Spokane7
55°
January 26, 2011 in City
Local lawmakers’ reactions to State of the Union vary
While they liked some overall themes in President Barack Obama’s call for more innovation, more cooperation and less spending, some members of Congress from Idaho and Washington wondered about the details.
“I thought he gave a very good speech,” said Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho. “Like all (State of the Union) speeches, it was short on details.”
Idaho’s senior senator supports Obama’s call for tax reform, although “my idea of tax reform and his idea might end up being two different things.”
Crapo said he would oppose any plan to raise taxes on the top income bracket, which Obama proposed, because he sees it as singling out successful small businesses. But he doubts such a plan can make it through this Congress.
“That debate occurred in December,” he said.
Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, thought the speech was reminiscent of some of Obama’s best oratory in the 2008 campaign and particularly liked the observation that no one in the room would rather live anywhere besides America. But he agreed with Crapo that that kind of tax increase has no chance in the current Congress: “I think he threw that in parenthetically, for his base.”
Although calling for a five-year freeze on domestic spending is a big step for a Democrat, Risch said, “it’s going to take more than that” to cut the deficit and bring down the debt.
A supporter of legislation to ban directed spending known as earmarks, he was glad to hear Obama say he’d veto any legislation with earmarks. But he wondered if that meant the president himself would not seek earmarks.
“We have heard that before,” Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., said of the promise to veto bills with earmarks.
She thought Obama did a good job of “inspiring Americans to be their best,” and called the pledge to freeze domestic spending a step in the right direction. “But we certainly have to do more.”
Republicans aren’t ready to give up their efforts to repeal last year’s health care reforms, McMorris Rodgers said.
“It passed the House. It’s too early to tell what will happen in the Senate,” she said. “I’m glad he recognized there are parts of the bill that need to be changed. I agree there are parts we need to keep.”
Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said in a prepared statement that she wasn’t going to stop fighting for “local investments” that keep Washington’s economy growing and put people back to work.
“We can’t stop making the investments we need to continue innovating and continue competing,” said Murray, although she didn’t use the term “earmark.” While the nation needs to tackle the deficit and cut spending, it can’t do that on the backs of students, veterans and future growth, she added.
Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said in a prepared statement she appreciated the emphasis on clean energy. “Like President Obama, I am tired of America inventing many of the new clean energy technologies … only to see other countries reap the rewards and jobs that come from manufacturing these products.”
Romney/Paul split weighing on county GOP 
berrybestfarm on January 26 at 6:58 a.m.
I watched both the speech and Republican response. Overall, both parties appear to agree on the basics—spend within our means and reduce the reach of government to foster a job creating climate for business. If even 10 percent of the themes come to fruition we will be doing better. And better is…better.
hawken on January 26 at 7:44 a.m.
Better is better if you have a cold and your fever comes down a degree or two.
If you have gangrene in the right arm, amputation is essential and will save your life.
We have gangrene, economically speaking. Obama offered an aspirin last night to fight the gangrene.
The Republicans are demanding amputation. They understand gangrene. All we get from Obama is a modified “Yes We Can” pep talk, in his “Winning the Future” theme. Which was the title of a book by Newt Gingrich.
In our current situation, only better is deadly.
Even the Huffington Post says this:
“But, if President Obama hopes to “win the future” in 2012, his speech came up short Tuesday night. It was certainly a big and earnest move to the center, but it lacked the kind of specifics and innovative policies that the president needs to make America competitive in the 21st Century.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-penn/state-of-the-union-did-ob_b_814081.html
MrNatural on January 26 at 8:55 a.m.
I enjoyed this State of the Union Address It was simply inspirational. I believe people are motivated better by optimism than by fear. People are clamoring for specifics and I can understand that. I believe that the State of the Union would be mired by specifics and as I read and reread into the speech I see a fine effort to right the listing ship and steer towards a successful and admirable direction. Specifics…details will come soon enough. I just hope that bipartisan support prevails over the detriment of extremism.
eagleproducer on January 26 at 9:58 a.m.
The wealthy got their tax cuts extended. All is well in the world.
