Obama on rising tuition

A point Obama made in his SOTU speech and again in a speech at the University of Michigan was to put pressure on colleges to keep tuition from rising by threatening to remove federal subsidies. University of Washington President Mike Young said that Obama doesn't understand public university budgets and dismissed Obama's plan as "political theater."

Obama's plan is focused on increasing campus-based aid and will not affect the vast bulk of federal grants and loans. Since there is no central authority for higher education, the federal government has a very limited control over the real costs and significant gridlock in Congress.

University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman said that tuition increases are needed to make up for drops in state funding. Obama wants state governments to be more helpful, which Coleman agrees with.

Young said that the cost of educating students has actually gone down and that the state authorized tuition increases are only to make up for the state cutting their subsidies.

Obama's speech at the University of Michigan was part of a campaign to promote his SOTU agenda in competitive states.

I did not understand what University of Washington President Young meant about university costs. Were his university's state subsidy cuts greater or less than decreases in the cost to educate? And if they were lesser, what was the point of the tuition increase?

This does seem like a pre-campaign season campaign targeted at younger (college age) voters who are a growing demographic among registered voters. And young people were more likely to vote for Obama in 2008.

I am doubtful that any federal plan to keep tuition from rising can make it through the gridlock of Congress, but I have my fingers crossed for an effective plan to be enacted within the next several months. What are your thoughts, AP Gov folk?

GOP response to SOTU 2012

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels delivered the Republican Party response to the president's Syaye of the Union speech Tuesday evening. He mirrored Obama's opening, saluting him for taking down Osama bin Ladden and other Al-Qaeda officers and talked about other political things before denying the positive messages of Obama's speech. Daniels said Obama was not responsible for the economic problems the US has faced, but he did allege that Obama has done nothing that improved economic conditions durring his three years in office. Daniels also announced opposition to the growing gap between the top and bottom of the income ladder before saying the US was likely to follow the economic path of Greece and Spain if no new action is taken.

A notable political point Daniels made regarding helping his state: "First, make money. Be successful. If you make a profit, you'll have something left to hire someone else, and some to donate to the good causes we love."

Daniels talked about opposition to "extremism" regarding energy policies and called for greater private sector activity to create jobs and a simplied tax code to minimize loophole abuse and be less favorable to the rich. He called for Medicare and Social Security reform. He also blamed the Democrats of the Senate for all the gridlock in Congress and said that the Republicans were responsible for anything Congress managed to accomplish.

He ended his speech saying that Republicans can restore America from the damage done and make "our 'city on a hill' shine once again."

I was bothered that there were no details regarding Social Security and Medicare reform. I also feel that he was too extreme in saying the US could follow in the footsteps of Greece and Spain. Both this spreech and Obama's seriously bothered me as they both projected American exceptionalism.
So AP Gov folks, what do you think of the GOP response?

State of the Union 2012

This year's State of the Union speech was particularly important for President Obama as it is an election year, and he was bound to portray the state of the country as improving. He opened the speech talking mainly about political things like the end of the Iraq War and the death of Osama bin Ladden before talking about the military as a bridge to talking about national unity and what the country previously accomplished before neatly segueing into talking about policies. The first policy related things Obama brought up regarded the deficit and Wall Street regulations, both of which would be recurring themes through the speech. He also mentioned throughout that he wanted manufacturing and clean energy to be major economic focuses and talked about related goals like providing job training and discouraging outsourcong. All of his policy talk was punctuated with political things like both parties coming together to get legislature through in a timely manner and equal opportunity.

What bothered me about the speech was its lack of depth, but details of so many issues can't be discussed in only an hour. I was left wondering if such plans were possible and could survive Congress, and, if they do, how effectively they can be executed. A specific detail that bothered me was what Obama said the Iraq War money would now be headed: half to infrastucture and half to paying off debt. Since the government is sustaining heavily on borrowed money, doesn't that mean that the government would just be borrowing half the cost of the war less per year? And that the rate of debt increase only slows, not reverses?

I would also like to note how this speech seemed to be partly a rebuttal to any negative predictions the Republican candidates were saying about policies made durring the Obama administration, as Obama kept saying positive predictions about the future and stressed any accomplishments in the present.

What to Expect for the State of the Union Address

President Obama's State of the Union address is scheduled for Tuesday of next week, and it is intended to not only address the country's primary issues, but to also create some political momentum for the presidential race. In his presidential preview, President Obama states that the "central mission we have as a country" is to "rebuild the economy."  This issue was mentioned before in the last State of the Union address and the main focus was on creating jobs.  In this address, President Obama seems to be stressing equality, and making equal opportunities for individuals to succeed in the current economy, "not just the wealthy few".  The address is stated to discuss President Obama's "blueprint" for creating such opportunities, which will consist of more "made in America" jobs, "homegrown" and "alternative" energy, "skills for American workers," and a "return to American values".  Expect these topics to be mentioned for the better part of the address, especially the "return to American values," which President Obama cites as the most important topic.

The Tea Party Response

In addition to the customary Republican response to President Obama's State of the Union address, there was another highly publicized response: the response from the Tea Party.

Michelle Bachmann, a Republican member of the House of Representatives from Minnesota, delivered a response to the President's State of the Union address on behalf of the Tea Party, which was televised on CNN. Like President Obama, Bachmann invoked the national spirit and encouraged hope, and like the official Republican response, she pointed to the debt crisis and the failures of the economy. Her tone was more confrontational than that of Paul Ryan, directly attacking the President's policy on many counts with very few concessions.

Bachmann says that she recognizes the legitimacy of Paul Ryan's official Republican response and is not putting her speech forward as a challenge. The Republican Party says the same, that she is simply using the opportunity afforded to all Congress members to respond to the State of the Union address. But the fact remains that the speech was officially endorsed by the Tea Party and is widely being treated as a third party address, and that it was broadcast by a major news network.

What do you think of the speech and its meaning for the politics of the Tea Party? Is the Tea Party now a true third party and a major force in politics? Is this speech going to deepen the Tea Party's divide with the Republican Party? Or is it the sincere response of a conservative congresswoman that has been blown out of proportion?