy.
Just how much and how strong does popular support have to be behind an issue to overcome an equal distaste for the issue by the rich? Remember they buy media coverage create fake think tanks to provide *cough* facts to support their paid MSM hacks and crate fake grass roots groups.
(The Netroots a real grassroots group must be scaring the crap out of the GOP!)
How much noise do we have to make before we reach that turning point in public opinion and start changing the Media’s mind about an issue rather than the other way around?
The Times are Changing and providing some very interesting questions:)
‘News interviewer needed to put the words to the test,e.g. WHEN did “but all these things have been tried and they have failed.”?
A carbon tax is easier to implement. I heard the market-based stuff but it didn’t quite register that he meant cap-and-trade.
Dem response funny they worked fine for FDR its the GOP ideas Obama is pushing that never worked for Bush.
The market based stuff is Boxer’s ‘raison d’etre’ and it is really due to her efforts that such will become ‘legalized’.
are you guys still here? I really don’t want a thread about coulter tonight. it’s such a buzz kill.
no, i hadn’t. thanks for the link. don’t have any prior info on freeman
i’ve read of some complaints re cap and trade (vs tax), but haven’t taken the time to educate myself about the pros and cons of the various competing policies.
yes, but leaving now. must sleep….
Here is some commentary from across the Pond by Michael Tomasky, via The Guardian:
A speech that defines a new era
Ahhh, good nite selise, sleep tight.
Jindalriffic!
-G
Oh cool! I liked those line thingies during the debates.
we watched on the newshour. And just cracked up when Brooks was shaking his head at Jindal and said this type of thinking is “insane”. Yes, he said insane!!!!
he was as peppy as cayan pepper! too many puppy uppers in an effort to convey optimism!
Wow: ”off the charts.” That is so great. That’s what I’m feeling.
Actually the tax-free would encourage savings if it’s pre-tax and not taxed until withdrawn. But maybe Obama really means “tax free” – even after withdrawal at retirement? THAT would make it different from any other retirement account. It wouldn’t be a 401K, 425 or IRA. I suspect that this would result in a lot of savings. But there would likely have to be limits on how much could be put in each year.
Emissions trading
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Emissions trading (or emission trading) is an administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants. It is sometimes called cap and trade.
A coal power plant in Germany. Due to emissions trading, coal might become less competitive as a fuel.A central authority (usually a government or international body) sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. Companies or other groups are issued emission permits and are required to hold an equivalent number of allowances (or credits) which represent the right to emit a specific amount. The total amount of allowances and credits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less. The transfer of allowances is referred to as a trade. In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions by more than was needed. Thus, in theory, those that can easily reduce emissions most cheaply will do so, achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest possible cost to society.[1]
There are active trading programs in several pollutants. For greenhouse gases the largest is the European Union Emission Trading Scheme.[2] In the United States there is a national market to reduce acid rain and several regional markets in nitrous oxide.[3] Markets for other pollutants tend to be smaller and more localized.
Carbon trading is sometimes seen as a better approach than a direct carbon tax or direct regulation. By solely aiming at the cap it avoids the consequences and compromises that often accompany other methods. It can be cheaper, and politically preferable for existing industries because the initial allocation of allowances is often allocated with a grandfathering provision where rights are issued in proportion to historical emissions. In addition, most of the money in the system is spent on environmental activities, and the investment directed at sustainable projects that earn credits in the developing world can contribute to the Millennium Development Goals. Critics of emissions trading point to problems of complexity, monitoring, enforcement, and sometimes dispute the initial allocation methods and cap.[4]
All in all, a great night for Sarah Palin: Bobby Jindal blew it and Barack Obama soared, making it even more likely the powers-that-be in the GOP will let her be the 2012 sacrificial lamb.
He had the cadence of a late night infomercial salesman.
I’m Bobby Jindal for Shamwow!
-G
Jindal – an unimaginable train wreck.
Frum must be giddy.
A carbon tax is an environmental tax on emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It is an example of a pollution tax.
Carbon atoms are present in every fossil fuel (coal, oil and gas) and are released as CO2 when they are burnt. In contrast, non-combustion energy sources—wind, sunlight, hydropower, and nuclear—do not convert hydrocarbons to carbon dioxide. Accordingly, a carbon tax is effectively a tax on the use of fossil fuels, and only fossil fuels. Some schemes also include other greenhouse gases; the global warming potential is an internationally accepted scale of equivalence for other greenhouse gases in units of tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.
Because of the link with global warming, a carbon tax is sometimes assumed to require an internationally administered scheme. However, that is not intrinsic to the principle. The European Union considered a carbon tax covering its member states prior to starting its emissions trading scheme in 2005. The UK has unilaterally introduced a range of carbon taxes and levies to accompany the EU ETS trading regime. Note that emissions trading systems do not constitute a Pigovian tax, because they entail the creation of a property right.
The purpose of a carbon tax is to protect the environment by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and thereby slow climate change. It can be implemented by taxing the burning of fossil fuels—coal, petroleum products such as gasoline and aviation fuel, and natural gas—in proportion to their carbon content. Unlike other approaches such as carbon cap-and-trade systems, direct taxation has the benefit of being easily understood and can be popular with the public if the revenue from the tax is returned by reducing other taxes. Alternatively, it may be used to fund environmental projects.
Wiki
late late nite 2 flights up
I view global warming as the greatest single threat to the economy, the environment and the health and safety of Planet Earth.
Carbon tax is a penalty for polluting.
Cap and Trade is a market like
Chicago Climate Exchange Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) is North America ’s only voluntary, legally binding greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction and trading system for …
5 KB (663 words) – 02:02, 31 December 2008
This was a comment at NOLA.com:
How about “We are going to have health care this year”? Obama said something close to that tonight.
Bob in HI
“We must have quality affordable health care for every American.” Obama recognizes that “Health care reform cannot wait…another year”. He recognizes how central this is to the whole economy.
Its his Second Challenge.
Bob in HI
Yes indeed, it WAS a good night for Sarah Palin. heh
We were suckered into investing in retirement accounts to save taxes on our hard earned money. Money managers paid themselves millions and then screwed us. I hope he is saying we can save money for our retirement and not be taxed.
Here is a list of corporate socialism or corporate welfare called subsidies. I hope the President meant he will overhaul these.
Direct subsidies
Indirect Subsidies
Labor subsidies
Tax Subsidy
Perverse subsidies
Production subsidies
Regulatory advantages
Infrastructure subsidies
Trade protection (Import)
Export subsidies (trade promotion)
Procurement subsidies
Consumption subsidies
Tax breaks and corporate welfare
Subsidies due to the effect of debt guarantees
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidies