<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>thelobbyist &#187; State of the Union</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thelobbyist.net/lobby/archives/tag/state-of-the-union/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thelobbyist.net</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 25 Dec 2011 16:20:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>State of the Union Keeps Broadband On Front Burner</title>
		<link>http://thelobbyist.net/lobby/archives/4109</link>
		<comments>http://thelobbyist.net/lobby/archives/4109#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Jan 2011 00:11:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>nick r brown</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured Content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tech and Internet Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Blackberry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[broadband]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State of the Union]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white house]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thelobbyist.net/?p=4109</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Obama is the tech president.  He&#8217;s the guy that finally got a Blackberry into the White House after all.  And gadget nerds and tech geeks will always remain true to their hearts even if they do become president.  So that being said it is no surprise that Obama made sure that America&#8217;s broadband strategy, or [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Obama is the tech president.  He&#8217;s the guy that finally got a Blackberry into the White House after all.  And gadget nerds and tech geeks will always remain true to their hearts even if they do become president.  So that being said it is no surprise that Obama made sure that America&#8217;s broadband strategy, <a href="http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/09/u-s-should-consider-logistics-of-australian-broadband-plan/" target="_blank">or lack there of</a>, was given a shout out.  <a href="http://siliconangle.com/blog/2011/01/26/thoughts-on-the-presidents-call-for-high-speed-internet/" target="_blank">SiliconAngle</a> picked up my post from <a href="http://www.digitalsociety.org/2011/01/president-calls-for-high-speed-internet/" target="_blank">Digital Society</a> on the issue today.  You can read about my thoughts on the Presidents comments at either of those sites.</p>
<p>-nick</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://thelobbyist.net/lobby/archives/4109/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What the President Should, But Won’t, Say in his State of the Union Address</title>
		<link>http://thelobbyist.net/lobby/archives/4083</link>
		<comments>http://thelobbyist.net/lobby/archives/4083#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Jan 2011 18:05:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Conservative Guy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Banner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Featured Content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics and Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abortions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Affordable Care Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cap and trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fair Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Reserve]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[flat tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GAO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[H.R. 3]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SSA trust fund]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State of the Union]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TARP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[term limits]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thelobbyist.net/?p=4083</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When it comes down to it, there are really only five first-tier issues facing America: 1. We need jobs, and fast. The policies enacted by Presidents Bush and Obama have failed to stimulate the economy. 2. We need to eliminate the deficit in the next 2.5 years. 3. We have too many abortions committed every [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When it comes down to it, there are really only five first-tier issues facing America:</p>
<blockquote><p>1. We need jobs, and fast. The policies enacted by Presidents Bush and Obama have failed to stimulate the economy.</p>
<p>2. We need to eliminate the deficit in the next 2.5 years.</p>
<p>3. We have too many abortions committed every year.</p>
<p>4. We have two conflicts overseas being run ineffectively and inefficiently.</p>
<p>5. Corruption and transparency in government are at unacceptably high and low, respectively, levels. Additionally, Big Government and Big Business collusion is at a level that is entirely unethical.</p></blockquote>
<p>President Obama should, but won&#8217;t, admit that the State of our Union is precarious, and should do the following:</p>
<blockquote><p>1. He will push for a flat tax or a national sales tax, as well as the concurrent elimination of all other federal taxes in America on our citiWzens.</p>
<p>2. He will push to eliminate or lower the minimum wage.</p>
<p>3. The Federal Reserve will be audited annually, and will have less power.</p>
<p>4. He will follow through on his recent <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703396604576088272112103698.html">op-ed</a> to eliminate some regulations.</p>
<p>5. He will repeal the Affordable Care Act, and push to institute tort reform and Dartmouth Atlas-style payment reform. He will also increase the size of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) so it can begin to cut down on the $100 billion, give or take, of fraud in Medicare and Medicaid.</p>
<p>6. He will convince his fellow Democrats to make the individual health insurance market less government-influenced.</p>
<p>7. He will try to raise the Social Security retirement age to 70 in the next two decades, and wall off Congress&#8217; ability to take from the Social Security Administration (SSA) trust fund. Means-testing of Social Security will also take place.</p>
<p>8. He will eliminate or cut down the size of the Departments of Education and Agriculture, and eliminate all $90+ billion in private-sector subsidies to various energy, agriculture and other industries.</p>
<p>9. While the President <em>should </em>ban abortions, the fact is that he supports them. Given this reality, he should support H.R. 3, which bans all federal funding of abortions. He should also work to enact more welfare reforms and proper sexual education so that young people don&#8217;t think of abortion as a) necessary, and b) birth control.</p>
<p>10. He should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan by the end of this year, or at the latest by the end of 2012. We&#8217;ve spent more lives and dollars in those nations than ever expected, and there is no end in sight. Sending more troops to protect one&#8217;s political rear end does not count as a &#8220;strategy.&#8221;</p>
<p>11. He should push for term limits, and complete transparency for all Members of Congress. As an example: All donors to campaigns and Members will be recorded and posted on A Member&#8217;s wall and official website. The amount donated will be posted as well, and the issue(s) this person related their funding to. This will be done within 24 hours of the donations.)</p>
<p>12. Cap-and-trade should be off the table, and the lightbulb ban should be ditched.</p>
<p>13. Members should stop receiving pay the day they leave Congress. The idea of a lifetime pension is ridiculous for a public servant.</p>
<p>14. There should never be another TARP-style bailout ever again.</p></blockquote>
<p>Obviously, I am a rather conservative individual, and President Obama is not. However, I think many of the above suggestions are not extreme, and in fact are things that could be supported on a bipartisan basis. Unfortunately, the event is more about political partisanship than actual results, which is symptomatic of why our nation is headed into deep, deep trouble in the next few years.</p>
<p><strong>Update: </strong>Silly me- I forgot to mention in the &#8220;jobs&#8221; portion of this post that he should allow more opportunities for nuclear power, and in the budget section that he should push for reform of our defense contracting policies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://thelobbyist.net/lobby/archives/4083/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>AP Fact-Checks State of the Union Address</title>
		<link>http://thelobbyist.net/lobby/archives/2755</link>
		<comments>http://thelobbyist.net/lobby/archives/2755#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:20:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dustin Siggins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Banner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Featured Content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fact-check]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State of the Union]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thelobbyist.net/?p=2755</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Associated Press does its job: WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama told Americans the bipartisan deficit commission he will appoint won&#8217;t just be &#8220;one of those Washington gimmicks.&#8221; Left unspoken in that assurance was the fact that the commission won&#8217;t have any teeth. Obama confronted some tough realities in his State of the Union speech [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Associated Press <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100128/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_fact_check">does its job</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama told Americans the bipartisan deficit commission he will appoint won&#8217;t just be &#8220;one of those Washington gimmicks.&#8221; Left unspoken in that assurance was the fact that the commission won&#8217;t have any teeth.</p>
<p>Obama confronted some tough realities in his State of the Union speech Wednesday night, chief among them that Americans are continuing to lose their health insurance as Congress struggles to pass an overhaul.</p>
<p>Yet some of his ideas for moving ahead skirted the complex political circumstances standing in his way.</p>
<p>A look at some of Obama&#8217;s claims and how they compare with the facts:</p>
<p>___</p>
<p>OBAMA: &#8220;Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don&#8217;t.&#8221;</p>
