If you receive this and you hate it and you don’t want to ever read it no matter what...that is fine; email me back and you will be deleted from my list (which is almost at the maximum anyway).

I attempt to post a new issue each Sunday by 2 or 3 pm central standard time (I sometimes fail at this attempt).

I try to include factual material only, along with my opinions (it should be clear which is which). I make an attempt to include as much of this week’s news as I possibly can. The first set of columns are intentionally designed for a quick read.

I do not accept any advertising nor do I charge for this publication. I write this principally to blow off steam in a nation where its people seemed have collectively lost their minds.

And if you are a believer in Jesus Christ, always remember: We do not struggle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places (Eph. 6:12).

The President gave his first State of the Union speech this past week. I could not discern any change in Obama’s positions, except for the modest spending freeze which he proposes for next year.

Although the President happened to leave this agenda point out of his speech, he is taking action against the BCS (the Bowl Championship Series), reviewing legal and antitrust issues.

Congress voted to increase the debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion before allowing Scott Brown to be seated. The vote passed by a strict party-line vote.

Several Democrats finally came out and said that the NY City public trial of KSM and 4 other terrorists is a bad idea.

The SEC is now going to become involved in climate change concerns? Really? This is the same SEC which did not discover for about 2 decades that Bernard Madoff was fleecing his customers (this is after they had received many letters from reputable and prominent investors who knew something was wrong).

Speaking of Climate Change, it has come to light that the chairman of the leading climate change watchdog, Rajendra Pachauri, was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit. He waited for a couple of months to make this information known (conveniently, after the Climate Change conference).

College students have been protesting in Venezuela against Hugo Chavez for the past week because Chavez got cable and satellite television to drop the opposition channel. There are also the problems of double-digit inflation, rolling blackouts and extensive criminal activity in Venezuela.

According to former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Russia urged China to dump its Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds in 2008 in a bid to force a bailout of the largest U.S. mortgage-finance companies. I did not read in the article that this may have been done because these bonds were junk. Russia denies his allegations, but I trust Paulson and Russia about the same amount.

The Obama administration is now floating a trial balloon about trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed at Guantanamo Bay in a military trial. FoxNews just broke this story.

Oregon recent passed a tax measure which was retroactive to Jan. 1, 2009. It is my understanding that this tax will be applied to gross receipts and not to profit. It is estimated that 70,000 jobs will be lost because of this tax increase.

ACORN investigator James O’Keefe arrested for apparently trying to pull a sting on the office of Sen. Mary Landrieu. Although almost every early story to come out on this spoke of wiretapping, so far, there appears to be no evidence that he even had to equipment to wiretap.

There may be an ad during the Superbowl about a successful college football player whose mother was told to abort him, but she decided not to. Pro-choice advocates (and what could be more pro-choice than choosing to give birth to one’s own child) have been up in arms over this.

The economy expanded at an annual rate of 5.7 percent in the fourth quarter, the second straight quarter of growth.

One pro-choice advocate said about the Tebow Superbowl ad, “This un-American hate does not have a place in America’s pastime.”

“Every time that he [President Obama] blames his predecessor, who has been out of the picture for a year, he seems like Princess Fairy Pants.” from Mark Steyn.

In 1994, Bill Clinton lost the Senate to the Republicans. When Obama was warned that this could happen to him, he said, “Well, the big difference here and in '94 was you've got me.”

“We must pass health care reform...It means we will move on many fronts, any front we can. As I said to some friends yesterday in the press, we will go through the gate. If the gate is closed, we will go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we will pole vault in. If that doesn't work, we will parachute in. But we are going to get health care reform passed for the American people for their own personal health and economic security and for the important role that it will play in reducing the deficit.” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

When John F. Kennedy was chastised for passing tax cuts his critics said benefitted the wealthy, he replied, "the best form of welfare is still a good, high-paying job. " [This is according to economist Art Laffer.]

Bill O’Reilly, when recalling the last speech given by Obama before Congress, and how Nancy Pelosi kept jumping up and down. “I gotta take the Dramamine.”

“Communication is both talking and listening. This administration has done a lot of talking and very little listening,” Peggy Noonan.

"Talk about climate change is not an ideological luxury but a reality ... All of the industrialized countries, especially the big ones, bear responsibility for the global warming crisis." This is not Al Gore, but Osama bin Laden, who apparently began reading the Democratic talking points which must have been fax to him this past week.

“The themes he [Obama] talked about in that campaign were very much echoed by Senator Brown in his campaign,” said spin-doctor David Axelrod.

David Axelrod, “Washington loves a shakeup story; Washington loves when are we going to throw a body out? That’s not how we roll.”

“You know, if the tea party folks would go out there and get angry because they think their taxes are too high, for God's sake, a lot of citizens ought to get angry about the fact that they're being killed and our planet's being injured by what's happening on a daily basis by the way we provide our power and our fuel and the old practices that we have. That's something worth getting angry about.” John Kerry’s opinion.

Barney Frank: People are angry, uhh, that we did a lot (garbled) to start the economy back up, and they haven't seen the end. I think there was that anger. There was uncertainty and concern about the health care bill. Clearly the fact is that the Obama recovery from the Bush recession has gone much more slowly than we had hoped. And, ahh, at some point people forget that there was a Bush recession and they focus on the slow Obama recovery.

Rush: I don't think they forget there's a Bush recession. The frigging president reminds 'em 15 times a day. All told, it's probably 30 times a day given how many times you people in Congress talk about "the Bush recession."

Chris Matthews of Obama’s SOTU speech: “I was trying to think about who he was tonight. It's interesting: he is post-racial, by all appearances. I forgot he was black tonight for an hour.”

“This guy is one scotch away from being Ron Burgundy,” said Jon Stewart of Chris Matthews.

"The Republican Party would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side," said Julian Bond in 2006.

Julian Bond has mellowed over the past few years, and recently called those in the TEA party movement the Taliban wing of the Republican party.

“This is a bit like watching a play written by a dog,” Charlie Brooker on an episode of Newswipe.

My personal favorite is hearing the public discuss the issues. This is a Frank Luntz focus group on Obama’s SOTU speech:

Glenn Beck’s show on the history of the progressive political movement in the United States (often, Beck’s best show of the previous week is played after the Journal Report and FoxNews Watch on FoxNews Saturday afternoons; it is an excellent 2-hour block of shows):

Moderate Republican Susan Collins rags on Obama for his mishandling of the Christmas day bomber. This is scathing, but Collins deals in facts, not in hyperbole:

Chris Matthews clarifies his position on Barrack Obama (I saw almost the entire interview that Matthews did and it was quite hilarious to me):

This is a matter of interest; Obama girl shows up on Sean Hannity’s show for a fairly long segment, and her crush on Obama has subsided somewhat.

Dennis Miller describing what it will be like right before the State of the Union speech: “This is going to be like praying mantises crawling over one another in the Helman justice and righteousness to get to the one air hole.”

And, “Pelosi is more unhinged than a double wide door in the midst of a DEA bust.” Dennis Miller.

“Disgraced film director Roman Polanski has been ordered to return to the United States. Still no word on whether he will be named as President Obama’s new safe-schools czar,” Jodi Miller.

Jon Stewart also rips on Obama for setting up his 2 teleprompters in a 6^th grade class:

I must admit, this brought a smile to my face; Charlie Brooker tells how to report the news:

1) Less than half of those who take government dollars to go to actually graduate from college.

2) No doubt you have heard that some banks were forced to take TARP funds, and you have your own opinion about whether or not this is true, depending upon your point of view. Consider this: how were these banks so able to so quickly pay back the government with interest if they were in financial trouble during a recession?

3) Remember the good old days when our president berated banks and other financial institutions for paying bonuses when these institutions were not making money? This year, he has changed his tune and has turned over a new leaf. Now he berates banks and financial institutions for paying bonuses when they are successful.

4) From Toby on Bears and Bulls: Here is why Obama’s approach to the economy is wrong: in a free economy, an entrepreneur is personally inspired and motivated, and he takes risks in order to produce something which others would like (this can be an Apple product, a great restaurant, a well-mowed lawn). He trusts in his own vision and takes whatever risk is necessary in order to see it through. He works hard—and 14 to 20 hour days for some entrepeneurs is not unusual. The Obama approach is to get a few smart guys in a room, who agree that they are all smart, who have been graduated by a big name university—but who have never started their own business—and they will decide what our country needs. They do not produce anything, but they take money from those who do, and throw it at whatever project or whatever common good they have deemed, in all of their brilliance, to fund. Right now, Obama is thinking about high speed rail, something which will forever suck money from the private sector.

5) I have heard a recent conspiracy theory, which, most of the time, I just ignore. However, Toyota is recalling huge numbers of vehicles, although I do not recall hearing much information about there being a spate of accidents over this accelerator problem. Suddenly, almost within hours of this recall, GM begins running ads, and will very likely benefit from Toyota’s misery. Gm is run by the government; was there a threat of some sort made to Toyota to get such a widespread recall (I believe unprecedented in the car manufacturing business)?

6) On one of the panel shows I viewed this past week, Democratic strategist Penny Lee said that she had received the White House talking points. Remember how many times the Democrats accursed President Bush of sending talking points over to FoxNews?

7) The number of jobs created and spending of the Stimulus bill are revealed on the White House’s Recovery.org webpage. According to Steve Moore, this page has not been updated for 3 months. It is a static webpage. “What isn’t static?” Steve asked. “The American debt.”

8) College tuition keeps on going up. Why doesn’t Obama just cap the cost of tuition? If he can take over GM, surely he can cap tuition.

9) Rudy Giuliani pointed out that, almost from the beginning, someone high up made the decision to treat the underware bomber as a common criminal. Although he did not say who, I would guess Eric Holder. This call came down within 1 hour of the interview of the attempted bomber’s questioning.

10) In theory, government regulation sounds great. However, always remember that the SEC, who has decided to investigate climate change matters, did not catch Bernard Madoff for 2 decades, and that was their job. Bear in mind that hundreds of billions of dollars are stolen from Medicare and Medicaid every year.

11) If you go to www.whitehouse.gov and try to right click and save any photos of Obama, the name of the photo will be hero followed by some more words.

12) The Obama talking heads are trying to spin the Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts as somehow being a positive thing for Obama. No, not every politician trys to spin the un-spinable. Remember when Democrats were elected to majorities in Congress in 2006? George Bush said, “We got a thumpin.’” That is not spin.

Ben Stein did this simple calculation. The average job in the United States pays about $50,000. The government dedicated $800 billion dollars last year to Obama’s massive Stimulus and Recovery Ac t. In simple terms, if this money was just given to people to dig holes and fill them up, this stimulus bill would have produced 16 million jobs, and turned this recession completely around. However, this legislation did not work quite that well.

300 suits against the Obama administration, have been filed under the freedom of information act, which is more than twice that of his predecessor’s average year.

20% is the approximate increase in discretionary spending Obama has instituted, prior to the freeze he has called for.

According to a Feed America ad which I saw this week, 1 in 8 Americans is struggling with hunger. However, 1 in 10 American family receives food stamp assistance from the government. How does this make sense?

As a side note, when searching for most stories, I can put a few choice words into the search engine an up comes the story I am looking for. I had to refine this search several times to get the story, and at the top of the heap were a number of stories which disparaged this poll. It is my understanding that Public Policy Polling, if anything, has a liberal bend. In any case, this is why I have recommended FoxNews on many occasions in this news letter and elsewhere. If you do not want spin, check out the first 40 minutes of Bret Bair and the entire hour of the Shepherd Smith news broadcast. They are both evening broadcasts (late afternoon for California) and I dare you to find bias in their reporting. What you will find is, they will inform you of all the news.

Until that special election, the Democrats had sixty votes in the U.S. Senate which allowed them to pass legislation without any votes from Republican Senators. Now the Democrats still have a large majority but cannot pass bills without cooperation from at least one Republican Senator. Do you think this change will be good for the country or bad for the country?

This poll was done online and from 522 randomly selected viewers of the speech. Quite frankly, I do not know how you have a reasonable poll online (they claimed that Bush received 85% approval for his 2002 SOTU speech). In the poll itself (but not in any story which I read), 44% of the viewers were Democrats, 21% Republicans and 35% Independents.

6 in 10 of those asked said they thought Mr. Obama conveyed a clear plan for creating jobs,

7 in 10 said President Obama has the same priorities for the country as they have.

Interestingly enough, there is an online poll at FoxNews with almost the exact same results (83% approve; 15% disapprove).

The Boston Globe, right before the Coakley-Brown election, completely ignored the poll which put Scott Brown ahead for the first time right before the election. Apparently, this was not newsworthy to them.

Obama giving the State of the Union Speech. Certain parts of the speech can be given word-for-word. E.g., his attacks on Republicans and bankers. After each attack, he says, “You bankers are being divisive. This is the United States, not the banker states.” And “You Republicans are divisive with all your TEA bagger parties. This is the United States, not the TEA bagger states. This is the United States.”

At the beginning of this week, I so wanted to put Obama’s name in here for suggesting a freeze on spending. Since then, I have found it is quite limited in scope, and will be applied to budgets which he has already raised by around 20%.

However, I can give a yay to the president for apparently changing his mind about the venue of trying KSM. Whether Obama is struck by reality or by polling, it does not matter to me. A military trial in Gitmo is the right thing to do.

“Democracy and capitalism are antithetical. Capitalism means a few are prospered while the majority of the people serve the few; and democracy means that everyone has a place at the table and the wealth is shared. This approach is the fundamental principle of every religion of man.” Michael Moore in an interview. Although this is not an exact quote, it fairly represents what he said in a recent interview. I never heard him use the word socialism during the portion of the interview which I heard (I listened to about 15 minutes of it), although one could have replaced the word democracy with socialism and the interview would have made more sense. He also bemoaned our school system and our illiteracy rate, and appeared to blame 40 million Americans being unable to read or write above a 4^th grade level on conservatives and corporations, which can now exploit this ignorance. I have no idea whether this figure of 40 million is accurate or not.

Jobs, jobs, jobs = I have no idea what to do about jobs; I thought the Stimulus bill would do the trick. So, I’ll just keep repeating the word jobs.

Pivot to the economy = I can’t get healthcare passed yet, so I will try to sneak it in later.

Pulled the economy back from the brink of disaster = we passed an $800 billion spending bill.

We need to change the culture of Washington = just do whatever I tell you to do. And if I don’t like how things are going, I will just blame Bush.

If you simply took the $800 billion for the Recovery Act and put in place a bunch of government jobs for $50,000 each, how many jobs would you have created?

If you think pro-choice groups are all about choice and information. They are all about abortion. This is why they oppose showing expectant mothers contemplating abortion their ultrasound. This is why they oppose parental notification for minors seeking abortions. They know that the end result would be, fewer abortions, and they oppose that.

First approach Democrats will use to get their legislation passed is bribery to any Republican Senator they can bribe. They would rather bribe than compromise.

Look for the 5.7% growth rate of the 4^th quarter of the United States to be revised downward within the next month.

Apart from government spending, look for sluggish or negative growth in the U.S. economy for the next year or two.

I have continually said that Obama is not really very interested in foreign policy. Only 13% of his state of the Union speech was on foreign policy.

I’ve said many times that Obama is an ideologue who is unable to see the other side. Clinton, when he lost the Senate, moved toward the middle and actually had a reasonably successful domestic agenda. Bush, when the House and Senate fell to Democrats in 2006, was able to work with Democrats, despite all of the rancor and attacks from the Democrats, and a lot of legislation was passed (and too much money was spent). If you read through Obama’s State of the Union Speech, it is clear, he has the same agenda now as he did when he began his presidency with a super-majority. Nothing has changed.

I believe it was last week that I said you are brainwashed if you think the healthcare bill is dead. This week, Nancy Pelosi promise to go through the door, or over the wall or parachute in, in order ot pass healthcare legislation.

The Obama administration is now floating a trial balloon about trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed at Guantanamo Bay in a military trial. FoxNews just broke this story.

Even though it is not in the job description of the president, the president writes legislation. Every president is going to have some signature legislation, with some very specific ideas of what it ought to be, and he has on staff those who can actually write legislation. These same people (and sometimes others) also know how to read legislation and evaluate it. This is a very big deal, because we never see these people and we (the public) do not know who they are, most of the time. Sometimes they are lobbyists. To us, it appears to be a seamless product that appears almost magically.

But, the President himself does not write the legislation. He sets the parameters. Then, people whom he trusts, write the legislation.

This is presented to Congress, and sometimes they savage what has been written; almost always, they amend it, and this unseen army then figures out what has been done to the bill, and they report back to the president, and he may speak to the right people in Congress and get some provisions changed back, or some amendments cancelled.

This requires a leader—an alpha dog—and a unseen army of legislative experts, so that his signature piece of legislation ends up being something that he wants to put his signature on.

What we have instead, is a slick salesman, who is selling snake oil in a bottle, but he doesn’t know what it is, and that has been the nuts and bolts problem with Democratic healthcare reform (one of the many). President Obama did his best job to sell this Democratic-only bill, but it became apparent early on that, the bill Obama was selling was something very different from that which Congress was passing (and, quite frankly, what the President promised was simply impossible—you cannot improve medical insurance, spread it around to more people, cover pre-existing conditions, and make it cheaper). It was snake oil that was able to cure anything, and those who took a look at the snake oil realized it wasn’t what Obama was selling.

This is why Obama essentially told Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, “You write the bills and pass them; I’ll sell ‘em and sign ‘em.” Not really an alpha-dog approach, but very much in line with Obama’s personality.

End result: legislation which is an awful, bureaucratic mess; 270 people trying to bake a cake, as Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu put it.

This is why the Stimulus Bill was not a Stimulus Bill, but a collection of bureaucracies and payoffs. That is why the House Cap and Trade bill and the Healthcare bills from both houses are such unfocused messes. There is no guiding light; and there are no nuts and bolts.

Here is how you know that you know someone’s argument is specious: they argue in favor of 1%. Do you recall the movement in California (and elsewhere) to legalize medical marijuana and you saw various ads touting the serious pain these various people were in, and the only cure for them was smoking marijuana? The end result in California has been hundreds of medical marijuana outlets, and people who come in and get pot prescribed to them for depression, bad headaches, and whatever other excuse they give the physician who just happens to prescribe medical marijuana for almost anything.

How many people are going to these outlets with real medical problems for which medical marijuana is a reasonable? 1%. Probably less.

We have the same arguments when it comes to abortion. If you discuss abortion with anyone who is pro-choice, what arguments do they drag out prominently? Rape victims and victims of incest. However, of those who get abortions, how many of these are rape victims or victims of incest? It is less than 0.1%. So who is getting abortions? Well, for the vast majority, it is women who use this as after-the-fact birth control. However, they don’t ever seem to find their way into the pro-choice talking points.

Do you know the racial makeup of most women who have abortions? They are African-Americans. How often when people argue in favor of choice, is this fact cited?

When you hear an argument made for anything, try to find out, what are the percentages. If the main arguments deal with a small percentage, then why is that the argument really being made?

I was raised in a Democratic household and FDR was a revered president. But I often wondered, what caused the Great Depression? What set of events were so bad to lead to such a horrible time in our history? From time to time I would read about it, and my school textbooks were never much help. Nothing I ever read seemed to explain just what happened.

The stock market went up and then it crashed. And then the United States was 11+ years in a depression. And FDR was a great president, one of the greatest. Nothing seemed to fit together; nothing ever explained these events to my own satisfaction.

I’ve done more reading since then, and the key to understanding the Great Depression is not the events leading up to it, but how it was handled by our government.

FDR, like many others of his day, viewed the Marxist model in Russia with some romanticism. This does not mean that Roosevelt was a Marxist, nor does it mean that he thought of himself as a Marxist; but it was just common in that era to be far more accepting of socialism and communism. This doesn’t mean that FDR was a bad man nor did it mean that he had this hidden, devious agenda. His attitude toward Russia, in that day and age, was not unusual. After all, we did not know about how many people Stalin had slaughtered. Mao’s great cultural revolution (his unprecedented slaughter of his wn people) had not yet occurred. Russia was this grand experiment and just maybe, it was working.

Roosevelt also had a lot of power, and he took power when our nation was in the depths.

One thing which FDR did was, he demonized various sectors of the economy (bankers, Wall Street). They were not cooperative and they made too much money for not really doing enough, in his own eyes. And they had a lot of money, and, if he was going to solve the problems of the Great Depression, he needed that money.

So Roosevelt raised taxes—particularly on the rich—and he raised them again; and again; and again.

He also instituted a menagerie of social works programs. Government spent more and more money; taxed more and more, and yet, the Great Depression just continued. The more that he did, things either got worse or stayed about the same.

Interestingly enough, FDR even set gold prices. He would wake up in the morning and decide what the price of gold would be for that day.

It was a time of experimentation and a time of high taxation and a time of government fiddling with the economy, trying to get things right. People with a lot of money were the villains; the struggling poor and working class were the victims, apparently victimized by the rich, and no matter what he did, FDR could not get the ball rolling. The top tax rate was eventually pushed up to 90%.

The common explanation is that, World War II took us out of the depression, but it really didn’t. It spurred the economy, for certain. It put men to work, so to speak, no doubt. But the stock market never came back to pre-Depression highs until the 1950's, almost a decade after FDR died in office.

Now, no set of circumstances in history are every exactly parallel. We are not in the Great Depression and President Obama is not FDR. Most people, outside of the Obama administration, do not have warm and fuzzy feelings about communist governments, as we know them to be heartless and cruel.

However, there are enough parallels between now and then to catch our attention. We ought to look back to the Great Depression, and notice the similarities and what did not work.

Let me offer up one thing. Many working people have some investments in the stock market or in mutual funds, even if they do not realize it (they will be invested in the market often through their retirement funds). Some of us intentionally invest in particular companies or in particular mutual funds (or other investment vehicles). Now, what keeps the average investor from going all in? An uncertain market. If we do not have confidence in the market, we are not going to invest much.

The same is true of a businessman. Many businesses are started with some sort of risk. Few people start up a business where it does not matter to them if it succeeds or fails. When someone invests in a business, this often represents much of their life’s savings to that point; or the life savings of many friends and relatives.

Now, how do you feel about investing in the market or in your own business if you don’t know what the costs are? If government can come along and decide to tax you on your receipts even, and not on your gross, what is going to happen to your business? If government keeps raising your rates (most small businesses file on the common 1040 forms). If government adds an extra percent or two, this affects your bottom line. There may not be a profit, depending upon what government decides to do. What if government so tightly regulates healthcare so that, you cannot afford what the government requires for your employees?

My point is this. Under FDR, businesses had no idea what he was going to do from day to day. They knew he was probably going to take more money from then and start a program, but no one knew how much or when this would occur. Some people did work and had money to invest in business in that day, but, they had no idea where the market was going. Why take this money you have worked so hard for and put it into the market, which was made uncertain by America’s President?

This is where we are today. Less than 10% of President Obama’s cabinet have true business experience. Obama worked in the private sector for awhile and even admits, in one of his two books, that it was like being behind enemy lines. However, he has a vision for what government can do on our behalf, and all he needs is enough money to make his vision a reality.

Today, as in the 1930's, government cannot produce anything. Government can take what has been produced and either give it to others or place it into various projects, but government cannot take a dollar and turn it into $2. Government is simply unable to do this.

The man in charge of our government today is President Barrack Obama; a man who does not really understand business, the private sector or innovation. It is all government. Government is the answer; government is the key. We have a problem and the only solution for it, by his way of thinking, is the government. Much like FDR.

Every 3–6 months, 5 Democrats and 5 republicans meet in somewhat of a debate format and discuss a list of issues. Each side lays out the problems, as they see it, and proposes their solutions.

As President Obama did, each president should speak to the opposite party in each house at least once a year. It should be televised and not limited to simply congressmen asking questions, but stating their opinions as well.

In mid-2004, then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi learned something from a CIA briefing that made her blood boil. Pelosi reportedly "came unglued" at the revelation and had "strong words" with national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, demanding that the CIA abandon its plans. As a result, a top-secret finding that President George W. Bush signed to authorize the CIA's activities was revised. Pelosi succeeded in stopping the agency from moving forward with the controversial operation.

What drove Pelosi to action? Not the CIA's waterboarding of suspected al-Qaeda terrorists. In a 2009 interview, a former senior Bush administration official directed me to a little-noticed item from Time magazine. According to this 2004 report, Pelosi objected to a CIA plan to provide money to moderate political parties in Iraq ahead of scheduled elections, in an effort to counter Iran, which was funneling millions to extremist elements. "House minority leader Nancy Pelosi 'came unglued' when she learned about what a source described as a plan for 'the CIA to put an operation in place to affect the outcome of the elections,' " Time reported. "Pelosi had strong words with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice in a phone call about the issue. . . . A senior U.S. official hinted that, under pressure from the Hill, the Administration scaled back its original plans." (Her role was also reported on this page by David Ignatius in 2007.)

Why is this important? Because on May 14, 2009, Pelosi, now speaker of the House, declared in a Capitol Hill news conference that she had opposed CIA waterboarding but was powerless to stop it. A former senior intelligence official told me in 2009 that he was shocked by Pelosi's claim because, he said, "Speaker Pelosi herself has stopped covert action programs that she has been briefed on by going to the White House. In that very same time frame [after she learned about waterboarding] Pelosi had gone back to the White House [over] a separate covert action program, expressed strong opposition to it. And the remarkable part to me, the White House backed off the program, changed one aspect of the program . . . she was particularly opposed to. And literally, the finding was pulled back and revised." If Pelosi had truly opposed waterboarding, he said, she had numerous ways to stop it -- but she didn't try.

At the time of her press briefing, Pelosi had been forced to acknowledge that she had learned in February 2003 that waterboarding was being used. Why, reporters asked, did she not object? Flustered, Pelosi claimed that it was not her place to complain because she was no longer the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee. "A letter raising concerns was sent to CIA general counsel Scott Muller by the new Democratic ranking member of [the] committee [Jane Harman], the appropriate person to register a protest." She made this claim five times during the briefing.

In fact, Harman's letter, since declassified, did not "register a protest"; it asked "what kind of policy review took place" and urged the agency not to destroy interrogation tapes. Moreover, when Pelosi made this claim, she knew that in 2004, when she was no longer the committee's ranking member, she had personally intervened with the White House to stop different covert action. She did not defer to Harman; she herself took action. Why was it "appropriate" for her to intervene then but not in the case of waterboarding?

Pelosi was asked by a reporter, "Do you wish now that you had done more? Do you wish it had been your own letter?" Pelosi replied, "No, no, no, no, no, no . . . No letter or anything else is going to stop them from doing what they're going to do." She made this claim three times during the briefing. All the while knowing that her phone call to Rice in 2004 had stopped the CIA from "doing what they were going to do" in a different covert operation.

As one of the top four leaders on Capitol Hill, Pelosi had numerous tools at her disposal if she had truly wanted to block waterboarding. She could have threatened to put a hold on funding for the CIA interrogation program, or held up funding for other administration priorities, or worked with her Senate counterparts to hold up nominees for senior CIA positions, or simply called the national security adviser -- as she reportedly did in the case of the Iraq program. Pelosi did none of those things when she learned about waterboarding. By her silence, Pelosi gave her consent -- and then misled the media by claiming she was powerless to act.

Journalists did not question Pelosi's claims -- and then they stopped questioning her. Pelosi announced that she would not take more questions on the topic, and the media complied. Reporters who relentlessly chased the Valerie Plame leak let the story drop. Pelosi's role in stopping another covert operation gives lie to her claims that she was powerless to stop waterboarding -- but the Washington press corps failed to "connect the dots." Now that the truth is out, will they continue to let her get away with not answering questions? We'll learn the answer at her next press briefing.

Marc A. Thiessen, a former speechwriter to President George W. Bush, is the author of "Courting Disaster: How the CIA Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack."

Sorry for the radio silence, folks - I'm buried at the moment. But I've been asked by a few people for a comment on the Obama administration's reversal of its decision to try the 9/11 plotters in civilian court in Manhattan. Here's my statement:

Reality has yet again dragged the Obama administration, kicking and screaming, toward a more sensible policy. Like the decision to close Gitmo, which was announced without regard for the imperative of detaining committed jihadists, the decision to hold civilian trials for alien enemy combatants was made without regard for security, costs, the prospect of surrendering national defense information to the enemy during wartime, or the betrayal of humanitarian law caused by rewarding the worst war criminals with gold-plated due process. Not holding the civilian trial in New York City is a good thing. Not holding a civilian trial at all would be a far better thing. Since we have not made provisions for a national-secuirty court to deal with the novel challenge of international terrorism, wartime alien enemy combatants should be tried by military commission in the safety of Guantanamo Bay - which is what it was built for, at great expense to the American taxpayer.

Madam Speaker, Vice President Biden, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:

Our Constitution declares that from time to time, the President shall give to Congress information about the state of our union. For 220 years, our leaders have fulfilled this duty. They've done so during periods of prosperity and tranquility. And they've done so in the midst of war and depression; at moments of great strife and great struggle.

It's tempting to look back on these moments and assume that our progress was inevitable -- that America was always destined to succeed. But when the Union was turned back at Bull Run, and the Allies first landed at Omaha Beach, victory was very much in doubt. When the market crashed on Black Tuesday, and civil rights marchers were beaten on Bloody Sunday, the future was anything but certain. These were the times that tested the courage of our convictions, and the strength of our union. And despite all our divisions and disagreements, our hesitations and our fears, America prevailed because we chose to move forward as one nation, as one people.

One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted -- immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed.

But the devastation remains. One in 10 Americans still cannot find work. Many businesses have shuttered. Home values have declined. Small towns and rural communities have been hit especially hard. And for those who'd already known poverty, life has become that much harder.

This recession has also compounded the burdens that America's families have been dealing with for decades -- the burden of working harder and longer for less; of being unable to save enough to retire or help kids with college.

So I know the anxieties that are out there right now. They're not new. These struggles are the reason I ran for President. These struggles are what I've witnessed for years in places like Elkhart, Indiana; Galesburg, Illinois. I hear about them in the letters that I read each night. The toughest to read are those written by children -- asking why they have to move from their home, asking when their mom or dad will be able to go back to work.

For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don't understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded, but hard work on Main Street isn't; or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems. They're tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness. They know we can't afford it. Not now.

So we face big and difficult challenges. And what the American people hope -- what they deserve -- is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences; to overcome the numbing weight of our politics. For while the people who sent us here have different backgrounds, different stories, different beliefs, the anxieties they face are the same. The aspirations they hold are shared: a job that pays the bills; a chance to get ahead; most of all, the ability to give their children a better life.

You know what else they share? They share a stubborn resilience in the face of adversity. After one of the most difficult years in our history, they remain busy building cars and teaching kids, starting businesses and going back to school. They're coaching Little League and helping their neighbors. One woman wrote to me and said, "We are strained but hopeful, struggling but encouraged."

It's because of this spirit -- this great decency and great strength -- that I have never been more hopeful about America's future than I am tonight. (Applause.) Despite our hardships, our union is strong. We do not give up. We do not quit. We do not allow fear or division to break our spirit. In this new decade, it's time the American people get a government that matches their decency; that embodies their strength. (Applause.)

And tonight, tonight I'd like to talk about how together we can deliver on that promise.

Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that helped cause this crisis. It was not easy to do. And if there's one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, and everybody in between, it's that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it -- (applause.) I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal. (Laughter.)

But when I ran for President, I promised I wouldn't just do what was popular -- I would do what was necessary. And if we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today. More businesses would certainly have closed. More homes would have surely been lost.

So I supported the last administration's efforts to create the financial rescue program. And when we took that program over, we made it more transparent and more accountable. And as a result, the markets are now stabilized, and we've recovered most of the money we spent on the banks. (Applause.) Most but not all.

To recover the rest, I've proposed a fee on the biggest banks. (Applause.) Now, I know Wall Street isn't keen on this idea. But if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need. (Applause.)

Now, as we stabilized the financial system, we also took steps to get our economy growing again, save as many jobs as possible, and help Americans who had become unemployed.

That's why we extended or increased unemployment benefits for more than 18 million Americans; made health insurance 65 percent cheaper for families who get their coverage through COBRA; and passed 25 different tax cuts.

Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. (Applause.) We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college. (Applause.)

As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas and food and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers. And we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime. (Applause.)

Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. (Applause.) Two hundred thousand work in construction and clean energy; 300,000 are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, first responders. (Applause.) And we're on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year.

The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act. (Applause.) That's right -- the Recovery Act, also

known as the stimulus bill. (Applause.) Economists on the left and the right say this bill has helped save jobs and avert disaster. But you don't have to take their word for it. Talk to the small business in Phoenix that will triple its workforce because of the Recovery Act. Talk to the window manufacturer in Philadelphia who said he used to be skeptical about the Recovery Act, until he had to add two more work shifts just because of the business it created. Talk to the single teacher raising two kids who was told by her principal in the last week of school that because of the Recovery Act, she wouldn't be laid off after all.

There are stories like this all across America. And after two years of recession, the economy is growing again. Retirement funds have started to gain back some of their value. Businesses are beginning to invest again, and slowly some are starting to hire again.

But I realize that for every success story, there are other stories, of men and women who wake up with the anguish of not knowing where their next paycheck will come from; who send out resumes week after week and hear nothing in response. That is why jobs must be our number-one focus in 2010, and that's why I'm calling for a new jobs bill tonight. (Applause.)

Now, the true engine of job creation in this country will always be America's businesses. (Applause.) But government can create the conditions necessary for businesses to expand and hire more workers.

We should start where most new jobs do -- in small businesses, companies that begin when -- (applause) -- companies that begin when an entrepreneur -- when an entrepreneur takes a chance on a dream, or a worker decides it's time she became her own boss. Through sheer grit and determination, these companies have weathered the recession and they're ready to grow. But when you talk to small businessowners in places like Allentown, Pennsylvania, or Elyria, Ohio, you find out that even though banks on Wall Street are lending again, they're mostly lending to bigger companies. Financing remains difficult for small businessowners across the country, even those that are making a profit.

So tonight, I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. (Applause.) I'm also proposing a new small business tax credit -- one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages. (Applause.) While we're at it, let's also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment, and provide a tax incentive for all large businesses and all small businesses to invest in new plants and equipment. (Applause.)

Next, we can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow. (Applause.) From the first railroads to the Interstate Highway System, our nation has always been built to compete. There's no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products.

Tomorrow, I'll visit Tampa, Florida, where workers will soon break ground on a new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act. (Applause.) There are projects like that all across this country that will create jobs and help move our nation's goods, services, and information. (Applause.)

We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities -- (applause) -- and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy-efficient, which supports clean energy jobs. (Applause.) And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it is time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas, and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs right here in the United States of America. (Applause.)

Now, the House has passed a jobs bill that includes some of these steps. (Applause.) As the first order of business this year, I urge the Senate to do the same, and I know they will. (Applause.) They will. (Applause.) People are out of work. They're hurting. They need our help. And I want a jobs bill on my desk without delay. (Applause.)

But the truth is, these steps won't make up for the seven million jobs that we've lost over the last two years. The only way to move to full employment is to lay a new foundation for long-term economic growth, and finally address the problems that America's families have confronted for years.

We can't afford another so-called economic "expansion" like the one from the last decade -- what some call the "lost decade" -- where jobs grew more slowly than during any prior expansion; where the income of the average American household declined while the cost of health care and tuition reached record highs; where prosperity was built on a housing bubble and financial speculation.

From the day I took office, I've been told that addressing our larger challenges is too ambitious; such an effort would be too contentious. I've been told that our political system is too gridlocked, and that we should just put things on hold for a while.

For those who make these claims, I have one simple question: How long should we wait? How long should America put its future on hold? (Applause.)

You see, Washington has been telling us to wait for decades, even as the problems have grown worse. Meanwhile, China is not waiting to revamp its economy. Germany is not waiting. India is not waiting. These nations -- they're not standing still. These nations aren't playing for second place. They're putting more emphasis on math and science. They're rebuilding their infrastructure. They're making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs. Well, I do not accept second place for the United States of America. (Applause.)

As hard as it may be, as uncomfortable and contentious as the debates may become, it's time to get serious about fixing the problems that are hampering our growth.

Now, one place to start is serious financial reform. Look, I am not interested in punishing banks. I'm interested in protecting our economy. A strong, healthy financial market makes it possible for businesses to access credit and create new jobs. It channels the savings of families into investments that raise incomes. But that can only happen if we guard against the same recklessness that nearly brought down our entire economy.

We need to make sure consumers and middle-class families have the information they need to make financial decisions. (Applause.) We can't allow financial institutions, including those that take your deposits, to take risks that threaten the whole economy.

Now, the House has already passed financial reform with many of these changes. (Applause.) And the lobbyists are trying to kill it. But we cannot let them win this fight. (Applause.) And if the bill that ends up on my desk does not meet the test of real reform, I will send it back until we get it right. We've got to get it right. (Applause.)

Next, we need to encourage American innovation. Last year, we made the largest investment in basic research funding in history -- (applause) -- an investment that could lead to the world's cheapest solar cells or treatment that kills cancer cells but leaves healthy ones untouched. And no area is more ripe for such innovation than energy. You can see the results of last year's investments in clean energy -- in the North Carolina company that will create 1,200 jobs nationwide helping to make advanced batteries; or in the California business that will put a thousand people to work making solar panels.

But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. (Applause.) It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. (Applause.) It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. (Applause.) And, yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America. (Applause.)

I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year. (Applause.) And this year I'm eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate. (Applause.)

I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy. I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But here's the thing -- even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future -- because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation. (Applause.)

Third, we need to export more of our goods. (Applause.) Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America. (Applause.) So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America. (Applause.) To help meet this goal, we're launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security. (Applause.)

We have to seek new markets aggressively, just as our competitors are. If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores. (Applause.) But realizing those benefits also means enforcing those agreements so our trading partners play by the rules. (Applause.) And that's why we'll continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets, and why we will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South Korea and Panama and Colombia. (Applause.)

Fourth, we need to invest in the skills and education of our people. (Applause.)

Now, this year, we've broken through the stalemate between left and right by launching a national competition to improve our schools. And the idea here is simple: Instead of rewarding failure, we only reward success. Instead of funding the status quo, we only invest in reform -- reform that raises student achievement; inspires students to excel in math and science; and turns around failing schools that steal the future of too many young Americans, from rural communities to the inner city. In the 21st century, the best anti-poverty program around is a world-class education. (Applause.) And in this country, the success of our children cannot depend more on where they live than on their potential.

When we renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will work with Congress to expand these reforms to all 50 states. Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job. That's why I urge the Senate to follow the House and pass a bill that will revitalize our community colleges, which are a career pathway to the children of so many working families. (Applause.)

To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer subsidies that go to banks for student loans. (Applause.) Instead, let's take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants. (Applause.) And let's tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years -- and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college. (Applause.)

And by the way, it's time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs -- (applause) -- because they, too, have a responsibility to help solve this problem.

Now, the price of college tuition is just one of the burdens facing the middle class. That's why last year I asked Vice President Biden to chair a task force on middle-class families. That's why we're nearly doubling the child care tax credit, and making it easier to save for retirement by giving access to every worker a retirement account and expanding the tax credit for those who start a nest egg. That's why we're working to lift the value of a family's single largest investment -- their home. The steps we took last year to shore up the housing market have allowed millions of Americans to take out new loans and save an average of $1,500 on mortgage payments.

This year, we will step up refinancing so that homeowners can move into more affordable mortgages. (Applause.) And it is precisely to relieve the burden on middle-class families that we still need health insurance reform. (Applause.) Yes, we do. (Applause.)

Now, let's clear a few things up. (Laughter.) I didn't choose to tackle this issue to get some legislative victory under my belt. And by now it should be fairly obvious that I didn't take on health care because it was good politics. (Laughter.) I took on health care because of the stories I've heard from Americans with preexisting conditions whose lives depend on getting coverage; patients who've been denied coverage; families -- even those with insurance -- who are just one illness away from financial ruin.

After nearly a century of trying -- Democratic administrations, Republican administrations -- we are closer than ever to bringing more security to the lives of so many Americans. The approach we've taken would protect every American from the worst practices of the insurance industry. It would give small businesses and uninsured Americans a chance to choose an affordable health care plan in a competitive market. It would require every insurance plan to cover preventive care.

And by the way, I want to acknowledge our First Lady, Michelle Obama, who this year is creating a national movement to tackle the epidemic of childhood obesity and make kids healthier. (Applause.) Thank you. She gets embarrassed. (Laughter.)

Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan. It would reduce costs and premiums for millions of families and businesses. And according to the Congressional Budget Office -- the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress -- our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades. (Applause.)

Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, the process left most Americans wondering, "What's in it for me?"

But I also know this problem is not going away. By the time I'm finished speaking tonight, more Americans will have lost their health insurance. Millions will lose it this year. Our deficit will grow. Premiums will go up. Patients will be denied the care they need. Small business owners will continue to drop coverage altogether. I will not walk away from these Americans, and neither should the people in this chamber. (Applause.)

So, as temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we've proposed. There's a reason why many doctors, nurses, and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo. But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. (Applause.) Let me know. Let me know. (Applause.) I'm eager to see it.

Here's what I ask Congress, though: Don't walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people. (Applause.) Let's get it done. Let's get it done. (Applause.)

Now, even as health care reform would reduce our deficit, it's not enough to dig us out of a massive fiscal hole in which we find ourselves. It's a challenge that makes all others that much harder to solve, and one that's been subject to a lot of political posturing. So let me start the discussion of government spending by setting the record straight.

At the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. (Applause.) By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door. (Laughter and applause.)

Now -- just stating the facts. Now, if we had taken office in ordinary times, I would have liked nothing more than to start bringing down the deficit. But we took office amid a crisis. And our efforts to prevent a second depression have added another $1 trillion to our national debt. That, too, is a fact.

I'm absolutely convinced that was the right thing to do. But families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same. (Applause.) So tonight, I'm proposing specific steps to pay for the trillion dollars that it took to rescue the economy last year.

Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. (Applause.) 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't. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will. (Applause.)

We will continue to go through the budget, line by line, page by page, to eliminate programs that we can't afford and don't work. We've already identified $20 billion in savings for next year. To help working families, we'll extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, for investment fund managers, and for those making over $250,000 a year. We just can't afford it. (Applause.)

Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we'll still face the massive deficit we had when I took office. More importantly, the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will continue to skyrocket. That's why I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. (Applause.) This can'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.

Now, yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I'll issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans. (Applause.) And when the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason for why we had record surpluses in the 1990s. (Applause.)

Now, I know that some in my own party will argue that we can't address the deficit or freeze government spending when so many are still hurting. And I agree -- which is why this freeze won't take effect until next year -- (laughter) -- when the economy is stronger. That's how budgeting works. (Laughter and applause.) But understand -- understand if we don't take meaningful steps to rein in our debt, it could damage our markets, increase the cost of borrowing, and jeopardize our recovery -- all of which would have an even worse effect on our job growth and family incomes.

From some on the right, I expect we'll hear a different argument -- that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts including those for the wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is that's what we did for eight years. (Applause.) That's what helped us into this crisis. It's what helped lead to these deficits. We can't do it again.

Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it's time to try something new. Let's invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt. Let's meet our responsibility to the citizens who sent us here. Let's try common sense. (Laughter.) A novel concept.

To do that, we have to recognize that we face more than a deficit of dollars right now. We face a deficit of trust -- deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap we have to take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue -- to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; to give our people the government they deserve. (Applause.)

That's what I came to Washington to do. That's why -- for the first time in history -- my administration posts on our White House visitors online. That's why we've excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs, or seats on federal boards and commissions.

But we can't stop there. It's time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or with Congress. It's time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office.

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

I'm also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform. Applause.) Democrats and Republicans. (Applause.) Democrats and Republicans. You've trimmed some of this spending, you've embraced some meaningful change. But restoring the public trust demands more. For example, some members of Congress post some earmark requests online. (Applause.) Tonight, I'm calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single Web site before there's a vote, so that the American people can see how their money is being spent. (Applause.)

Of course, none of these reforms will even happen if we don't also reform how we work with one another. Now, I'm not naïve. I never thought that the mere fact of my election would usher in peace and harmony -- (laughter) -- and some post-partisan era. I knew that both parties have fed divisions that are deeply entrenched. And on some issues, there are simply philosophical differences that will always cause us to part ways. These disagreements, about the role of government in our lives, about our national priorities and our national security, they've been taking place for over 200 years. They're the very essence of our democracy.

But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day. We can't wage a perpetual campaign where the only goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about the other side -- a belief that if you lose, I win. Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can. The confirmation of -- (applause) -- I'm speaking to both parties now. The confirmation of well-qualified public servants shouldn't be held hostage to the pet projects or grudges of a few individual senators. (Applause.)

Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, no matter how malicious, is just part of the game. But it's precisely such politics that has stopped either party from helping the American people. Worse yet, it's sowing further division among our citizens, further distrust in our government.

So, no, I will not give up on trying to change the tone of our politics. I know it's an election year. And after last week, it's clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to govern.

To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills. (Applause.) And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town -- a supermajority -- then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. (Applause.) Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it's not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. (Applause.) So let's show the American people that we can do it together. (Applause.)

This week, I'll be addressing a meeting of the House Republicans. I'd like to begin monthly meetings with both Democratic and Republican leadership. I know you can't wait. (Laughter.)

Throughout our history, no issue has united this country more than our security. Sadly, some of the unity we felt after 9/11 has dissipated. We can argue all we want about who's to blame for this, but I'm not interested in re-litigating the past. I know that all of us love this country. All of us are committed to its defense. So let's put aside the schoolyard taunts about who's tough. Let's reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let's leave behind the fear and division, and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future -- for America and for the world. (Applause.)

That's the work we began last year. Since the day I took office, we've renewed our focus on the terrorists who threaten our nation. We've made substantial investments in our homeland security and disrupted plots that threatened to take American lives. We are filling unacceptable gaps revealed by the failed Christmas attack, with better airline security and swifter action on our intelligence. We've prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships from the Pacific to South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula. And in the last year, hundreds of al Qaeda's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed -- far more than in 2008.

And in Afghanistan, we're increasing our troops and training Afghan security forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011, and our troops can begin to come home. (Applause.) We will reward good governance, work to reduce corruption, and support the rights of all Afghans -- men and women alike. (Applause.) We're joined by allies and partners who have increased their own commitments, and who will come together tomorrow in London to reaffirm our common purpose. There will be difficult days ahead. But I am absolutely confident we will succeed.

As we take the fight to al Qaeda, we are responsibly leaving Iraq to its people. As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as President. We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August. (Applause.) We will support the Iraqi government -- we will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and we will continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no mistake: This war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home. (Applause.)

Tonight, all of our men and women in uniform -- in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and around the world -- they have to know that we -- that they have our respect, our gratitude, our full support. And just as they must have the resources they need in war, we all have a responsibility to support them when they come home. (Applause.) That's why we made the largest increase in investments for veterans in decades -- last year. (Applause.) That's why we're building a 21st century VA. And that's why Michelle has joined with Jill Biden to forge a national commitment to support military families. (Applause.)

Now, even as we prosecute two wars, we're also confronting perhaps the greatest danger to the American people -- the threat of nuclear weapons. I've embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan through a strategy that reverses the spread of these weapons and seeks a world without them. To reduce our stockpiles and launchers, while ensuring our deterrent, the United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades. (Applause.) And at April's Nuclear Security Summit, we will bring 44 nations together here in Washington, D.C. behind a clear goal: securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years, so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists. (Applause.)

Now, these diplomatic efforts have also strengthened our hand in dealing with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of nuclear weapons. That's why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions -- sanctions that are being vigorously enforced. That's why the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated. And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise. (Applause.)

That's the leadership that we are providing -- engagement that advances the common security and prosperity of all people. We're working through the G20 to sustain a lasting global recovery. We're working with Muslim communities around the world to promote science and education and innovation. We have gone from a bystander to a leader in the fight against climate change. We're helping developing countries to feed themselves, and continuing the fight against HIV/AIDS. And we are launching a new initiative that will give us the capacity to respond faster and more effectively to bioterrorism or an infectious disease -- a plan that will counter threats at home and strengthen public health abroad.

As we have for over 60 years, America takes these actions because our destiny is connected to those beyond our shores. But we also do it because it is right. That's why, as we meet here tonight, over 10,000 Americans are working with many nations to help the people of Haiti recover and rebuild. (Applause.) That's why we stand with the girl who yearns to go to school in Afghanistan; why we support the human rights of the women marching through the streets of Iran; why we advocate for the young man denied a job by corruption in Guinea. For America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity. (Applause.) Always. (Applause.)

Abroad, America's greatest source of strength has always been our ideals. The same is true at home. We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we're all created equal; that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.

We must continually renew this promise. My administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. (Applause.) We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate. (Applause.) This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. (Applause.) It's the right thing to do. (Applause.)

We're going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws -- so that women get equal pay for an equal day's work. (Applause.) And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system -- to secure our borders and enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation. (Applause.)

In the end, it's our ideals, our values that built America -- values that allowed us to forge a nation made up of immigrants from every corner of the globe; values that drive our citizens still. Every day, Americans meet their responsibilities to their families and their employers. Time and again, they lend a hand to their neighbors and give back to their country. They take pride in their labor, and are generous in spirit. These aren't Republican values or Democratic values that they're living by; business values or labor values. They're American values.

Unfortunately, too many of our citizens have lost faith that our biggest institutions -- our corporations, our media, and, yes, our government -- still reflect these same values. Each of these institutions are full of honorable men and women doing important work that helps our country prosper. But each time a CEO rewards himself for failure, or a banker puts the rest of us at risk for his own selfish gain, people's doubts grow. Each time lobbyists game the system or politicians tear each other down instead of lifting this country up, we lose faith. The more that TV pundits reduce serious debates to silly arguments, big issues into sound bites, our citizens turn away.

No wonder there's so much cynicism out there. No wonder there's so much disappointment.

I campaigned on the promise of change -- change we can believe in, the slogan went. And right now, I know there are many Americans who aren't sure if they still believe we can change -- or that I can deliver it.

But remember this -- I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I could do it alone. Democracy in a nation of 300 million people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy. That's just how it is.

Those of us in public office can respond to this reality by playing it safe and avoid telling hard truths and pointing fingers. We can do what's necessary to keep our poll numbers high, and get through the next election instead of doing what's best for the next generation.

But I also know this: If people had made that decision 50 years ago, or 100 years ago, or 200 years ago, we wouldn't be here tonight. The only reason we are here is because generations of Americans were unafraid to do what was hard; to do what was needed even when success was uncertain; to do what it took to keep the dream of this nation alive for their children and their grandchildren.

Our administration has had some political setbacks this year, and some of them were deserved. But I wake up every day knowing that they are nothing compared to the setbacks that families all across this country have faced this year. And what keeps me going -- what keeps me fighting -- is that despite all these setbacks, that spirit of determination and optimism, that fundamental decency that has always been at the core of the American people, that lives on.

It lives on in the struggling small business owner who wrote to me of his company, "None of us," he said, ".are willing to consider, even slightly, that we might fail."

It lives on in the woman who said that even though she and her neighbors have felt the pain of recession, "We are strong. We are resilient. We are American."

It lives on in the 8-year-old boy in Louisiana, who just sent me his allowance and asked if I would give it to the people of Haiti.

And it lives on in all the Americans who've dropped everything to go someplace they've never been and pull people they've never known from the rubble, prompting chants of "U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A!" when another life was saved.

The spirit that has sustained this nation for more than two centuries lives on in you, its people. We have finished a difficult year. We have come through a difficult decade. But a new year has come. A new decade stretches before us. We don't quit. I don't quit. (Applause.) Let's seize this moment -- to start anew, to carry the dream forward, and to strengthen our union once more. (Applause.)

Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

1) He trotted out the usual straw men: "I was told by some," "Washington has been telling us," etc. And once these awful straw men are set up, our hero Obama answers defiantly, "I don't settle for second place!" The straw-man ploy is now stale.

2) The "I didn't ask for" trope: Obama acts as if he bravely endures persecution on our behalf, rejects the easy path, and presses ahead on the difficult path.

3) The "they did it" trope: So when Obama talks of "lobbying" and "horse trading" on health care, apparently some right-wing nut in the Senate started buying votes at $300 million a clip? The Washington insider who has the White House and Congress blames . . . Washington!

4) The "Bush did it" trope: So Obama's deficits are the result of Bush's spending and weak economy - but is a relatively quiet Iraq due to Bush's successful surge? No. Obama himself will bring the war in Iraq to a close. He did not offer one word of praise for Bush in a speech calling for unity.

5) The meaningless token: So after piling up the two largest budget deficits in U.S. history, Obama promises fiscal sobriety and spending freezes - but only in 2011, after we pile up yet another year of trillion-dollar-plus red ink.

6) The above-it-all lecturing: After blaming Bush for 30 minutes and castigating the Republicans for "just saying no to everything," Obama lectures on Washington's partisan bickering. And after a year of hardball Chicago politicking, a politically weakened Obama calls for bipartisanship and a new tone. That will go over really well.

7) The meaningless deadlines and promises: No speechwriter should invoke Iran and a deadline to comply on nonproliferation; no one believes Obama after the past four failed deadlines, and he should give it all a break.

8) The final hope-and-change flourishes: The emotional end of the speech, which used to set crowds afire in 2008, seemed more rote.

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama told Americans the bipartisan deficit commission he will appoint won't just be "one of those Washington gimmicks." Left unspoken in that assurance was the fact that the commission won't have any teeth.

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.

Yet some of his ideas for moving ahead skirted the complex political circumstances standing in his way.

OBAMA: "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't."

THE FACTS: The anticipated savings from this proposal would amount to less than 1 percent of the deficit - and that's if the president can persuade Congress to go along.

Obama is a convert to the cause of broad spending freezes. In the presidential campaign, he criticized Republican opponent John McCain for suggesting one. "The problem with a spending freeze is you're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel," 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's.

OBAMA: "I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can'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."

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.

OBAMA: Discussing his health care initiative, he said, "Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan."

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't guarantee people won'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.

OBAMA: The president issued a populist broadside against lobbyists, saying they have "outsized influence" over the government. He said his administration has "excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs." He also said it's time to "require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or Congress" and "to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office."

THE FACTS: Obama has limited the hiring of lobbyists for administration jobs, but the ban isn'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's unlikely to happen. And lobbyists already are subject to strict limits on political giving. Just like every other American, they're limited to giving $2,400 per election to federal candidates, with an overall ceiling of $115,500 every two years.

OBAMA: "Because of the steps we took, there are about 2 million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. ... And we are on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year."

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.

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 "compared with what those values would have been otherwise." It said the ranges "reflect the uncertainty of such estimates." And it added, "It is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package."

OBAMA: He called for action by the White House and Congress "to do our work openly, and to give our people the government they deserve."

THE FACTS: Obama skipped past a broken promise from his campaign - to have the negotiations for health care legislation broadcast on C-SPAN "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." 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's acted upon.

OBAMA: "The United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades."

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.

OBAMA: Drawing on classified information, he claimed more success than his predecessor at killing terrorists: "And in the last year, hundreds of al-Qaida's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed - far more than in 2008."

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.

Of all of the President's rhetoric lately (and there has been a lot), nothing is more bothersome to me than the repeated calls for `creating jobs'.

`Creating jobs' is not the same thing as creating prosperity and economic health. In fact, the result of the way that the President sees it and would like to implement it is that the two are inversely correlated.

If I take out an advance on my credit card and hire a carpenter to build me a deck, I have created a job. When he is done after two weeks, he is out of work again and I am now $5,000 in debt and therefore will have to cut back on my consumption going forward to pay off my debt. This is no different than a stimulus bill.

When you inject political motivations such as creating `green jobs', you are, by definition, diverting capital (through the public sector, away from the private sector) to resources that otherwise would not attract private capital because they do not offer the same return on investment. Therefore, when the government infusion of funds dries up, so do the jobs. Only thing left is the debt and less consumption going forward in order to pay off the debt.

If I am incentivized to borrow money and start a company because there is a business-friendly environment (low taxes, minimal government mingling and regulation), I might find a use for my god-given talents that serves fellow citizens and I may have to hire people in order to help me. If we succeed, I have created a job in the short-term and economic health in the long term which results in prosperity opportunity for everybody.

The only way to create jobs for the long run is to create economic health. The only way to do that is to incentivize individuals in the free market to risk their own capital or borrowed capital try to make a profit.

The idea that the President (and Dems) can create jobs works beautifully in their favor per their view of the world. It puts them in control to pull the strings on voter's livelihoods and keeps them dependent upon politician's whims.

The more things change, the more things stay the same. A little over a year ago, President Barack Obama came to office expecting to pass a "big bang" of policy changes all in the first year: health care, cap-and-trade, and banking regulation. With the big-bang strategy officially a failure, President Obama's State of the Union address last night desperately tried to keep all of these legislative efforts alive while also acknowledging that the country has firmly rejected his policy agenda.

The result was an incoherent mess of promised tax cuts for small businesses coupled with the threat of tax hikes from his health care and energy proposals; more federal money to encourage banks to lend to businesses, coupled with new taxes on banks and individuals; the continued waste of his $862 billion stimulus plan and $2 trillion in new health care spending, coupled with a delayed and temporary spending freeze. As one of the longest State of the Unions in the past 45 years, we cannot cover everything here. But our crack team of Heritage experts did hit almost every issue last night, and you can read their full reactions here. Highlights include:

The tax credit for new hires is another recycled idea from Washington. Last tried in the 1970s, the tax credit proved to be a windfall for big businesses that were planning to hire anyway. Small businesses, the engine of job growth, did not use the tax credit largely because they were unaware of it and did not understand how to take advantage of the credit. The jobs tax credit proposal will likely also delay hiring since businesses that understand the tax credit now face an incentive to postpone hiring decisions to take advantage of the tax credit. Extending the Bush tax cuts and undoing the heavy taxes in the health care legislation is a better step to job creation than this tax credit.

President Obama tonight called for a new tax on banks and other large financial institutions, "a modest fee," he said, "to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need." That sounds great, but in truth, the new tax would do nothing of the kind. Mr. Obama knows that almost every major bank has paid-back their bailout funds, with interest. Taxpayers made substantial profits on those repayments. On the other hand, most of the companies that still owe billions to taxpayers, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and auto firms GM and Chrysler, would not be subject to the tax. In short, Mr. Obama would tax those that have paid back taxpayers and exempt those who have not.

Obama's spending freeze would apply to a narrow sliver of spending (somewhere around 1/8th of total spending) and at best, savings would be less than one percent of the total budget. Moreover, it explicitly exempts the very entitlement programs driving future deficits. At a time when the deficit is $1.4 trillion and we face a sea of even worse red ink as far as the eye can see, such a freeze is tantamount to bailing out - forgive the double entendre - the Titanic with a dixiecup. And it would start next year, conveniently after the elections. Freezing spending is the right idea, but this freeze falls short of real action.

His calls for new nuclear power, offshore oil and gas exploration, and other new energy technologies are certainly welcome. The problem is that his program of subsidies, special tax treatment, and government support will not work. While government programs can create jobs in specific sectors, the President ignores the evidence that these programs end up killing more jobs than they create. Spain has already gone down this road, and its experience should give the President caution. Between 2000 and 2008, the Spanish government spent $36 billion in taxpayers' money on wind, solar and mini-hydro development. Each green job created cost on average $758,471.

Many around the world have expressed concern that a U.S. administration so focused on domestic priorities and troubles as the current one will be too inward-looking to be deeply engaged in the world. Judging by its placement in his list of priorities, foreign affairs did seem like an afterthought, briefly addressed. In Afghanistan, allied nations are hardly coming together to support the President's surge - indeed French President Nicolas Sarkozy very publicly stated this week that he would not be contributing any more troops to the endeavor, this on the eve of the Afghanistan conference in London.

And the fight on terrorism has not, as stated, been advanced by the Obama administration - quite the reverse as the nation has become more vulnerable. Nor has the administration distinguished itself by its support for human rights in Iran - in fact it missed a critical moment to get involved during last summer's uprisings against the Iranian regime. As for the President's aspiration to control nuclear materials around the world, a goal to be reached through an international conference - that horse left the barn a long time ago.

In "Government's End," Jonathan Rauch writes: "Economic thinkers have recognized for generations that every person has two ways to become wealthier. One is to produce more, the other is to capture more of what others produce. . Washington looks increasingly like a public-works jobs program for lawyers and lobbyists, a profit center for professionals who are in business for themselves." From complicated new tax credits that small business owners don't have the time or expertise to take advantage of, to new energy, financial and trade regulations that only large corporations have the lawyers and lobbyists to take advantage of, every policy proposal in Obama's speech last night is a boon for the lawyer/lobbyist economy in Washington and a hindrance to wealth-creating Americans everywhere. This was a speech only the entrenched interests in Washington could love.

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell's Republican Address to the Nation Following Obama's State of the Union Address

(CBS) Immediately following President Obama's State of the Union address, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell will deliver the Republican response. McDonnell will speak from the floor of the House of Delegates at the Virginia State Capitol tonight. Below is the full text of McDonnell's prepared remarks:

Good evening. I'm Bob McDonnell. Eleven days ago I was honored to be sworn in as the 71st governor of Virginia.

I'm standing in the historic House Chamber of Virginia's Capitol, a building designed by Virginia's second governor, Thomas Jefferson.

It's not easy to follow the President of the United States. And my twin 18-year old boys have added to the pressure, by giving me exactly ten minutes to finish before they leave to go watch SportsCenter.

I'm joined by fellow Virginians to share a Republican perspective on how to best address the challenges facing our nation today.

We were encouraged to hear President Obama speak this evening about the need to create jobs.

All Americans should have the opportunity to find and keep meaningful work, and the dignity that comes with it.

Many of us here, and many of you watching, have family or friends who have lost their jobs.

Here in Virginia we have faced our highest unemployment rate in more than 25 years, and bringing new jobs and more opportunities to our citizens is the top priority of my administration.

Good government policy should spur economic growth, and strengthen the private sector's ability to create new jobs.

We must enact policies that promote entrepreneurship and innovation, so America can better compete with the world.

What government should not do is pile on more taxation, regulation, and litigation that kill jobs and hurt the middle class.

It was Thomas Jefferson who called for "A wise and frugal Government which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry ..and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." He was right.

Last year, we were told that massive new federal spending would create more jobs 'immediately' and hold unemployment below 8%.

In the past year, over three million Americans have lost their jobs, yet the Democratic Congress continues deficit spending, adding to the bureaucracy, and increasing the national debt on our children and grandchildren.

The amount of this debt is on pace to double in five years, and triple in ten. The federal debt is already over $100,000 per household.

This is simply unsustainable. The President's partial freeze on discretionary spending is a laudable step, but a small one.

The circumstances of our time demand that we reconsider and restore the proper, limited role of government at every level.

Without reform, the excessive growth of government threatens our very liberty and prosperity.

In recent months, the American people have made clear that they want government leaders to listen and act on the issues most important to them.

All Americans agree, we need a health care system that is affordable, accessible, and high quality.

But most Americans do not want to turn over the best medical care system in the world to the federal government.

Republicans in Congress have offered legislation to reform healthcare, without shifting Medicaid costs to the states, without cutting Medicare, and without raising your taxes.

We will do that by implementing common sense reforms, like letting families and businesses buy health insurance policies across state lines, and ending frivolous lawsuits against doctors and hospitals that drive up the cost of your healthcare.

And our solutions aren't thousand-page bills that no one has fully read, after being crafted behind closed doors with special interests.

In fact, many of our proposals are available online at solutions.gop.gov, and we welcome your ideas on Facebook and Twitter.

All Americans agree, this nation must become more energy independent and secure.

We are blessed here in America with vast natural resources, and we must use them all.

Advances in technology can unleash more natural gas, nuclear, wind, coal, and alternative energy to lower your utility bills.

Here in Virginia, we have the opportunity to be the first state on the East Coast to explore for and produce oil and natural gas offshore.

But this Administration's policies are delaying offshore production, hindering nuclear energy expansion, and seeking to impose job-killing cap and trade energy taxes.

Now is the time to adopt innovative energy policies that create jobs and lower energy prices.

All Americans agree, that a young person needs a world-class education to compete in the global economy. As a kid my dad told me, "Son, to get a good job, you need a good education." That's even more true today.

The President and I agree on expanding the number of high-quality charter schools, and rewarding teachers for excellent performance. More school choices for parents and students mean more accountability and greater achievement.

A child's educational opportunity should be determined by her intellect and work ethic, not by her zip code.

All Americans agree, we must maintain a strong national defense. The courage and success of our Armed Forces is allowing us to draw down troop levels in Iraq as that government is increasingly able to step up. My oldest daughter, Jeanine, was an Army platoon leader in Iraq, so I'm personally grateful for the service and the sacrifice of all of our men and women in uniform, and a grateful nation thanks them.

We applaud President Obama's decision to deploy 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. We agree that victory there is a national security imperative. But we have serious concerns over recent steps the Administration has taken regarding suspected terrorists.

Americans were shocked on Christmas Day to learn of the attempted bombing of a flight to Detroit. This foreign terror suspect was given the same legal rights as a U.S. citizen, and immediately stopped providing critical intelligence.

As Senator-elect Scott Brown says, we should be spending taxpayer dollars to defeat terrorists, not to protect them.

Here at home government must help foster a society in which all our people can use their God-given talents in liberty to pursue the American Dream. Republicans know that government cannot guarantee individual outcomes, but we strongly believe that it must guarantee equality of opportunity for all.

That opportunity exists best in a democracy which promotes free enterprise, economic growth, strong families, and individual achievement.

Many Americans are concerned about this Administration's efforts to exert greater control over car companies, banks, energy and health care.

Over-regulating employers won't create more employment; overtaxing investors won't foster more investment.

Top-down one-size fits all decision making should not replace the personal choices of free people in a free market, nor undermine the proper role of state and local governments in our system of federalism. As our Founders clearly stated, and we Governors understand, government closest to the people governs best.

And no government program can replace the actions of caring Americans freely choosing to help one another. The Scriptures say "To whom much is given, much will be required." As the most generous and prosperous nation on Earth, it is heartwarming to see Americans giving much time and money to the people of Haiti. Thank you for your ongoing compassion.

Some people are afraid that America is no longer the great land of promise that she has always been. They should not be.

America must always be a land where liberty and property are valued and respected, and innocent human life is protected.

Government should have this clear goal: Where opportunity is absent, we must create it. Where opportunity is limited, we must expand it. Where opportunity is unequal, we must make it open to everyone.

Our Founders pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to create this nation.

Now, we should pledge as Democrats, Republicans and Independents--Americans all---to work together to leave this nation a better place than we found it.

I want to also acknowledge Mark Strand, the president of the Congressional Institute.

To all the family members who are here and who have to put up with us who are in elective office each and every day, thank you, because I know that's tough.

I very much am appreciative of not only the tone of your introduction, John, but also the invitation that you extended to me. You know what they say, "Keep your friends close, but visit the Republican Caucus every few months."

Now, part of the reason I accepted your invitation to come here was because I wanted to speak with all of you, and not just to all of you. So I'm looking forward to taking your questions and having a real conversation in a few moments.

And I hope that the conversation we begin here doesn't end here, that we can continue our dialogue in the days ahead.

It's important to me that we do so; it's important to you, I think, that we do so. But, most importantly, it's important to the American people that we do so.

I've said this before, but I'm a big believer not just in the value of a loyal opposition, but in its necessity. Having differences of opinion, having a real debate about matters of domestic policy and national security; that's not something that's only good for our country, it's absolutely essential.

It's only through the process of disagreement and debate that bad ideas get tossed out and good ideas get refined and made better. And that kind of vigorous back-and-forth, that imperfect, but well-founded process, messy as it often is, is at the heart of our democracy. It's what makes us the greatest nation in the world.

So, yes, I want you to challenge my ideas. And I guarantee you that, after reading this, I may challenge a few of yours.

I want you to stand up for your beliefs. And knowing this caucus, I have no doubt that you will. I want us to have a constructive debate.

The only thing I don't want - and here I am listening to the American people, and I think they don't want either - is for Washington to continue being so Washington-like. I know folks when we're in - in town there, spend a lot of time reading the polls and looking at focus groups and interpreting which party has the upper hand in November and in 2012 and so on and so on and so on. That's their obsession.

But I don't believe that the American people want us to focus on our job security. They want us to focus on their job security.

OBAMA: I don't think they want more gridlock. I don't think they want more partisanship. I don't think they want more obstruction. They didn't send us to Washington to fight each other in some sort of political steel cage match to see who comes out alive. That's not what they want.

They sent us to Washington to work together, to get things done, and to solve the problems that they're grappling with every single day.

And I think your constituents would want to know that, despite the fact it doesn't get a lot of attention, you and I have actually worked together on a number of occasions.

There have been times where we've acted in a bipartisan fashion, and I want to thank you and your Democratic colleagues for reaching across the aisle.

There has been, for example, broad support for putting in the troops necessary in Afghanistan to deny Al Qaida safe haven, to break the Taliban's momentum and to train Afghan security forces. There's been broad support for disrupting, dismantling and defeating Al Qaida.

So it may be useful for the international audience right now to understand, and certainly for our enemies to have no doubt, whatever divisions and differences may exist in Washington, the United States of America stands as one to defend our country.

It's that same spirit of bipartisanship that made it possible for me to sign a defense contracting reform bill that was co-sponsored by Senator McCain and members of Congress here today.

We've stood together on behalf of our nation's veterans. Together we passed the largest increase in the V.A.'s budget in more than 30 years and supported essential veterans health care reforms to provide better access and medical care for those who serve in uniform.

Some of you also joined Democrats in supporting a credit card bill of rights and in extending unemployment compensation to Americans who were out of work.

Some of you joined us in stopping tobacco companies from targeting kids, expanding opportunities for young people to serve our country, and helping responsible homeowners stay in their homes.

So we have a track record of working together. It is possible. But, as John, you mentioned, on some very big things we've seen party- line votes that - I'm just going to be honest - were disappointing.

OBAMA: Let's start with our efforts to jump-start the economy last winter when we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. Our financial system teetered on the brink of collapse and the threat of a second Great Depression loomed large.

I didn't understand then, and I still don't understand, why we got opposition in this caucus for almost $300 billion in badly needed tax cuts for the American people or COBRA coverage to help Americans who'd lost jobs in this recession to keep the health insurance that they desperately needed, or opposition to putting Americans to work laying broadband and rebuilding roads and bridges and breaking ground on new construction projects.

There was an interesting headline in - in CNN today: Americans disapprove of stimulus, but like every policy in it. And there was a poll that showed that if you broke it down into its component parts, 80 percent approved of the tax cuts, 80 percent approved of the infrastructure, 80 percent approved of the assistance to the unemployed.

Well, that's what the Recovery Act was, and I - you know, let's face it, some of you have been at the ribbon cuttings for some of these important projects in your communities.

Now, I understand some of you had some philosophical differences, perhaps, on just the concept of government spending, but as I recall, opposition was declared before we had a chance to actually meet and exchange ideas. And I saw that as a missed opportunity.

Now, I am happy to report this morning that we saw another sign that our economy is moving in the right direction. The latest GDP numbers show that our economy is growing by almost 6 percent. That's the most since 2003.

To put that in perspective, this time last year we weren't seeing positive job. We were seeing the economy shrink by about 6 percent. So we've seen a 12 percent reversal during the course of this year.

This turnaround is the biggest in nearly three decades, and it didn't happen by accident. It happened, as economists, conservative and liberal, will attest, because of some of the steps that we took.

OBAMA: And, by the way, you know, you mentioned the Web site out here, John. If you want to look at what's going on in the Recovery Act, you can look on recovery.gov., a Web site, by the way, that was Eric Cantor's idea.

Now, here's the point: These are serious times. And what's required by all of us, Democrats and Republicans, is to do what's right for our country, even if it's not always what's best for our politics.

I know it may be heresy to say this, but there are things more important than good poll numbers. And on this, no one can accuse me of not living by my principles.

A middle class that's back on its feet, an economy that lifts everybody up, an America that's ascendant in the world: That's more important than winning an election.

Our future shouldn't be shaped by what's best for our politics. Our politics should be shaped by what's best for our future.

But, no matter what's happened in the past, the important thing for all of us is to move forward together.

We have some issues right in front of us on which I believe we should agree because, as successful as we've been in spurring new economic growth, everybody understands that job growth has been lagging.

Some of that's predictable. Every economist will say jobs are a lagging indicator. But that's no consolation for the folks who are out there suffering right now.

And since 7 million Americans have lost their jobs in this recession, we've got to do everything we can to accelerate.

So, today, in line with what I stated in the State of the Union, I've proposed a new jobs tax credit for small business. And here's how it would work.

Employers would get a tax credit of up to $5,000 for every employee they add in 2010.

They'd get a tax break for increases in wages as well. So if you raise wages for employees making under $100,000, we'd refund part of your payroll tax for every dollar you increase those wages faster than inflation.

It's a simple concept. It's easy to understand. It would cut taxes for more than 1 million small businesses.

I want to eliminate the capital gains tax for small business investment and take some of the bailout money the Wall Street banks have returned and used it to help community banks start lending to small businesses again.

I am confident that we can do this together for the American people. And there's nothing in that proposal that runs contrary to the ideological predispositions of this caucus. The question is, what's going to keep us from getting this done.

OBAMA: I've proposed a modest fee on the nation's largest banks and financial institutions to fully recover the taxpayers' money that they provided to the financial sector when it was teetering on the brink of collapse. And it's designed to discourage them from taking reckless risks in the future.