Obama won’t even get re-nominated by Democrats. We need a real progressive, not Bush Lite.
I abhor people, and especially leaders, who just want to be popular.
Like I’ve said many times, for Obama to move to the center he’d need to lurch leftwards.
Progressives would not allow deficits to soar in order to give tax cuts that benefit the top 1% earners mostly. They would not escalate a failing war. And on and on and on…
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on January 26 at 10:36 a.m.
“Crapo said he would oppose any plan to raise taxes on the top income bracket, which Obama proposed, because he sees it as singling out successful small businesses.”
I dunno… it seems like if your small business is successful enough to put you in the top income bracket, maybe it’s not a “small” business anymore…
misjustice on January 26 at 11:55 a.m.
I listened to “most” of his lies. Er, I mean speech. He still promises change yet it doesn’t sound as if it is for the better of the nation.
He tells us we need to make more jobs, yet has no actual plan on how to do that other than “invest”. I take it invest means the same things as stimulus money again!! We can’t afford his stimulus.
Federal, state & county workers make WAY above minimum wages, and then we have to pay for their medical, retirement & life insurance subsidies. It’s time to roll back some of these salaries to meet those of the “working class citizen” & millions of dollars will be saved.
Housing prices plunged & it’s time salaries were rolled back too.
hawken on January 26 at 12:20 p.m.
The foundational philosophy of the left is to “seize”, through the power of government, the fruits of labor, substantial risk, long hours and creative, entrepreneurial success from those whom have or are achieving financial success. And, then “redistribute” it to the “non-producers,” their political base.
Entrepreneurial leaders are the foundation of our nation. Today, and since FDR, entrepreneurials have become evil, according to the left, most of whom feed at the teat of government.
Entrepreneurs are punished for their creativity and success by the “non-producers” and their party,,,,, Democrats. The exceptions are few.
The collective consequences of this “redistribution,” is the place where we find ourselves today. Any wonder why so many are without jobs?
The founding principles of our nation is “opportunity for all,” NOT income parity for all.
Warning: For all of those who still believe in the American Dream, beware! Your labor, creativity, risk and entrepreneurial drive will be seized by government and “redistributed,” as long as the left has a majority voice in government.
Obama and his ilk feed on this, to line their own pockets through political power.
Cheezwhiz on January 26 at 1:20 p.m.
Gramma! I think we finally agree on something! Come here! Give me a hug!
What’s the worst that can happen? Will government workers look for a new job? Doubt it. The unemployment pool is pretty deep right now.
misjustice on January 26 at 3:47 p.m.
Don’t forget Gramms, we are also paying for your husband’s military retirement pension and his health care; but I don’t begrudge him that, or you either for that matter.
Just sayin’.
; )
Orphan on January 26 at 8:45 p.m.
Obama is painfully lerching to the right in an effort to get reelected. Having said that
I have less respect for Obama now, he wants to get reelected more than he values his principles.
I dont like what Obama is doing to this country but if he really believed in what he was doing he would not have compromized his principles. The left should be pretty irritated about now.
misjustice on January 26 at 9:40 p.m.
Orphan, can you point to a principle that Obama abandoned?
Even though I voted for him, I have been disappointed in some of his decisions; for example continuing to house the Faith Based Initiatives in the EOP. Could you give me an example that you have in mind?
Orphan on January 26 at 10:37 p.m.
I was speaking of principles in general, Obama is moving to the right a principled person would have stayed where he was.
This is not unusual for any politition from either party it irritates me equaly no matter the party affiliation. My comment should not be taken as anything more than an observation. I did not vote for the man, I voted for what I considered the least bad candidate, pretty sad really. I may vote for Obama next time if the Reps are gaining too much power. I think the best times were when we had a Dem president and a Rep House and Senate. The seem to balance each other out when neither party has control.
Cheezwhiz on January 26 at 11:12 p.m.
One party always has control…. There is three equal votes. Oh, never mind.
misjustice on January 27 at 6:11 a.m.
Thanks, Orphan. I appreciate the insight.
; )