<p>THE FACTS: The anticipated savings from this proposal would amount to less than 1 percent of the deficit — and that&#8217;s if the president can persuade Congress to go along.</p>
<p>Obama is a convert to the cause of broad spending freezes. In the presidential campaign, he criticized Republican opponent John McCain for suggesting one. &#8220;The problem with a spending freeze is you&#8217;re using a hatchet where you need a scalpel,&#8221; he said a month before the election. Now, Obama wants domestic spending held steady in most areas where the government can control year-to-year costs. The proposal is similar to McCain&#8217;s.</p>
<p>___</p>
<p>OBAMA: &#8220;I&#8217;ve called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can&#8217;t be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans.&#8221;</p>
<p>THE FACTS: Any commission that Obama creates would be a weak substitute for what he really wanted — a commission created by Congress that could force lawmakers to consider unpopular remedies to reduce the debt, including curbing politically sensitive entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. That idea crashed in the Senate this week, defeated by equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. Any commission set up by Obama alone would lack authority to force its recommendations before Congress, and would stand almost no chance of success.</p>
<p>___</p>
<p>OBAMA: Discussing his health care initiative, he said, &#8220;Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan.&#8221;</p>
<p>THE FACTS: The Democratic legislation now hanging in limbo on Capitol Hill aims to keep people with employer-sponsored coverage — the majority of Americans under age 65 — in the plans they already have. But Obama can&#8217;t guarantee people won&#8217;t see higher rates or fewer benefits in their existing plans. Because of elements such as new taxes on insurance companies, insurers could change what they offer or how much it costs. Moreover, Democrats have proposed a series of changes to the Medicare program for people 65 and older that would certainly pinch benefits enjoyed by some seniors. The Congressional Budget Office has predicted cuts for those enrolled in private Medicare Advantage plans.</p>
<p>___</p>
<p>OBAMA: The president issued a populist broadside against lobbyists, saying they have &#8220;outsized influence&#8221; over the government. He said his administration has &#8220;excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs.&#8221; He also said it&#8217;s time to &#8220;require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or Congress&#8221; and &#8220;to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office.&#8221;</p>
<p>THE FACTS: Obama has limited the hiring of lobbyists for administration jobs, but the ban isn&#8217;t absolute; seven waivers from the ban have been granted to White House officials alone. Getting lobbyists to report every contact they make with the federal government would be difficult at best; Congress would have to change the law, and that&#8217;s unlikely to happen. And lobbyists already are subject to strict limits on political giving. Just like every other American, they&#8217;re limited to giving $2,400 per election to federal candidates, with an overall ceiling of $115,500 every two years.</p>
<p>___</p>
<p>OBAMA: &#8220;Because of the steps we took, there are about 2 million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. &#8230; And we are on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year.&#8221;</p>
<p>THE FACTS: The success of the Obama-pushed economic stimulus that Congress approved early last year has been an ongoing point of contention. In December, the administration reported that recipients of direct assistance from the government created or saved about 650,000 jobs. The number was based on self-reporting by recipients and some of the calculations were shown to be in error.</p>
<p>The Congressional Budget Office has been much more guarded than Obama in characterizing the success of the stimulus plan. In November, it reported that the stimulus increased the number of people employed by between 600,000 and 1.6 million &#8220;compared with what those values would have been otherwise.&#8221; It said the ranges &#8220;reflect the uncertainty of such estimates.&#8221; And it added, &#8220;It is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package.&#8221;</p>
<p>___</p>
<p>OBAMA: He called for action by the White House and Congress &#8220;to do our work openly, and to give our people the government they deserve.&#8221;</p>
<p>THE FACTS: Obama skipped past a broken promise from his campaign — to have the negotiations for health care legislation broadcast on C-SPAN &#8220;so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies.&#8221; Instead, Democrats in the White House and Congress have conducted the usual private negotiations, making multibillion-dollar deals with hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and other stakeholders behind closed doors. Nor has Obama lived up consistently to his pledge to ensure that legislation is posted online for five days before it&#8217;s acted upon.</p>
<p>___</p>
<p>OBAMA: &#8220;The United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades.&#8221;</p>