If you listen to the American people, John, they'll tell you they want their money back. Let's do this together, Republicans and Democrats.

I've proposed that we close tax loopholes that reward companies for shipping American jobs overseas, and instead give companies greater incentive to create jobs right here at home - right here at home. Surely that's something that we can do together, Republicans and Democrats.

We know that we've got a major fiscal challenge in reining in deficits that have been growing for a decade and threaten our future. That's why I've proposed a three-year freeze in discretionary spending, other than what we need for national security. That's something we should do together. That's consistent with a lot of the talk, both in Democratic caucuses and Republican caucuses. We can't blink when it's time to actually do the job.

At this point, we know that the budget surpluses of the '90s occurred in part because of the pay-as-you-go law, which said that, well, you should pay as you go and live within our means, just like families do every day. Twenty-four of voted for that, and I appreciate it, and were able to pass it in the Senate yesterday.

But the idea of a bipartisan fiscal commission to confront the deficits in the long term died in the Senate the other day, so I'm going to establish such a commission by executive order.

And I hope that you participate fully and genuinely in that effort. Because if we're going to actually deal with our deficit and debt, everybody here knows that we're going to have to do it together, Republican and Democrat.

No single party is going to make the tough choices involved on its own. It's going to require all of us doing what's right for the American people.

And as I said in the State of the Union speech, there's not just a deficit of dollars in Washington, there's a deficit of trust. So I hope you'll support my proposal to make all congressional earmarks public before they come to a vote. And let's require lobbyists who exercise such influence to publicly disclose all their contacts on behalf of their clients, whether they are contacts with my administration or contacts with Congress.

OBAMA: Let's do the people's business in the bright light of day, together, Republicans and Democrats.

I know how bitter and contentious the issue of health insurance reform has become, and I will eagerly look at the ideas and better solutions on the health care front.

If anyone here truly believes our health insurance system is working well for people, I respect your right to say so, but I just don't agree and neither would millions of Americans with preexisting conditions who can't get coverage today, or find out that they lose their insurance just as they're getting seriously ill. That's exactly when you need insurance, and for too many people, they're not getting it. I don't think a system is working when small businesses are gouged, and 15,000 Americans are losing coverage every single day, when premiums have doubled and out-of-pocket costs have exploded and they're poised to do so again.

I mean, to be fair, the status quo is working for the insurance industry, but it's not working for the American people. It's not working for our federal budget.

It needs to change. This is a big problem and all of us are called on to solve it.

And that's why from the start I sought out and supported ideas from the Republicans. I even talked about an issue that has been a holy grail for a lot of you, which was tort reform, and said that I'd be willing to work together as part of a comprehensive package to deal with it. I just didn't get a lot of nibbles.

Creating a high-risk pool for uninsured folks with preexisting conditions; that wasn't my idea, it was Senator McCain's. And I supported it and it got incorporated into our approach.

Allowing insurance companies to sell coverage across state lines to add choice and competition and bring down costs for businesses and consumers - that's an idea that some of you, I suspect, included in this better solutions. That's an idea that was incorporated into our package. I support it, provided that we do it hand-in-hand with broader reforms that protect benefits and protect patients and protect the American people.

A number of you have suggested creating pools where self-employed and small businesses could buy insurance. That was a good idea. I embraced it. Some of you supported efforts to provide insurance to children and let kids remain covered on their parents' insurance until they are 25 or 26. I supported that. That's part of our package.

I supported a number of other ideas from incentivizing wellness to creating an affordable catastrophic insurance option for young people that came from Republicans like Mike Enzi and Olympia Snowe in the Senate, and I'm sure from some of you as well.

OBAMA: So when you say I ought to be willing to accept Republican ideas on health care, let's be clear: I have. Bipartisanship, not for its own sake, but to solve problems, that's what our constituents, the American people, need from us right now.

All of us, then, have a choice to make. We have to choose whether we're going to be politicians first or partners for progress, whether we're going to put success at the polls ahead of the lasting success we can achieve together for America.

Let me close by saying this: I was not elected by Democrats or Republicans, but by the American people. That's especially true because the fastest-growing group of Americans are independents. That should tell us both something.

I'm ready and eager to work with anyone who is willing to proceed in the spirit of goodwill. But understand, if we can't break free from partisan gridlock, if we can't move past the politics of no, if resistance supplants constructive debate, I still have to meet my responsibilities as president. I've got to act for the greater good, because that, too, is a commitment that I have made. And that, too, is what the American people sent me to Washington to do.

So I am optimistic. I know many of you individually. And the irony, I think, of our political climate right now is that, compared to other countries, the differences between the two major parties on most issues is not as big as it's represented. But we've gotten caught up in the political game in a way that's just not healthy. It's dividing our country in ways that are preventing us from meeting the challenges of the 21st century.

I'm hopeful that the conversation we have today can help reverse that. So thank you very much.

PENCE: The president has agreed to take questions, and members will be encouraged to raise your hand while you remain in your seat.

The chair will take the prerogative to make a brief remark and pose the first question.

PENCE: We are pleased to have you return (inaudible) a year ago. House Republicans said then we would make you two promises. Number one, that most people in this room and their families would pray for you and your beautiful family just about every day for the four years. I want to assure you we're keeping that promise.

PENCE: Number two, (inaudible) to you, Mr. President, was that door (ph) was always open. And we hope that by evidence of our invitation to you that we can demonstrate that (inaudible).

Mr. President, (inaudible) us in this conference yesterday, on the way into Baltimore, stopped by the Salvation Army homeless facility here in Baltimore yesterday.

PENCE: I met a little boy, an African-American boy, in the 8th grade, named David Carter Jr.

When he heard that I would be seeing you today, his eyes lit up like I haven't seen. And I told him if he wrote you a letter, I'd give it to you. And I have.

But I had a conversation with little David Jr. and David Sr. And their families are struggling in this economy. His dad said words to me, Mr. President, that I'll never forget. About my age, and he said - he said, "Congressman, it's not like it was when we were coming up." He said, "There's just no jobs."

Now, last year, about the time you met with us, unemployment was 7.5 percent in this country. Your administration and your party in Congress told us that we'd have to borrow more than $700 billion to pay for a so-called stimulus bill that was a piecemeal list of projects and boutique tax cuts, all of which we were told had to be passed or unemployment would go to 8 percent, as your administration said.

Well, unemployment is 10 percent now, as you well know, Mr. President. Here in Baltimore, it's considerably higher.

Now, Republicans offered a stimulus bill at the same time. It cost half as much as the Democratic proposal in Congress. And using your economic analyst models, it would have created twice the jobs at half the cost. It essentially was across-the-board tax relief, Mr. President.

Now, we know you've come to Baltimore today and you've - you've raised this - a tax credit which was last promoted by President Jimmy Carter.

But the first question I would pose to you, very respectfully, Mr. President, is would you be willing to consider embracing, in the name of little David Carter Jr. and his dad, in the name of every struggling family in this country, the kind of across-the-board tax relief that Republicans have advocated, that President Kennedy advocated, that President Reagan advocated, and that has always been the means of stimulating broad-based economic growth?

(LAUGHTER) First of all, let me - let me say I already promised that I'll be writing back to that young man and his family.

You're absolutely right than when I was sworn in, the hope was that unemployment would remain around 8 - or in the 8 percent range. That was just based on the estimates made by both conservative and liberal economists because at that point not all the data had trickled in.

We had lost 650,000 jobs in December. I'm assuming you're not faulting my policies for that. We had lost, it turns out, 700,000 jobs in January, the month I was sworn in. I'm assuming it wasn't my administration policies that accounted for that. We lost another 650,000 jobs the subsequent month, before any of my policies had gone in to effect. So I'm assuming that wasn't as a consequence of our policies. That doesn't reflect the failure of the Recovery Act.

The point being that what ended up happening was that the job losses from this recession proved to be much more severe in the first quarter of last year going into the second quarter of last year than anybody anticipated.

So, I mean, I think we - we can score political points on the basis of the fact that we underestimated how severe the job losses were going to be, but those job losses took place before any stimulus, whether it was the ones that you guys have proposed or the ones that we proposed, could have ever taken to effect.

Now, that's just the fact, Mike, and I don't think anybody would dispute that. I - you could not find an economist who would dispute that.

Now, at the same time, as I mentioned, most economists, Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative, would say that had it not been for the stimulus package that we passed, things would be much worse.

Now, they didn't fill a 7 million hole in the unemployment - in the number of people who were unemployed. They probably account for about 2 million, which means we still have 5 million folks in there that we've still got to deal with. That's a lot of people.

The package that we put together at the beginning of the year, the truth is should have reflected, and I believe reflected what most of you would say are common-sense things. This notion that this was a radical package is just not true. A third of them were tax cuts. And they weren't - when you say they were boutique tax cuts, Mike, 95 percent of working Americans got tax cuts. Small businesses got tax cuts. Large businesses got help in terms of their depreciation schedules.

A third of it was stabilizing state budgets. There is not a single person in here who, had it not been for what was in the stimulus package, wouldn't be going home to more teachers laid off, more firefighters laid off, more cops laid off.

A big chunk of it was unemployment insurance and COBRA, just making sure that people had some floor beneath them - and, by the way, making sure that there was enough money in their pockets that businesses had some customers.

You take those two things out, that accounts for the majority of the stimulus package. Are there people in this room who would think that was a bad idea?

A portion of it was dealing with the AMT - right? - the alternative minimum tax. Not a proposal of mine. That's not a consequence of my policies that we have a tax system where we keep on putting off a potential tax hike that is embedded in the budget that we have to fix each year. That cost about $70 billion.

And then the last portion of it was infrastructure, which, as I said, a lot of you have gone to appear at ribbon cuttings for the same projects that you voted against.

Now, I say all this not to relitigate the past, but it's simply to state that the component parts of the Recovery Act are consistent with what many of you say are important things to do: rebuilding our infrastructure, tax cuts for families and businesses, and making sure that we were providing states and individuals some support when the roof was caving in.

And the notion that I would somehow resist doing something that cost half as much but would produce twice as many jobs - why would I resist that? I wouldn't. I mean, that's my point, is that - I am not an ideologue. I'm not. It doesn't make sense if somebody could tell me, "You could do this cheaper and get increased results," that I wouldn't say, "Great."

OBAMA: The problem is, I couldn't find credible economists who would back up the claims that you just made.

Now, we - we can - here's what I know going forward, though. I mean, we're talking - you know, we're talking about the past. We can talk about this going forward.

I have looked at every idea out there in terms of accelerating job growth to match the economic growth that's already taken place.

The jobs credit that I'm discussing right now is one that a lot of people think would be the most cost-effective way for encouraging people to pick up their hiring.

There may be other ideas that you guys have. I am happy to look at them and I'm happy to embrace them. I suspect I will embrace some of them. Some of them I've already embraced.

But the question I think we're going to have to ask ourselves is, as we move forward, are we going to be examining each of these issues based on what's good for the country, what the evidence tells us, or are we going to be trying to position ourselves so that come November, we're able to say, "The other party, it's their fault"?

If we take the latter approach, then we're probably not going to get much agreement. If we take the former, I suspect there's going to be a lot of overlap. All right?

PENCE: Mr. President, would - will you consider supporting across-the-board tax relief, as President Kennedy did?

OBAMA: Here's what I'm going to do, Mike: What I'm going to do is I'm going to take a look at what you guys are proposing.

And the reason - the reason I say this, you know, before you say OK, I think it is - I think is important to note, you know, what you may consider across-the-board tax cuts could be, for example, greater tax cuts for people who are making a billion dollars. I may not agree to a tax cut for Warren Buffett. You may be calling for a (sic) across-the-board tax cut for the banking industry right now. I may not agree to that.

So, you know, I think that we've got to look at what specific proposals you're putting forward.

And - this is the last point I'll make - if you're calling for just across-the-board tax cuts and then, on the other hand, saying that we're somehow going to balance our budget, I'm going to want to take a look at your math and see how that - how that works. Because the issue of deficit and debt is another area where there has been a tendency for some inconsistent statements.

Mr. President, first of all, thanks for agreeing to accept our invitation here. It is a real pleasure and honor to have you with us here today.

RYAN: Yes, this is my daughter Liza, my sons Charlie and Sam, and this is my wife Janna.

I serve as the ranking member of the Budget Committee, so I want to talk a little budget, if you don't mind.

RYAN: The spending bills that you have signed into law, the domestic and discretionary spending has been increased by 84 percent. You now want to freeze spending at this elevated level beginning next year. This means that total spending in your budget would grow at 300ths of 1 percent less than otherwise. I would simply submit that we could do more and start now.

You've also said that you want to take a scalpel to the budget and go through it line by line. We want to give you that scalpel. I have a proposal with my home state senator, Russ Feingold, a bipartisan proposal, to create a constitutional version of the line- item veto.

So my question is, why not start freezing spending now? And would you support a line-item veto and helping us get a vote on it in the House?

OBAMA: Let me respond to the two specific questions, but I want to just push back a little bit on the underlying premise, about us increasing spending by 84 percent.

Now, look, I talked to Peter Orszag right before I came here, because I suspected I'd be hearing this - I'd be hearing this argument.

The fact of the matter is is that most of the increases in this year's budget, this past year's budget, were not as a consequence of policies that we initiated, but instead were built in as a consequence of the automatic stabilizers that kick in because of this enormous recession.

So the increase in the budget for this past year was actually predicted before I was even sworn into office and had initiated any policies. Whoever was in there, Paul - and I don't think you'll dispute that - whoever was in there would have seen those same increases because of, on the one hand, huge drops in revenue, but at the same time people were hurting and needed help. And a lot of these things happen automatically.

OBAMA: Now, the reason that I'm not proposing the discretionary freeze take into effect this year, retro - we prepared a budget for 2010, it's now going forward - is, again, I am just listening to the consensus among people who know the economy best.

And what they will say is that if you either increased taxes or significantly lowered spending when the economy remains somewhat fragile, that that would have a destimulative effect and potentially you'd see a lot of folks losing business, more folks potentially losing jobs. That would be a mistake when the economy has not fully taken off.

That's why I've proposed to do it for the next fiscal year. So, that's point number two.

With respect to the line-item veto, I actually - I think there's not a president out there that wouldn't love to have it. And, you know, I think that this is an area where we can have a serious conversation. I know it is a bipartisan proposal by you and Russ Feingold.

I don't like being held up with big bills that have stuff in them that are wasteful but I've got to sign because it's a defense authorization bill and I've got to make sure that our troops are getting the funding that they need.

I will tell you, I would love for Congress itself to show discipline on both sides of the aisle. I think one thing that, you know, you have to acknowledge, Paul, because you study this stuff and take it pretty seriously, that the earmarks problem is not unique to one party, and you end up getting a lot of pushback when you start going after specific projects of any one of you in your districts, because wasteful spending is usually spent somehow outside of your district. Have you noticed that? The spending in your district tends to seem pretty sensible.

So I would love to see more restraint within Congress. I'd like to work on the earmarks reforms that I mentioned in terms of putting earmarks online, because I think sunshine is the best disinfectant. But I am willing to have a serious discussion on the line-item veto issue.

RYAN: OK. I'd like to walk you through it, because we have a version we think is constitutional.

OBAMA: Let me take a look at it. RYAN: I would simply say that automatic stabilizer spending is mandatory spending. The discretionary spending, the bills that Congresses signs - that you sign into law, that has increased 84 percent. So.

OBAMA: We'll have a - we'll have a longer debate on the budget numbers there, all right?

CAPITO: As you said on your - in the State of the Union address on Wednesday, jobs and the economy are number one. And I think everyone in this room, certainly I, agree with you on that.

I represent the state of West Virginia. We're resource rich. We have a lot of coal and a lot of natural gas.

But our - my miners and the folks who are working and those who are unemployed are very concerned about some of your policies in these areas: cap-and-trade, an aggressive EPA and the looming prospect of higher taxes. In our minds, these are job-killing policies.

So I'm asking in - in to - if you would be willing to re-look at some of these policies, with the high unemployment and unsure economy that we have now, to assure West Virginians that you're listening.

OBAMA: Well, I - look, I listen all the time, including to your governor, who's somebody who I enjoyed working with a lot before the campaign and now that I'm president.

And I know that West Virginia struggles with unemployment. And I know how important coal is to West Virginia and a lot of the natural resources there. That's part of the reason why I've said that we need a comprehensive energy policy that sets us up for a long-term future.

For example, nobody's been a bigger promoter of clean coal technology than I am. In testament to that, I ended up being in a whole bunch of advertisements that you guys saw all the time about investing in ways for us to burn coal more cleanly.

I've said that I'm a promoter of nuclear energy, something that, you know, I think over the last three decades has been subject to a lot of partisan wrangling and ideological wrangling. I don't think it makes sense. I think that that has to be part of our energy mix.

I've said that I am supportive - and I said this two nights ago at the State of the Union - that I'm in favor of increased production.

So if you look at the ideas that this caucus has, again, with respect to energy, I'm for a lot of what you said you are for.

The one thing that I've also said, though - and here we have a serious disagreement and my hope is we can work through this agreement - these disagreements; there's be effort on the Senate side to do so on a bipartisan basis - is that we have to plan for the future.

And the future is that clean energy - cleaner forms of energy are going to be increasingly important. Because even if folks are still skeptical in some cases about climate change in our politics and in Congress, the world's not skeptical about it.

If we're going to be going after some of these big markets, they're going to be looking to see is the United States the one that's developing clean coal technology? Is the United States developing our natural gas resources in the most effective way? Is the United States the one that is going to lead in electric cars?

OBAMA: So what I want to do with West Virginia to figure out how we can seize that future. But to do that, that means there's going to have to be some transition. We can't operate the coal industry in the United States as if we're still in the 1920s or the 1930s or the 1950s. We've got to be thinking, what does that industry look like in the next hundred years?

And it's going to be different. And that means there's going to be some transition, and that's where I think a well-thought-through policy of incentivizing the new while, you know, recognizing that there's going to be a transition process and we're not just suddenly putting the old out of business right away. That has to be something that both Republicans and Democrats should be able to embrace.

I - I'm one of 22 House freshmen. We didn't create this mess, but we are here to help clean it up. And (inaudible) talk a lot about this deficit of trust. There's some things that have happened that I would appreciate your perspective on, because I can look you in the eye and tell you, we have not been obstructionist. The Democrats have the House and Senate and the presidency.

And when you stood up before the American people multiple times and said you would broadcast the health care debates on C-SPAN, you didn't. I was disappointed, and I think a lot of Americans were disappointed.