<p>THE FACTS: Despite insisting early last year that they would complete the negotiations in time to avoid expiration of the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in early December, the U.S. and Russia failed to do so. And while officials say they think a deal on a new treaty is within reach, there has been no breakthrough. A new round of talks is set to start Monday. One important sticking point: disagreement over including missile defense issues in a new accord. If completed, the new deal may arguably be the farthest-reaching arms control treaty since the original 1991 agreement. An interim deal reached in 2002 did not include its own rules on verifying nuclear reductions.</p>
<p>___</p>
<p>OBAMA: Drawing on classified information, he claimed more success than his predecessor at killing terrorists: &#8220;And in the last year, hundreds of al-Qaida&#8217;s fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed — far more than in 2008.&#8221;</p>
<p>THE FACTS: It is an impossible claim to verify. Neither the Bush nor the Obama administration has published enemy body counts, particularly those targeted by armed drones in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region. The pace of drone attacks has increased dramatically in the last 18 months, according to congressional officials briefed on the secret program.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://thelobbyist.net/lobby/archives/2755/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Thoughts on the State of the Union Speech</title>
		<link>http://thelobbyist.net/lobby/archives/2752</link>
		<comments>http://thelobbyist.net/lobby/archives/2752#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:34:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dustin Siggins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Banner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Featured Content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics and Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Coburn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DC School Voucher Program]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discretionary spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Don’t Ask]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Don’t Tell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drilling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Merkel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oklahoma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[outsource]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State of the Union]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stimulus]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thelobbyist.net/?p=2752</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Some Thoughts on the State of the Union Speech The transcript of President Obama’s speech can be found here. Any quotes below from the speech are found in the transcript. 1. I missed the first few minutes of the speech. Did he do the traditional shout-out to members of the audience? I thought I saw [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h3 id="post-26682"><a title="Permanent Link to Some Thoughts on the State of  the Union Speech" rel="bookmark" href="http://race42008.com/2010/01/28/some-thoughts-on-the-state-of-the-union-speech/">Some Thoughts on the State of the Union Speech</a></h3>
<div>
<p>The transcript of President Obama’s speech can be found <a onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/hotair.com/archives/2010/01/26/should-conservatives-get-behind-obamas-spending-freeze/');" href="http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/26/should-conservatives-get-behind-obamas-spending-freeze/">here</a>.  Any quotes below from the speech are found in the transcript.</p>
<p>1. I missed the first few minutes of the speech. Did he do the  traditional shout-out to members of the audience? I thought I saw the  two Fort Hood heroes next to First Lady Obama. (According to the  transcript, he did not do it in the beginning of the speech, and I don’t  remember it happening at any other time.)</p>
<p>2. He wants to help grow America’s economy by raising taxes on those  who outsource. On the one hand, he’s rewarding those who stay. However,  without other incentives to stay- such as a <a onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/www.forbes.com/2009/03/09/flat-tax-plan-obama-opinions-columnists-taxes.html');" href="http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/09/flat-tax-plan-obama-opinions-columnists-taxes.html">practical  tax structure</a>- he is asking/telling them to stay out of fear, not  out of the dynamic opportunities America offers businesses. This is  equivalent to punching someone in the nose who leaves, and telling the  rest you’ll not punch them in the face. Thus, you are doing them a  favor, or so it appears. Unfortunately for America, business leaders  generally aren’t stupid, and they will leave the country completely or  simply find a way around the laws.</p>
<p>3. He promised to pay more money for education, more money for  community banks to lend- the latter, mind you, out of what the big banks  and lending institutions have paid back to the taxpayer- to spend money  on green initiatives and to balance out the massive spending increases  the Democratic Congress has put on this country in the last twelve  months. How would he balance these seemingly contradictory proposals? By  freezing <a onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/hotair.com/archives/2010/01/26/should-conservatives-get-behind-obamas-spending-freeze/');" href="http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/26/should-conservatives-get-behind-obamas-spending-freeze/">discretionary  spending for three years</a> and “not continu[ing] tax cuts for oil  companies, for investment fund managers, and for those making over  $250,000 a year.” For fun, let’s see how much he cuts from trial lawyers  (<a onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/hotair.com/archives/2009/10/10/cbo-tort-reform-would-save-54-billion-to-the-deficit/');" href="http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/10/cbo-tort-reform-would-save-54-billion-to-the-deficit/">huge  Democratic supporters</a>) and see how much he raises on those making  less than $250,000, <a onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D979POSG0&amp;show_article=1');" href="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D979POSG0&amp;show_article=1">as  he did last year</a>, breaking a campaign promise. Too, freezing  discretionary is to freeze only about <a onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D979POSG0&amp;show_article=1');" href="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D979POSG0&amp;show_article=1">18%  of the budget</a>, and he is only targeting $25 billion, a relatively  paltry amount. According to MarketWatch, <a onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-to-propose-three-year-budget-freeze-wsj-2010-01-25-202370?reflink=MW_news_stmp');" href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-to-propose-three-year-budget-freeze-wsj-2010-01-25-202370?reflink=MW_news_stmp">non-military  discretionary spending is about $447 billion.</a> Doing the math, we  see he is supporting freezing about 1/18th of the discretionary budget,  or approximately 5.5%. I am definitely not complaining about the effort,  but why is he pretending it’s going to be enough to pay for the new  programs and monies he and the Democrats have saddled us with this past  year? Perhaps if he were to support real efforts to cut back spending as  supported by <a onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704509704575019504062222376.html');" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704509704575019504062222376.html">Senator  Coburn (R-OK)</a> and <a onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/www.heritage.org/research/budget/wm2472.cfm');" href="http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/wm2472.cfm">Brian Riedl</a> of The Heritage Foundation, we could begin the long road back to fiscal  sanity.</p>
<p>4. He said “health insurance reform” again, not health care reform.</p>
<p>5. He called for the lifting of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. *Big Yawn*  While I have yet to see enough evidence to support lifting DADT, it’s  right around the 80th issue back on the list. Too, I think he announced  his support for lifting it to get the same kind of energy from the base  President Bush was looking for when he called for the Federal Amendment  banning gay marriage in his 2006 State of the Union speech. Gays are  increasingly incensed with the president, so he had to throw them <em>something</em>.  After all, they put thousands of hours and millions of dollars towards  his election, and he has pretty much ignored them since that happened,  except for some of the requisite events to re-ingratiate himself with  them. I don’t see, however, DADT being lifted in the next few months,  what with re-election the major concern of most Democrats.</p>
<p>6. He supported nuclear power and offshore drilling. Yes, he still  wants cap-and-trade (which won’t happen in an already-tough election  year for Democrats), but supporting nuclear power and drilling was one  of the few bipartisan ideas he offered, and I was both surprised and  glad he supports them.</p>
<p>7. Actually, this might be the Lie of the Day: “That’s the leadership  we are providing: engagement that advances the  common security and  prosperity of all people.” Given that he was ridiculed by France’s  Sarkozy for being soft on Iran, ignored the protesters who were dying in  Iran for quite some time, did not support the legal coup by the  Honduran people and their government and military, snubbed Germany’s  Merkel at the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, snubbed  Britain’s Prime Minister and Queen once each and broke a missile shield  contract with Poland, how can he say he is using engagement that  advances the common security and prosperity of all people?</p>
<p>8. I was surprised at the enthusiasm and wide-ranging efforts he  talked about. I thought he would be both more mild and more cognizant of  the fact that his policies are unpopular and Congress is not going to  take political risks right now. Will he convince politicians to be more  concerned about the state of the country versus their own survival? I  expect Democrats will make some noise in that area, then blame their  opponents for not wanting to work together and thus continue this  ridiculous and harmful cycle of politics we have in DC.</p>
<p>9. Chuckle of the Day: He wants people to stop campaigning and lead  in Washington. Because, you know, he stopped campaigning on November 5,  2009. (As Jonah Goldberg <a onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/www.nypost.com/p/news/national/obama_answer_for_america_more_of_1IboSZ3t6WFW12qZnpv10J');" href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/obama_answer_for_america_more_of_1IboSZ3t6WFW12qZnpv10J">noted  today</a>, the president brought back his old campaign manager this  week to retool his message. You know, because he’s stopped campaigning.)</p>