You said you weren't going to allow lobbyists in the senior-most positions within your administration, and yet you did. I applauded you when you said it, and disappointed when you didn't.

You said you'd go line by line through the health care debate - or through the health care bill. And there were six of us, including Dr. Phil Roe, who sent you a letter and said, "We would like to take you up on that offer. We'd like to come." We never heard a letter. We never got a call. We were never involved in any of those discussions. And when you said in the House of Representatives that you were going to tackle earmarks, and, in fact, you didn't want to have any earmarks in any of your bills, I jumped up out of my seat and applauded you. But it didn't happen.

Look, the truth of the matter is that if you look at the health care process - just over the course of the year - overwhelmingly the majority of it actually was on C-SPAN, because it was taking place in congressional hearings in which guys were participating.

OBAMA: I mean, the - how many committees were there that helped to shape this bill? Countless hearings took place.

Now, I kicked it off, by the way, with a meeting with many of you, including your key leadership.

What is true, there's no doubt about it, is that once it got through the committee process and there were now a series of meetings taking place all over the Capitol trying to figure out how to get the thing together, that was a messy process. And I take responsibility for not having structured it in a way where it was all taking place in one place that could be filmed.

How to do that logistically would not have been as easy as - as it sounds because you're shuttling back and forth between the House, the Senate, different offices, et cetera, different legislators. But I think it's a legitimate criticism. So on that one, I take responsibility.

With respect to earmarks, we didn't have earmarks in the Recovery Act. You know, we didn't get a lot of credit for it, but there were no earmarks in that.

I was confronted at the beginning of my term with an omnibus package that did have a lot of earmarks from Republicans and Democrats, and a lot of people in this chamber. And the question was, was I going to have a big budget fight at a time when I was still trying to figure out whether or not the financial system was melting down and we had to make a whole bunch of emergency decisions about the economy. So what I said was let's keep them to a minimum, but I couldn't excise them all.

Now, the challenge, I guess, I would have for you as a freshman is what are you doing inside your caucus to make sure that I'm not the only guy who's responsible for this stuff, so that we're working together. Because this is going to be a process.

You know, when we talk about earmarks, I think all of us are willing to acknowledge that some of them are perfectly defensible, good projects. It's just they haven't gone through the regular appropriations process in the full light of day.

So one place to start is to make sure that they are at least transparent; that everybody knows what's there before we - we move forward. In terms of lobbyists, I can stand here unequivocally and say that there has not been an administration who was tougher on making sure that lobbyists weren't participating in the administration than any administration that's come before us.

Now, what we did was if there were lobbyists who were on boards and commissions that were carryovers and their term hadn't completed, we didn't kick them off.

OBAMA: We simply said that moving forward, any time a new slot opens, they're being replaced.

So we've actually been very consistent in making sure that we are eliminating the impact of lobbyists, day in-day out, on how this administration operates.

There have been a handful of waivers where somebody is highly skilled; for example, a doctor who ran Tobacco-Free Kids technically is a registered lobbyist, on the other hand, has more expertise than anybody in figuring out how kids don't get hooked on cigarettes.

So there have been a couple of instances like that, but generally we've been very consistent on that front. OK?

And thank you for acknowledging that we have ideas on health care. Because, indeed, we do have ideas. We have plans. We have over 50 bills. We have lots of amendments that would bring health care ideas to the forefront.

We would - we've got plans to lower cost, to change purchasing models, address medical liability, insurance accountability, chronic and preexisting conditions, and access to affordable care for those with those conditions, insurance portability, expanded access, but not doing it with creating more government, more bureaucracy and more cost for the American taxpayer.

And we look forward to sharing those ideas with you. We want to work with you on health reform and making certain that we do it in an affordable, cost-effective way that is going to reduce bureaucracy, reduce government interference and reduce costs to individuals and to taxpayers.

And if those good ideas aren't making it to you, maybe it's the House Democrat leadership that is an impediment instead of a conduit.

(CROSSTALK) BLACKBURN: But we're concerned also that there are lessons learned from public option health care plans that maybe are not being heeded. And certainly in my state of Tennessee, we were the test case for public option health care in 1994. And our Democrat government has even cautioned that maybe our experiences there would provide some lessons learned that should be heeded and would provide guidance for us to go forward.

BLACKBURN: And as you said, what we should be doing is tossing old ideas out, bad ideas out, and moving forward and refining good ideas. And certainly we would welcome that opportunity.

So my question to you is, when will we look forward to starting anew and sitting down with you to put all of these ideas on the table, to look at these lessons learned, to benefit from that experience, and to produce a product that is going to reduce government interference, reduce cost and be fair to the American taxpayer?

OBAMA: Actually, I've gotten many of your ideas. I've taken a look at them, even before I was handed this.

I think one of the proposals that has been focused on by the Republicans as a way to reduce costs is allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines. We actually include that as part of our approach. But the caveat is we've got to do so with some minimum standards, because otherwise what happens is that you could have insurance companies circumvent a whole bunch of state regulations about, you know, basic benefits or what have you; making sure that a woman is able to get mammograms as part of preventive care, for example.

Part of what could happen is insurance companies could go into states and cherry-pick and just get those who are healthiest and leave behind those who are least healthy, which would raise everybody's premiums who weren't healthy, right?

So it's not that many of these ideas aren't workable, but we have to refine them to make sure that they don't just end up worsening the situation for folks rather than making it better.

Now, what I said at the State of the Union is what I still believe. If you can show me and if I get confirmation from health care experts, people who know the system and how it works, including doctors and nurses, ways of reducing people's premiums, covering those who do not have insurance, making it more affordable for small businesses, having insurance reforms that ensure people have insurance even when they've got preexisting conditions, that their coverage is not dropped just because they're sick, that young people right out of college or as they're entering in the workforce can still get health insurance - if those component parts are things that you care about and want to do, I'm game.

The last thing I will say, though - let me say this about health care and the health care debate because I think it also bears on a whole lot of other issues.

If you look at the package that we've presented - and there's some stray cats and dogs that got in there that we were eliminating - we were in the process of eliminating.

For example - for example, you know, we said from the start that - that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your - if you want to keep the health insurance you've got, you can keep it; that you're not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decisionmaking. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge.

And so we were - we were in the process of scrubbing this and making sure that it's tight.

But at its core, if you look at the basic proposal that we put forward, it has an exchange so that businesses and the self-employed can buy into a pool and can get bargaining power the same way big companies do, the insurance reforms that I've already discussed, making sure that there's choice and competition for those who don't have health insurance.

The component parts of this thing are pretty similar to what Howard Baker, Bob Dole and Tom Daschle proposed at the beginning of this debate last year.

Now, you may not agree with Bob Dole and Howard Baker and Tom - and certainly you don't agree with Tom Daschle on much.

. but that's not a radical bunch. But if you were to listen to the debate, and, frankly, how some of you went after this bill, you'd think that this thing was some Bolshevik plot.

And so I'm thinking to myself, "Well, how is it that a plan that is pretty centrist."

No, look, I mean, I'm just saying - I know you guys disagree, but if you look at the facts of this bill, most independent observers would say this is actually what many Republicans - it - it's similar to what many Republicans proposed to Bill Clinton when he was doing his debate on health care.

So all I'm saying is we've got to close the gap a little bit between the rhetoric and the reality.

I'm not suggesting that we're going to agree on everything, whether it's on health care or energy or what have you, but if the way these issues are being presented by the Republicans is that this is some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government in every aspect of our lives, what happens is you guys then don't have a lot of room to negotiate with me.

I mean, the fact of the matter is is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base, in your own party. You've given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you've been telling your constituents is, "This guy's doing all kinds of crazy stuff that's going to destroy America."

It's not just on your side, by the way. It's - it's on our side as well. This is part of what's happened in our politics, where we demonize the other side so much that when it comes to actually getting things done, it becomes tough to do.

I want to stick on - on the general topic of health care, but ask a very specific question.

You have repeatedly said, most recently at - at the State of the Union, that Republicans have offered no ideas and no solutions, in spite of the fact.

What I said was within the context of health care - I remember that speech pretty well. It was only two days ago.

I didn't say that you haven't provided ideas. I said I'd welcome those ideas that you'll provide.

PRICE: Mr. President, multiple times from your administration there have come statements that Republicans have no ideas and no solutions, in spite of that fact that we've offered, as demonstrated today, positive solutions to all of the challenges we face, including energy and the economy and health care.

Specifically, in the area of health care, this bill, H.R. 3400, that has more cosponsors than any health care bill in the House. It is a bill that would provide health coverage for all Americans, would correct the significant insurance challenges of portability and preexisting, would solve the lawsuit abuse issue, which isn't addressed significantly in the other proposals that went through the House and the Senate, would write into law that medical decisions are made between patients and families and doctors, and does all of that without raising taxes by a penny.

But my specific question is, what should we tell our constituents who know that Republicans have offered positive solutions to the challenges that Americans face and yet continue to hear out of the administration that we've offered nothing?

OBAMA: Tell them I - look, I have to say, that on the - let's just take the health care debate. And it's probably not constructive for us to try to debate a particular bill. This isn't the venue to do it.

But if you say that we can offer coverage for all Americans and it won't cost a penny, that's just not true. You can't structure a bill where suddenly 30 million people have coverage and it costs nothing.

PRICE: But what should we tell our constituents, who know that we've offered these solutions, and yet hear from the administration that - that we have offered nothing?

OBAMA: Let me - I'm using this as a specific example, so let me answer your question. You asked a question, I want to answer it.

OBAMA: It's not enough, if you say, for example, that we've offered a health care plan and I look up - this is just under the section that you've just provided me - or the book that you've just provided me, "Summary of GOP Health Care Reform Bill."

"The GOP plan will lower health care premiums for American families and small businesses, addressing America's number one priority for health reform."

I mean, that's an idea that we all embrace. But specifically it's got to work. I mean, there's got to be a mechanism in these plans that I can go to an independent health care expert and say, "Is this something that will actually work or is it boilerplate?"

You know, if I'm told, for example, that the solution to dealing with health care costs is tort reform, something that I've said I am willing to work with you on, but the CBO or other experts say to me, you know, "At best, this could reduce health care costs relative to where they're growing by a couple of percentage points or save $5 billion a year, that's what we can score it at, and it will not bend the cost curve long term or reduce premiums significantly," then you can't make the claim that that's the only thing that we have to do.

If we're going to do multi-state insurance so that people can go across state lines, I've got to be able to go to an independent health care expert, Republican or Democrat, who can tell me that this won't result in cherry-picking of the healthiest going to some and the least healthy being worse off.

So I am absolutely committed to working with you on these issues. But it can't just be political assertions that aren't substantiated when it comes to the actual details of policy, because otherwise we're going to be selling the American people a bill of goods.

I mean, the easiest thing for me to do on the health care debate would have been to tell people that, "What you're going to get is guaranteed health insurance, lower your costs, all the insurance reforms, we're going to lower the cost of Medicare and Medicaid, and it won't cost anybody anything." That's great politics. It's just not true.

OBAMA: So there's got to be some test of realism in any of these proposals, mine included. I've got to hold myself accountable, and I guarantee the American people will hold themselves - will hold me accountable if what I'm selling doesn't actually deliver.

What's in the "Better Solutions" book are all the legislative proposals that were offered.

PENCE: And so rest assured the summary document that you received is backed up by precisely the kind of detailed legislation that Speaker Pelosi and your administration have been busy ignoring for 12 months.

You know, Mike, I've read your legislation. I mean, I take a look at this stuff. And the good ideas we take.

But here - here's the thing, here's the thing, I guess, that all of us have to be mindful of. It can't be all-or-nothing one way or the other, all right?

You - you - and what I mean by that is this. If we put together a stimulus package in which a third of it are tax cuts that normally you guys would support, and support for states and the unemployed and helping people stay on COBRA that your governors certainly would support, Democrat or Republican. And then you've got some infrastructure, and maybe there's some things in there that you don't like in terms of infrastructure, or you think the bill should have been $500 billion instead of $700 billion, or there's this provision or that provision that you don't like. If there's uniform opposition because the Republican caucus doesn't get 100 percent or 80 percent of what you want, then it's going to be hard to get a deal done. That's because that's not how democracy works.

So my hope would be that we can look at some of these components parts of what we're doing, and maybe we break some of them up on different policy issues. So if the good congressman from Utah has a particular issue on lobbying reform that he wants to work with us on, we may not be able to agree on a comprehensive package on everything, but there may be some component parts that we can work on.

OBAMA: You may not support our overall jobs package, but if you look at the tax credit that we're proposing for small businesses right now, it is consistent with a lot of what you guys have said in the past. And just the fact that it's my administration that's proposing it shouldn't prevent you from supporting it.

Mr. President, I heard echoes today of the state senator that I served with in Springfield, and there was an attribute and a characteristic that you had that I think served you well there. You took on some very controversial subjects: death penalty reform. I - you and I.

One of the keys was you rolled your sleeves up, you worked with the other party, and ultimately you were able to make the deal.

Over the past year, in my view, that attribute hasn't been in full bloom. And by that I mean, you've gotten the subtext of House Republicans that sincerely want to come and be a part of this national conversation toward solutions, but they've really been stiff-armed by Speaker Pelosi. Now, I know you're not in charge of that chamber, but there really is this dynamic of, frankly, being shut out.

When John Boehner and Eric Cantor presented last February to you some substantive job creation, our stimulus alternative, the attack machine began to marginalize Eric - and we can all look at the articles - as Mr. No. And there was this pretty dark story, ultimately, that wasn't productive and wasn't within this sort of framework that you're articulating today.

So here's the question: Moving forward - I think all of us want to hit the reset button on 2009, how do we move forward?

And on the job creation piece in particular, you mentioned Colombia, you mentioned Panama, you mentioned South Korea. Are you willing to work with us, for example, to make sure those FTAs get called? That's no-cost job creation. And ultimately, as you're interacting with world leaders, that's got to put more arrows in your quiver, and that's a very, very powerful tool for us.

OBAMA: Well, the - first of all, Peter and I did work together effectively on a whole host of issues. One of our former colleagues is right now running for governor on the Republican side in Illinois.

OBAMA: In the Republican primary, of course, they're running ads of him saying nice things about me.

Although, that's the - that's one of the points that I made earlier. I mean, we've got to be careful about what we say about each other sometimes because it boxes us in in ways that makes it difficult for us to work together because our constituents start believing us. They don't know sometimes this is just politics, what you guys, you know, or folks on my side do sometimes. So just a tone of civility instead of slash-and-burn would be helpful.

The problem we have sometimes is a media that responds only to slash- and-burn-style politics. You don't get a lot of credit if I say, "You know, I think Paul Ryan's a pretty sincere guy and has a beautiful family." Nobody's going to run that in the newspapers, right?

And by the way, in case he's going to get a Republican challenge, I didn't mean it.

But, the - on the specifics, I think both sides can take some blame for a sour climate on Capitol Hill. What I can do maybe to help is to try to bring Republican and Democratic leadership together on a more regular basis with me. That's, I think, a failure on my part is to try to foster better communications, even if there's disagreement. And - and I will try to see if we can do more of that this year.

On the specific issue of trade, you're right. There are conflicts within and fissures within the Democratic Party. I suspect there probably are going to be some fissures within the Republican Party as well.

I mean, you know, if you went to some of your constituencies, they'd be pretty suspicious about it - new trade agreements, because the suspicion is somehow they're all one-way.

So part of what we've been trying to do is make sure that we're getting the enforcement side of this tight; make sure that if we've got a trade agreement with China or other countries, that they are abiding with it, they're not stealing our intellectual property, we're making sure that their non-tariff barriers are lowered, even as ours are opened up.

OBAMA: And my hope is is that we can move forward with some of these trade agreements, having built some confidence, not just among particular constituency groups, but among the American people, that trade is going to be reciprocal, that it's not just going to be a one- way street.

You are absolutely right, though, Peter, when you say, for example, South Korea is a great ally of ours. I mean, when I visited there, there's no country that is more committed to friendship on a whole range of fronts than South Korea.

What is also true is that the European Union is about to sign a trade agreement with South Korea, which means right at the moment when they start opening up their markets, the Europeans might get in there before we do.

So we've got to make sure that we seize these opportunities. I will be talking more about trade this year. It's going to have to be trade that combines opening their markets with an enforcement mechanism, as well as just opening up our markets.

I think that's something that all of us would agree on. Let's see if we can execute it over the next several years.

Mr. President, a year ago I had an opportunity to speak to you about the national debt. And something that you and I have in common is we both have small children. And I left that conversation really feeling you're sincere commitment to ensuring that our children, our nation's children do not inherit an unconscionable debt. We know that under current law that government - the cost of government is due to grow from 20 percent of our economy to 40 percent of our economy right about the time our children are leaving college and getting that first job.

Mr. President, shortly after that conversation a year ago, the Republicans proposed a budget that ensured that government did not grow beyond the historical standard of 20 percent of GDP. It was a budget that actually froze immediately non-defense discretionary spending. It spent $5 trillion less than ultimately what was enacted into law.

And since that budget was ignored, what were the old annual deficits under Republicans have now become the monthly deficits under Democrats. The national debt has increased 30 percent.

Now, Mr. President, I know you believe - and I understand the argument; I respect the view - that the spending is necessary due to the recession. Many of us believe, frankly, it's part of the problem, not part of the solution, but I understand and I respect your view.

HENSARLING: But this is what I don't understand, Mr. President. After that discussion, your administration proposed a budget that would triple the national debt over the next 10 years. Surely you don't believe 10 years from now we will still be mired in this recession. It proposed new entitlement spending and moved the - the cost of government to almost 24.5 percent of the economy.

Now, very soon, Mr. President, you're due to submit a new budget and my question.

OBAMA: Jim (sic), I know there's a question in there somewhere, because you're making a whole bunch of assertions, half of which I disagree with.

And I'm having to sit here listening to them. At some point, I know you're going to let me answer.

You are soon to submit a new budget, Mr. President. Will that new budget, like your old budget, triple the national debt and continue to take us down the path of increasing the cost of government to almost 25 percent of our economy? That's the question, Mr. President.

OBAMA: All right. Jim (sic), with all due respect, I've just got to take this last question as an example of how it's very hard to have the kind of bipartisan work that we're going to do, because the whole question was structured as a talking point for running - running a campaign.

Now, look, let's talk about the budget, once again, because I'll go through it with you line by line.

The fact of the matter is, is that when we came into office, the deficit was $1.3 trillion. $1.3 trillion. So - so when you say that suddenly I've got a monthly budget that is higher than the annual - or a monthly deficit that's higher than the annual deficit left by Republicans, that's factually just not true, and you know it's not true. And what is true is that we came in already with a $1.3 trillion deficit before I had passed any law. What is true is, we came in with $8 trillion worth of debt over the next decade.