<p>10. For all his talk about education, he still has not supported the  DC School Voucher program.</p>
<p>11. Last but not least, his “jobs will,” or third stimulus in the  last two years, not only won’t do anything positive but will coincide  with the current stimulus, only $172 billion of which has been spent.  Since we have $600 billion still to utilize, why not use that first  before putting more debt on us?</p>
<p>12. Enough with the SOB stories. Please. Use  evidence to convince us, not a story about adding 1,200 jobs, because  most Americans know at least 1,201 were lost at the same time these  1,200 were brought into play. Please? Treat us like adults, not  starry-eyed children. THEN you will be a president we might be able to  follow.</p>
<p>*This was originally published at <a href="http://race42008.com/2010/01/28/some-thoughts-on-the-state-of-the-union-speech/">Race42012.com</a>.</p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://thelobbyist.net/lobby/archives/2752/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The State of the Internet&#8230;</title>
		<link>http://thelobbyist.net/lobby/archives/472</link>
		<comments>http://thelobbyist.net/lobby/archives/472#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:52:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>nick r brown</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Banner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Featured Content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tech and Internet Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[broadband stimulus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obamulus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Internet Expansionism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State of the Union]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stimulus]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thelobbyist.net/?p=472</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8230;is strong. But we will be led to think differently in tonight&#8217;s faux State of the Union Address.? Obama will undoubtedly speak on the subject of what I have decided to call Social Internet Expansionism.? This is the extension of networks into rural areas for people that can&#8217;t afford or don&#8217;t want Internet according to [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8230;<em><strong>is strong</strong></em>.</p>
<p>But we will be led to think differently in tonight&#8217;s faux State of the Union Address.? Obama will undoubtedly speak on the subject of what I have decided to call <em>Social Internet Expansionism</em>.? This is the extension of networks into rural areas for people that can&#8217;t afford or don&#8217;t want Internet according to Pew studies, but of whom Obama asserts need it and has determined it will create 300,000 non-farm jobs for every 1 percent increase of penetration.? This assertion is of course based on a <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2007/06labor_crandall/06labor_crandall.pdf" target="_blank">paper</a> by Robert Crandall, William Lehr, and Robert Litan who have repeatedly stated that their research is being <a href="http://www.internetnews.com/breakingnews/article.php/3800051" target="_blank">taken out of context</a>.? Mainly because the project was completed almost 2 years ago and was looking at 2005 numbers for non-rural areas.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, the Obamulus will pour almost $7 billion into funding projects led by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and to a lesser extent the Department of Agriculture who previously headed the Rural Utilities Service Braodband Grant and Loan Program (RUS).</p>
<p>My top 10 questions for the President regarding Social Internet Expansionism:</p>
<p>1) Will the public or private sector be building your networks?</p>
<p>2) How precisely will bureaucracy define &#8220;unserved&#8221; and &#8220;underserved&#8221; areas?</p>
<p>3) If it is the private sector, how will grant winners be chosen?</p>
<p>4) Will the grantee manage the network after it is built?</p>
<p>5) If so, will maintenance costs be solely their responsibility?</p>
<p>6) Will the government pick winners?</p>
<p>7) What if a grant holder does not have a stake in an area, and they begin building a network in direct competition with an existing area network provider who does not have government financing?</p>
<p>8) What if a service provider who does not have government financing is pushed out of business because of a service provider that has government financing?? Will the out of business service provider receive compensation?</p>
<p>9) If a service provider constructs a network in a government mandated rural area and cannot attain service contracts and therefore cannot continue service in that area, will they receive compensation for any privately invested funds?</p>
<p>10) If <em>Social Internet Expansionism</em> proves unsuccessful, will you return the original investors money in form of a tax rebate?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://thelobbyist.net/lobby/archives/472/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