Had nothing to do with anything that we had done. It had to do with the fact that in 2000, when there was a budget surplus of $200 billion, you had a Republican administration and a Republican Congress, and we had two tax cuts that weren't paid for, you had a prescription drug plan - the biggest entitlement plan, by the way, in several decades - that was passed, without it being paid for, you had two wars that were done through supplementals, and then you had $3 trillion projected because of the lost revenue of this recession.

OBAMA: That's $8 trillion. Now, we increased it by $1 trillion because of the spending that we had to make on the stimulus.

I am happy to have any independent factchecker out there take a look at your presentation versus mine in terms of the accuracy of what I just said.

I think Paul, for example, head of the Budget Committee, has looked at the budget and has made a serious proposal. I've read it. I can tell you what's in it. And there are some ideas in there that I would agree with, but there are some ideas that we should have a healthy debate about, because I don't agree with them.

The major driver of our long-term liabilities, everybody here knows, is Medicare and Medicaid and our health care spending. Nothing comes close.

Social Security we could probably fix the same way Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan sat down together and they could figure something out. That is manageable.

Medicare and Medicaid, massive problem down the road. That's where - that's - that's going to be what our children have to worry about.

Now, Paul's approach, and I don't - I want to be careful not simplifying this, because I know you've got - you've got a lot of detail in your plan - but, if I understand it correctly, would say we're going to provide vouchers of some sort for current Medicare recipients at the current level. No?

OBAMA: 55 and - well, no, I understand. I mean, there's a grandfathering in, but just for future beneficiaries. Right?

That's why I said I didn't want to - I want to make sure that I'm not being unfair to your proposal, but I just want to point out that I've - I've read it.

And the basic idea would be that at some point, we hold Medicare costs per recipient constant as a way of making sure that that doesn't go way out of - way out of whack. And I'm sure there are some details that.

RYAN: (inaudible) a blend of inflation and health inflation. The point of our plan is because Medicare, as you know, is a $38 trillion unfunded liability.

RYAN: . it has to be reformed for younger generations, because it won't exist because it's going bankrupt.

And the premise of our idea is, look, why not give people the same kind of health care plan we here have in Congress? That's the kind of reform we're proposing for Medicare.

OBAMA: Well, look, as I've said before, this is an entirely legitimate proposal. The problem is two-fold.

One is that, depending on how it's structured, if recipients are suddenly getting a plan that has their reimbursement rates going like this, but health care costs are still going up like that, then over time the way we're saving money is essentially by capping what they are getting relative to their costs.

OBAMA: Now, I just want to point out - and this brings me to the second problem - when we made a very modest proposal as part of our package - our health care reform package to eliminate the subsidies going to insurance companies for Medicare Advantage, we were attacked across the board by many on your aisle for slashing Medicare. You remember? "We're going to start cutting benefits for seniors." That was - that was the story that was perpetrated out there; scared the dickens out of a lot of seniors.

If the main question is going to be what do we do about Medicare costs, any proposal that Paul makes will be painted factually from the perspective of those who disagree with it as cutting benefits over the long term.

Paul, I don't think you disagree with that - that - that there is a political vulnerability to doing anything that tinkers with Medicare. And that's probably the biggest savings that are obtained through Paul's plan.

And I raise that not because we shouldn't have a serious discussion about it. I raise that because we're not going to be able to do anything about any of these entitlements if what we do is characterize whatever proposals are put out there as, "Well, you know, that's - the other party's being irresponsible. The other party is trying to hurt our senior citizens. That the other party is doing X, Y, Z."

That's why I say if we're going to frame these debates in ways that allow us to solve them, then we can't start off by figuring out, A, who's to blame; B, how can we make the American people afraid of the other side.

And unfortunately, that's how our politics works right now, and that's how a lot of our discussion works. That's how we start off. Every time somebody speaks in Congress, the first thing they do, they stand up and all the talking points - I see Frank Luntz up here sitting in the front.

. and he said, you know, "The way you're really going to - I've done a focus group, and, you know, the way we're going to really box in Obama on this one or make Pelosi look bad on that one" - I know - I like Frank. We've had conversations between Frank and I. But that's how we operate. It's all tactics, and it's not solving problems.

And so the question is, at what point can we have a serious conversation about Medicare and its long-term liability, or a serious question about - a serious conversation about Social Security, or a serious conversation about budget and debt in which we're not simply trying to position ourselves politically.

That's what I'm committed to doing. We won't agree all the time in getting it done, but I'm committed to doing it.

OBAMA: I'll be happy to take your question, Congressman, off- line. You can give me a call, all right?

Thank you, everybody. God bless you. God bless the United States of America. Thank you, everybody.

Things are changing quickly in the USA. The country is moving to the right, and President Obama may reflect that in his State of the Union address.

As "Talking Points" predicted, there will be no public option in any health care reform bill. There will be no cap-and-trade legislation, and the president's War on Terror strategy is now under fire by big-time Democrats.

Senators Jim Webb from Virginia and Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas have sent scorching letters to Attorney General Holder telling him to move Khalid Sheikh Mohammed back to military supervision.

If you still don't believe the country is moving away from liberalism, listen to this.

Last week, the Fox News Channel was the highest-rated cable network in America, beating all the entertainment channels. Sorry SpongeBob; sorry Hannah Montana.

For a news channel to beat entertainment channels is extraordinary. Millions of Americans turned to our Haitian coverage and relied on us to provide an accurate picture of the Massachusetts vote count because they know we will report honestly without titling to the left.

In addition, the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling is out with a brand-new study that asked Americans which TV news organizations they trust.

Forty-nine percent of Americans, half the country, trust the Fox News Channel. Just 31 percent of Americans trust ABC News, 35 percent trust NBC News and 32 percent trust CBS News.

That's a rout. By a huge majority, Americans now believe the Fox News Channel is the most honest purveyor of information in the country.

The Gallup people say 64 percent of Americans believe the press is doing a fair or poor job of watching the Obama administration. Again, that goes to liberal bias.

It's not that FNC's hard news coverage is unfair to President Obama. It isn't. We report accurately what the president says and does.

On this opinion program, we try to give the president a fair shake and back up our criticisms with facts, but we are in the tank for no one.

Last week while CNN and MSNBC cut short Senator-elect Scott Brown's remarks in Massachusetts, we ran the speeches by Brown and Martha Coakley in their entirety, another example of fairness.

So it is all over. Fox News is the most trusted TV news brand in America by far.

On the political front, the folks gave President Obama and his liberal policies a chance, but now some frustration has set in with the huge spending, a confusing health care bill and chaotic terror policies.

There are big changes going on in the USA, and as the country moves to the right, the president should take notice.

Apparently, there is this Ellie Light sending letters to about 60 newspapers, telling us that Obama is trying his hardest and that he cannot just wave a magic wand and fix everything:

There is an article about how the sun is going to be studied in order to determine its effects upon the weather.

However, my favorite part of this article was not in the article, but was a comment by Consulto Factus, which read:

How could a giant ball of fusing hydrogen more than 1,000,000 times the mass of the Earth have anything to do with our climate? It is already settled science here at the IPCC that the "sun" as you call it has almost zero affect on climate here. We have determined conclusively that the real "fly in the ointment" when it comes to the climate is YOU. If you all would simply stop respirating the climate would return to that idylliac and pristine condition that it was in before you meat-bags showed-up.

Obama's War on Science: Trillions for a Hoax, but Not One Cent for NASA's Moon Mission

NASA is also going to tackle climate change (it is as if we have stepped into a science fiction movie)??

Climate Change head waits until after the Climate Change conference to reveal that the Himalayas would not lose their glaciers by 2035:

RUSH: I penned a message to Obama that I would like to deliver now. Because Mr. Obama, I think it's time we had a heart-to-heart talk. Let me be the father that you never had or never really knew, because I think you need some guidance. It's time to man up. It's time to grow up. That speech last night was an embarrassment. You couldn't focus, you lashed out in all directions, you refused to accept responsibility for your own actions, and you were angry.

And he was, folks! He was mad. Being president is a big job. It's a big responsibility. You wanted the position, Barack. You campaigned for it. You told the public to trust you with it, and they elected you -- and you're now president of the greatest country mankind has ever known, and yet you act like this was all coming to you, like you deserve it, that you're better than the people you are supposed to serve and that you have no tolerance for debate or dissent. That's not the way it works as president, Barack. We have a Constitution, we have checks and balances, we have separation of powers, we have states -- and most of all, we have the people. You don't get to impose your programs and policies on the nation and the people without our consent.

This is a representative republic, not a banana republic, and let me remind you: Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky are not our Founding Fathers. This is a nation built on individuality, built on liberty, free markets, and faith. Yet you, Barack, demand fidelity to a different belief system: A system that crushes individual initiative and free will. The president does not berate Supreme Court justices who are guests of the Congress and who have no ability to respond to your attacks. You've made such a mess of things, Barack, and it's time to stop deluding yourself. It's time to stop blaming others. You are delusional. You are delirious. It's time for you to assume the responsibilities of a president rather than pretending to be one.

You've driven the nation's debt over the edge. It is your responsibility to fix it now. Otherwise, our young people will have no future. You were wrong to grant terrorists constitutional rights. Even the libs in New York don't want the trial there now! You, Mr. President, are endangering the security of this nation. Now fix it! Reverse course, and end the terrorists -- all of them -- back to Guantanamo Bay, where they belong. You are wrong to nationalize one industry after another from automobiles to banks. You are destroying competition and jobs. You need to stop what you were doing before millions of more families go broke from your misguided policies. It's not too late to stop this. I know you're not going to stop it because last night you said you don't quit, and I know what you mean.

You're gonna keep plugging for the same agenda, which is going to destroy this country even more -- which makes me think, Barack, that's your objective. You know, Barack, unlike most presidents you're dealing with a Congress that has super majorities in both houses, fellow Democrats. It amazes me that with all the talk about your ability to persuade and communicate, that you can't even hold your own party members together anymore. Is that Bush's fault, too? Is it is fault of the banks and the insurance companies and the lobbyists that you can't keep your own Democrat Party unified -- or is it a problem with your leadership, Barack, or lack of leadership? It's the latter, Mr. President. I'll tell you, you are not a leader. You are an agitator and an organizer, and a process guy, but you are not a leader. It is you who are doing something wrong.

The people in Virginia don't like it. The people in New Jersey don't like it. The people in Massachusetts don't like it. The people in Massachusetts and all over the country have the ability to inform themselves outside of your sycophant press corps, and they are doing so. Members of your own governing majority don't like what you are doing. I mean, this calls for some self-reflection and some circumspection. Has it occurred to you, Mr. President, even once that you're not as cool as you think you are? Has it occurred to you that you are screwing up? And if it has, are you happy about that? Has it occurred to you that you have a great deal to learn and that you need to take your own measure, or are you Mr. Perfect? Are you God-sent?

Are you The One that you've been waiting for? See, I have a little concern there may be a psychological issue at play here. I don't say this to demean you, Barack. I say it because I'm concerned. I mean, Tom Daschle was always "concerned" and I like the word. I'm concerned. You seem to have a whole lot of enemies, at least in your own mind. A partial list would include Fox News, insurance companies, banks, oil companies, the "special interests," the Supreme Court, Republicans, talk show hosts, executives, anyone or any business that earns over $250,000 a year, mortgage companies, credit card companies -- and the list goes on and on and on. You have the longest enemies list of anybody I've ever known.

These people are not your enemies, though, Barack. They are Americans. They are part of this country. They are part of what makes the nation work. You are not. You have nothing to do, and have had nothing to do, with this nation's greatness. You can't lay claim to greatness on any scale, not even rhetorical. But you have no direct relationship to the greatness of this country. You are damaging the possibility of further greatness. Nevertheless, like a bully, you continue to threaten all of these people. The Supreme Court, Big Oil, Big Pharmaceutical, Big Retail, talk show hosts, Fox News, the list goes on. You threaten anybody who does not agree with you. You try to intimidate them. You smear them. Your sycophantic media goes right along and carries your water. But this is not what presidents do.

You're supposed to lead not by threatening people but by encouraging them, by embracing them, by thanking them, by inspiring them. Most of all you don't seem to appreciate the magnificence of this nation! I know you don't. The way you've been educated about this country it's painfully obvious. You think this country is guilty, period. Guilty and unjust. You seem to think this country needs to be torn down so you can rebuild it. But you were elected to be president, not some kind of dictator. You must operate within the confines of the Constitution. You are not bigger than the law, and you are not bigger than the people. You were elected to serve the people, not dictate to them. Anyway, I'm sure this little lecture will not do you much good, particularly given the spectacle of your speech last night. You really are full of yourself. But I truly hope that this little talk does do you some good down the way, because something is going to have to change in you or we are doomed for at least the next three years.

RUSH: Now, this Tim Tebow thing. Tim Tebow, you all know the story, Tim Tebow's mother was advised to abort him late in her pregnancy because there was a threat to her life. She decided to have the baby and the baby is Tim Tebow. He's a Heisman Trophy candidate this year, a big prospect in the National Football League and a genuine, all-around good kid. So Focus on the Family's ponied up two or $3 million, whatever the cost is for a 30-second spot in the Super Bowl to tell their story. I haven't seen the ad and I don't know the text but that's the basic theme, and all of a sudden the NAGs... and I knew heads were going to explode. I knew heads were going to explode over this, and the NAGs have come along and proved my point that I've been making since 1988. I can remember when I first started making this point. Everybody got mad at me like they always do.

"How can you say that? How can you think that! It's just so extreme." What I've been saying all along is that if they have a chance to stop a birth and cause an abortion, they'll do it. If you have an abortion clinic very close by to a counseling place where women can go to be talked out of an abortion, the Planned Parenthood people will actually try to intercept those women and get 'em in to have the abortion. The NAGs, the National Association of Gals, have actually opposed this ad. They want CBS to not run this ad. CBS had already approved it. Their objection is, "We really think this is divisive. On a day when we all come together for the Super Bowl, why do something that will divide us?" What are they afraid of? What are they afraid of? What in the world could possibly be wrong with them telling this story? Why do they feel threatened?

"If pro-choice is pro-choice, well, the mother had a choice. She chose birth!" They should be happy. But see, this proves that pro-choice is not pro-choice. It's pro-abort. And the stories that I saw on this actually refer to these people as "pro-abortionists," and that's exactly what they are. I know this is an uncomfortable subject for people because it's so deeply personal, and it delves into people thinking that people want to tell them what to do with their bodies. It really isn't that. It's just people trying to make the case for the sanctity of life and pointing out that pro-choice is not pro-choice. I mean, when I saw that the NAGs were pressuring CBS to not run this ad after committing to it and after approving it? Why? What are they so afraid of? Ask yourself. What is so threatening to the pro-choice crowd to have this story told during the Super Bowl? It answers itself: A successful baby taken to term where an abortion was suggested threatens the political nature of their cause -- and make no mistake: Abortion is not about a woman's right to choose. Abortion is not about freedom. Abortion is not about any of these things that they use to describe it. It's liberalism, folks, and liberals lie. Abortion is about advancing liberalism. Abortion is simply taking an event in someone's life and being the people that make the decision for a woman. It is sick, and the people that are on that side are just liberals. And I know it sounds easy to say. "Rush, is everybody that's a liberal bad?" Yes, folks! I mean, it's not a gray area here. This is black and white, and the sooner a lot of people understand this, believe me, the better off this country and our future will be.

RUSH: Here's the official story -- this from LifeNews.com on the Tim Tebow story. What I want to get is the statement from Jehmu Greene, president of the Women's Media Center. She said: "An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year -- an event designed to bring Americans together." An ad that uses sports to divide? Would somebody explain to me what is divisive about a mother and son, who was almost aborted, but the mother decided to take the dangerous pregnancy to term? What in the world is divisive about that kind of a wonderful story? What in the world is divisive? Who are these people? Who the hell are they to oppose a message that promotes life? You understand these are the kind of people you support if you run around and tell yourself you're pro-choice. These people are not pro-choice. This proves it. Tim Tebow's mom made a choice. She took the risk against the odds given to her by doctors. She wanted to have her baby, she did, and now look, it's Tim Tebow. This bunch of people, the NAGs say this is divisive and it's being used to divide people in a day where we all come together. What do you mean where we all come together? You think Saints fans and Colts fans are coming together here on the Super Bowl? This is typical liberal crap, jargon and syntax, lexicon.

These people, I'll tell you, better understand something: Pro-choice is not pro-choice, and this proves it. I have sought to illustrate this in countless ways over the past more than 20 years, and every time I've done it, "You're so politically incorrect, you're so insensitive. You can't tell a woman what to do with her own body." I would never. I would just try to get to somebody's heart about the sanctity of life. But we do tell women what they can and can't do with their own bodies. It's called prostitution laws and a number of other things. So that specious argument you can throw out the window, too.

RUSH: Kim in Jacksonville, Florida, welcome to the program. Great to have you here.

CALLER: I've been listening to you since I was 15 years old and I'm 35. I just adore you. Anyway, I'm sure you get that a lot. So we'll move on.

CALLER: (giggling) I think... I really do. I just think you are so great, you're so insightful and you say this stuff that I think people need to be saying. So I just love you for that. But the reason that I'm calling is about the football player commercial. I can't remember the guy's name. It's slipped my mind.

CALLER: Yes, him. Okay. The problem with the situation is that, you know, the liberals don't want people to be educated. They do not want people to understand that if you go out and you have an abortion, you could potentially be murdering an excellent human being. They don't want that out there.

CALLER: They don't want you to know that the person, that the baby that you're killing could be awesome. You know?

RUSH: Let me tell you something, Kim. You've been listening for 20 years so you know. I've been trying to convince as many people as possible that the pro-choice movement is nothing to do with choice, and they're just illustrating it here.

CALLER: No. It has everything to do with the exploitation of women. This is coming... You know, I've listened to you forever but let me tell you: When it came to abortion, I was a feminazi. I totally supported abortion. Now, after looking at the science and everything else, there is no way that you can look at the science on abortion and see the life cycle of a human being and tell me that that is not a child.

RUSH: Right. You got a heartbeat very early on. You get a heartbeat and you get a brainstem very early on. It's not an unviable tissue mass. But don't discount the fact that there's a lot of money riding on this. These pro-abort people make a lot of money. Always follow the money, always factor the money into any of these kind of things and you'll find an answer. Greg in Durham, North Carolina, I have about a minute and a half here, I wanted to get to you, though.

CALLER: Brother Limbaugh, thank you and Mr. Levin for keeping me sane in the last year and a half.

CALLER: I appreciate it. Thank God for you, Rush, and what you're doing. My job as caller is to make the host look good.

CALLER: There are about 50 things I'd like to talk to you but let me say this: Wasn't it just a couple years ago that some feminist group said that Super Bowl Sunday was a day of violence against women? Now is that a double standard or was that divisive?

RUSH: It was false. It was a totally made up statistic. It was longer than a couple years ago, and you're exactly right. But there's a piece de resistance type of information associated with that, and I can't remember it. It was the same group that had accused me of doing something, I believe, that was also fallacious. But it's just a bogus group of people with a fax machine and a logo and they send this stuff out to their compatriots in the Drive-By Media, and it just got published because it fit a template. "Oh, yeah! Men are brutes. Men are predators. And men beat up women -- especially on Super Bowl Sunday." It was all about advancing a political cause.

RUSH: To Karna in Naples, Florida. I am so happy that you let us call you back. You better start at the beginning. You were in Washington at a party during the Obama administration, right?

CALLER: Well, that's right. It was some weeks ago, Rush, and I was really amazed to be invited since I did work for six years in the Reagan White House. (laughing)

CALLER: Well, it actually, to explain, it was one of those evenings where they had a musical performance, and PBS does come in and, as they've been doing for all administrations, they tape these performances and then they show them later.

CALLER: Well, this was the Hispanic heritage evening, and the talent was great. It was Jose Feliciano.

CALLER: That group. The only reason I was there is I happened to serve on the board of the local PBS station that produces the show.

CALLER: So just a couple of us were invited. So I decided to go, course, and I'm walking around. You know, it's a nice event at the White House, so I go in there, and I'm walking around, through the East Room and during cocktails, and they had a few cabaret tables there, I thought, "Well, gee, I don't know anybody," obviously. So I thought I should be social. So I go over and I see a couple of empty chairs, so I sit down next to this very nice gentleman and lady, and I say, "What's your connection to this event?" And he says, "Well, Michelle's social secretary is my client." "Hmm. How is that?" And he said, "Well, I do her hair. Turns out he has a salon in the Upper East Side there no New York, he employs 22 stylists."

RUSH: Wait, wait. I want to understand. He does the hair of the social secretary?

CALLER: So he's there, and so we get to talking about tough economic times and all of that. And I looked at him, I said, "You know, this administration could really use some people like you," and he stared at me, absolutely dumbfounded. He said, "Well, what do you mean?" And I said, "Well, look, when you look at the entire senior White House staff and the entire cabinet, there is not one person who ever ran as much as a candy store. You're a small businessman. You hire, fire, worry about profit and loss, all the rest of it." The guy's just staring at me. Well, at that point, Rush, I couldn't resist. I got into a whole contrast between Obama and Reagan's economic policies. Both inherited a bad economy and all of that. So he's looking at me, and I said, "Look, let's go back. Reagan's answer was the 25% tax cuts in marginal rates across the board and getting it with a Democratic Congress. Getting government out of our lives. You know, he cut some 40,000 pages of regulations from the Federal Register," all that sort of thing. "The result? 7.7% growth in GDP the following year, eventually 18 million new jobs, a 27% expansion of GDP. You know, and eventually, years later, the elimination of the deficit through economic expansion.

CALLER: "Now, versus Obama: The spending, the deficits, more than all presidents combined." We're going on about this and I said, "Look, if you had taken all the bailouts, the stimulus, the Cash for Clunkers, the 22% increase in spending for the agencies -- well, now I haven't run the numbers, but imagine if all that money had been used for across-the-board tax cuts," and as you said in an earlier segment, "a reduction in the capital gains tax and the corporate tax rate. Where would we be today?" And I asked him. I said, "You know, I'll bet in your small business, you could really use a permanent tax cut." He said, "Oh, for sure. Especially a payroll tax cut," and he said, "You know, I bet I could even hire two more stylists." So I said, "Well, why don't you put a bug in the ear of your client." (laughing)

RUSH: Well, well, I just happened to get some numbers. While you were relaying this story, we have some specifics here on the business tax break that Barry is going to propose tonight. This from Bloomberg: "Obama tonight will propose extending through 2010 a temporary tax incentive that encourages businesses to accelerate purchases of equipment. Obama will call for a renewal of the 50% so-called bonus depreciation in the state of [Obama] speech to the nation. Extending the break, which expired December 31st, would save companies that make purchases of equipment like tractors and wind turbines, solar panels and computers a total of..." (snorts) What's that going to accomplish?

CALLER: Rush, he's talking temporary. You know, all of this just shows such a terrific misunderstanding -- not understanding at all, as we know -- of the private sector. You know, Rush, you probably saw that great comparison that came around a while ago about the cabinets, comparing Teddy Roosevelt on through today and what percentage had private sector experience.

CALLER: Remember that? You know, Truman had 50%, Eisenhower 57%, Reagan 56%. Obama has a stunning 8%. I think it's a lawyer or something.

CALLER: And in his book, Obama -- I didn't read it but I heard about it -- reportedly refers to a few years that he had working in the private sector as feeling like he was "behind enemy lines."

RUSH: Yes, yes, I have quoted that. And he's also talked about he was motivated to get into politics by getting rid of Reagan and his minions.

RUSH: So this is not accidental. This is not naivete. And this temporary tax break, this is designed to fool people he thinks are stupid who are going to think that he's changing course here. Buy equipment? Wind turbines? I got a story about wind turbines in the stack that I can't wait to get to. But all this for businesses to buy temporary equipment like hair dryers, if you have a hair salon and so forth.

CALLER: Exactly. And he's talking about a few temporary cuts for small business. Now, we just saw this morning some headlines: Verizon is cutting 13,000 jobs on Monday; Walmart Sam's Club cutting 11,000 jobs.

CALLER: Really, really, Rush, it's just unbelievable. There's a disconnect, a complete tone deafness or something. He doesn't want to listen to the American people.

RUSH: Uhhhh, I don't think it's tone deafness. I think it is ideological stubbornness.

CALLER: Well, that's true but, you know, I talked about Reagan a minute ago. I remembered a great quote even from Francois Mitterrand. What he said was, "It isn't just that Reagan was a Great Communicator, though he was that, but that he is in communion with the American people." That was the difference.

RUSH: Well, that's exactly right, and Obama is at odds with the American people. All radicals are. All liberals are at odds. All liberals have to govern against the will of the people. It is the extreme leftists who imprison people in dungeons. It is the extreme left which tortures people. Hitler was a man of the left by virtue of his social policies any which way you care to measure it. The US Senate and the House, the Democrats are running against the will of the people. Learn it, love it, live it.

CALLER: I've been in the back row of the institute for quite a few years now and I've never had the opportunity to raise my hand, but it seems to me at some point you said that we need to argue with the premise of an argument before we begin to argue. And you had a couple of cuts on earlier today, Reich was one of them, and he said that somehow that the government and society are intertwined --

CALLER: Well, let's say that you and I are out in the playground playing marbles and we're like-minded, and we want to accomplish the same task. And a disagreement comes up, and so what we do is, we go get the teacher, right? That's government. That's my impression. I own a small business. That's my impression of what government does. I think the two are, frankly, opposed to one another. And as you increase one you squeeze the other one out. So when Karna called, brilliant, by the way, but when she called, she talked about how Reagan was in communion with the American people. These folks in power now are out of communion completely with the --

CALLER: That's it. That's it. And so my point is that this society, or the Great Society, as Johnson might have said, does not come from government at all. We are in opposition to, we stand juxtaposed to government, not with it.

CALLER: And so therefore when we engage in the argument somehow that society and government are the same thing, I think that we set ourselves up for failure.

RUSH: Exactly. You know, I couldn't agree with you more. In fact, one of my big pet peeves is that we too often make the mistake -- the Republican Party does -- of accepting a premise and then disagreeing with it at the margins. The premise, for example, that we need massive, meaningful health care reform. Okay, this has been advanced as something that we have to do, it just can't wait, even though the Democrats been trying to do it for, what, hundred years, 50 years. Okay, their premise is that only the government can fix it and we need legislation, gotta get a bill, we've got to get a bill. There are certainly things in the health care system that need to be reformed but the real reform that would work would be to get as much government out of it as possible. So don't accept the premise that government has to fix it. You accept the premise that government is breaking it. It's too complicated and it might anger people. Republicans look at a lot of people thinking that government is their salvation and they just don't want to take the time to teach it like Karna did with that hairstylist at the White House. Karna is a great example of when I say, "Be the smartest person in your family. Be the go-to person when somebody doesn't understand something about economics or politics, you can explain it."

CALLER: It's a pleasure to talk with you. I don't know if you've talked about the Toyota issue very much, but I read an article in the Wall Street Journal of where the Obama administration had talked with Toyota and they had put the onus on Toyota to do something about this (quote, unquote) "problem" with the gas pedal sticking and all that good stuff that's going on. I sold Toyota for the last six years prior. I'm not selling anymore. I know several people in the business, including service managers that have worked on them for years. I've never had one customer complain. I've never seen it. The service manager said that it's impossible for them to go in and recreate the situation that's causing the gas pedal to stick.

CALLER: Well, Toyota is recalling them to change them, and the only reason they're doing that is to preempt the government from doing more. Now, I know I'm not a Toyota executive, but I worked in Toyota and I know how they work, and they want to be aboveboard no matter what's going on. They want to have the best attitude and look the best they can to their customers by saying, "Okay, we don't even know if there's really a major problem but we're going to recall them."

RUSH: In the midst of this, they're offering potential customers a $1,000 rebate if they'd get rid of their Toyota and come buy an Obamamobile.

CALLER: That's exactly right. That goes to my main point: You know, this Government Motors that we own now still can't sell cars. They're still losing major money because they're bending over backwards for the unions. They're crying about jobs not being created, yet they're trying their best to cause Toyota to lose jobs in the United States, and then they just happened to have all these commercials ready to go for national television saying, "Well, you bring your Toyota in to us and we'll give you an extra thousand dollars for it." Don't tell me that this is not planned out and that Obama didn't know. He knows exactly what he's doing, and this is just another nail in the coffin, hopefully, in 2012 when he runs again, and people have enough of this and they're just sick of it. It just infuriated me.

RUSH: I can tell. I can hear it. I can hear the infuriation in your voice. I can hear it. I'm trained that way and I can tell that you're angry. I can also see that Honda is going to recall 640,000 cars. I don't know what the reason for it is. I'll find out. But your theory is it would be to keep Obama off their back.

RUSH: Here's the Honda story on the recall of 646,000 cars. It's the Honda Fit. There are 140,000 of them in the United States. "The Fit is Honda's best-selling model in Japan. Honda said the recall was to fix a defective master switch, which could cause water to enter the power window switch and in some cases cause a fire. There were three reported cases of fires due to the defect, two in the United States and one in South Africa..."

Anyway... I wonder how, ladies and gentlemen, former Vice President Algore felt today to awaken and find out that on his global warming team is none other than -- Dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut! -- Osama Bin Laden. "Osama Bin Laden," on his own network, al-Jazeera, "Deplores Climate Change -- Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader, has condemned the US and other industrial economies, holding them responsible for the phenomenon of climate change." (laughing) I mean, we gotta give him a Nobel Prize! (interruption) Yeah, Israel's in there, too. We have to sign this guy up for a Nobel Peace Prize. He should be a joint recipient. I mean, he has the same view on this that Algore has and the United Nations' IPCC, whatever the hell that group is. The Interplanetary Alien Whatever, I don't know. It's the fraud bunch.

Now, you would think that Bin Laden would be grateful for a warmer world because he lives in a cave. He lives in a freezing cave somewhere on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. But every day, folks, I'm telling you... This is so rich. I love this. Every day it gets harder and harder to tell Bin Laden's complaints from those of the average, run-of-the-mill leftists like Obama or Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi or the entire Democrat Party. I mean, every time Osama realizes a tape it's just Democrat talking points. Or maybe they're getting their talking points from him. "In an audio tape obtained by Al Jazeera," it was probably hand-delivered, "bin Laden criticized George Bush, the former US president, for rejecting the Kyoto pact and condemned global corporations."

(laughing) Okay: Blame Bush? Check. "'This is a message to the whole world about those responsible for climate change and its repercussions -- whether intentionally or unintentionally -- and about the action we must take,' bin Laden said." (laughing) We! Must! Take! (laughing) "Speaking about climate change..." This is a guy who lives in the seventh century! "'Speaking about climate change is not a matter of intellectual luxury -- the phenomenon is an actual fact.'" Okay: Global warming is settled science? Check. "In the new recording, bin Laden says 'all the industrial states' are to blame for climate change, 'yet the majority of those states have signed the Kyoto Protocol and agreed to curb the emission of harmful gases'.

"He continued: 'However, George Bush junior," (laughing) "preceded by (the US) [C]ongress, dismissed the agreement to placate giant corporations. And they are themselves standing behind speculation, monopoly and soaring living costs." (laughing) Does this not sound like an average Democrat? It sounds like this could easily be Russ Feingold, the Senator from Wisconsin. "'They are also behind 'globalization and its tragic implications'. And whenever the perpetrators are found guilty, the heads of state rush to rescue them using public money.'" Okay: Blame the US and greedy, evil corporations? Check. Check. This is right off the Democrat Party playbook. Bin Laden has become an environmentalist! "In the new recording, bin Laden said: 'Noam Chomsky (the US academic and political commentator) was correct when he compared the US policies to those of the Mafia."

Okay: Cites Noam Chomsky? Check. The only thing I'd ask is: Why didn't he cite Saul Alinsky? I mean, more people probably know who Saul Alinsky is now than Chomsky. Anyway, "They are the true terrorists and therefore we should refrain from dealing in the US dollar and should try to get rid of this currency as early as possible. 'I am certain that such actions will have grave repercussions and huge impact.'" So: Calls America "the true terrorists" and wants a boycott against the US dollar? Check. Check. It's right off the Democrat Party talking points. "While continuing to attack America, bin Laden's comments mark a shift from his earlier, more regionally focused commentary. In his previous tape, bin Laden warned that there would be further attacks on the US unless Barack Obama ... took steps to resolve the Palestinian conflict."

Oh, Palestinian conflict? Yes. Forget that. That's passe because Obama said: I can't fix it; that's too "hard." So: Now climate change is where it's at? Check. Maybe Osama wants a government grant. That's right. Why not, since we're about to put a chicken in every pot and a car bomb in every garage in Afghanistan? (chuckling) Don't you remember, folks, we told you the other day that the administration is studying very seriously an idea put forward by Hamid Karzai to float $100 million to the Taliban, under the theory that they're poor and if we just give 'em some money that they'll abandon their terrorist activities? And Gordon Brown, the prime minister of the UK, is already in line to do this. So if we join here, we have a new way to fight our enemy. So we'll put a chicken in every pot and a car bomb in every garage in Afghanistan, plus build the garages to put the cars and car bombs in. Then they've love us for sure, right?

Now, "The Obama administration dismissed bin Laden's comments on the earlier tape and said intelligence analysts had not confirmed that the voice was that of bin Laden." Wait a minute, now. This can't be. This is the piece de resistance! Is Obama actually now starting to throw doubts on whether bin Laden is alive? "The Obama..." (muttering) Obama "analysts had not confirmed the voice was that of bin Laden." What's that? What's that? Bin Laden may be dead? Is that going to be the lame excuse now for not finding him after more than a year? Do you realize, ladies and gentlemen, that every time we learn something -- every time something happens with global warming -- I just eat it up because it's a hoax? There's nothing better than the world's foremost terrorist citing almost verbatim the talking points of Algore, the UN climate change organization, that stupid bunch at the East Anglia University, and every liberal Democrat and activist in this country!

I say, I wonder how...? See, even Bin Laden realizes that global warming is about destroying the US economy -- and along with it, capitalism and Western civilization in general. So our #1 enemy is actually urging us to do the same thing the American left is doing, from the White House on down. So Bin Laden promotes "decapitate" and trade, which we conservatives also oppose. This is another reason that we think Obama -- Osama! Osama! If I have said "Obama" meaning "Osama," you know what I meant. How many times have I done that? (interruption) A lot? (interruption) Okay. Well, you know what I meant. It's one consonant in there that's confusing me a little bit. Now, along the lines here of this, there are two stories today. A bunch of scientists are panicked over why the temperature of the globe is cooling as much as 25%.

They have discovered it now: Up there at a certain level of the atmosphere, there's water vapor depreciation. There's not as much water vapor. Now, for those of you who are regular listeners to this program, you know that the number one contributor to the whole concept of global warming is not CO2. It is water vapor. Water vapor accounts for over 90% of that which keeps the planet warm. So there's a decrease of it up there in the atmosphere. But they said, "It doesn't matter! It just doesn't matter because it's still warming. But this explains it. It's not sunspots; it's water vapor." So somebody is going to have to wake up Bin Laden today. He's got a very, very slow Internet connection, I guess. I don't think he's heard about the hoax at East Anglia University.

I don't think he's heard about the hoax involving the Himalayan glaciers. I don't think he's heard about the hoax. So he's obviously working on a seventh century Internet connection as well. But somebody's going to have to wake him up and give him this bad news about water vapor; that it's not the US -- unless somebody can make the case that we are destroying the water vapor. I wouldn't want to be the guy to have to wake him up and tell him. And joyous Reuters today: "US Formally Embraces a Copenhagen Climate Deal." Again, I don't think Osama's getting the latest news updates before he puts his words to tape. Now, this is a toothless thing. "Washington said they're going to embrace the Copenhagen accord, setting nonbinding goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions that was negotiated last month."

Landrieu gives a little straight talk about why healthcare is dead (in her opinion):

Since there are some links you may want to go back to from time-to-time, I am going to begin a list of them here. This will be a list to which I will add links each week.

The National Journal, which is a political journal (which, at first glance, seems to be pretty even-handed):

And I am hoping that most people see this as non-partisan: Citizens Against Government Waste:

This website reveals a lot of information about politicians and their relationship to money. You can find out, among other things, how many earmarks that Harry Reid has been responsible for in any given year; or how much an individual Congressman’s wealth has increased or decreased since taking office.

This is an outstanding website which tells the truth about Obama-care and about what the mainstream media is hiding from you:

Politico.com is a fairly neutral site (or, at the very worst, just a little left of center). They have very good informative videos at:

On Obama (if you have not visited this site, you need to check it out). He is selling a DVD on this site as well called Media Malpractice; I have not viewed it yet, except pieces which I have seen played on tv and on the internet. It looks pretty good to me.

Conservative Review
Issue #112	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	January 31, 2010