by Mark Silva
A little more than one month into office and one-trillion dollars deep into federal action on a struggling economy, President Barack Obama tonight will address a joint session of Congress - and the nation - with an appeal for unity and promise of hope.
The new president's premier speech to the House and Senate at 9 pm EST is not a State of the Union address, but one television network already is billing it as a "Fate of the Union'' appeal in an era of economic crisis: Rising unemployment, sinking stock prices, rampant home mortgage foreclosures and a crippling credit crunch.
The president is expected to tout the actions that his young administration and a Democratic-led Congress already have taken: Including the $787-billion economic stimulus that he signed four weeks in office and nearly $300 billion of federal assistance for the mortgage market and homeowners facing foreclosure or slumping home values that his Treasury Department has initiated.
And he is certain to signal the next steps that he is taking: Starting with his proposal of a new federal budget for 2010 later this week - a $3-trillion-plus spending plan for the year ahead - that will mark the start of a commitment to cut the budget deficit in half by the end of Obama's four-year term.
That annual deficit, estimated at $1.3 trillion when Obama took office, can be cut to $533 billion by 2013, the White House says - though even that figure surpasses the record deficits reached during the administration of former President George W. Bush.
In the midst of all this, aides say, Obama will highlight the progress possible in education, energy, healthcare and other fields with the billions of dollars that the government is investing in the $787-billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Obama also promises that 3.5 million jobs can be created or saved with the work that this stimulus will sponsor.
Voicing a sense of hope - a promise that the nation's best days still lie ahead - will be critical to the speech of a president who, at the same time, is determined to confront the real hardship that many Americans are facing and government solutions for it.
Obama, who reached across party lines from the start of his administration, also will attempt to revive a bipartisan appeal that has been lost in the debate over the stimulus - with no Republican members of the House and only three Republican members of the Senate supporting the massive stimulus spending bill passed.
At a White House summit this week, Obama pointed to one of his most outspoken critics in the House, Republican Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, and vowed, with a smile, that one day Cantor will proclaim that "Obama had a good idea.'' Cantor smiled.
The president, who has taken his appeal to the street in recent weeks with cross-country travel spotlighting his stimulus and housing plans, will stand before Congress with substantial public support: 63 percent of those surveyed by the Gallup Poll voicing approval of the job Obama was performing one month into office.
Today, that measure of the daily survey that Gallup has run since the start of Obama's term stands at 62 percent approval.
That 62 percent represents the average approval rating for several recent presidents one-month into office, but also a five-point slide for Obama since his starting day - with increasing criticism coming from the most conservative Republicans.
Convincing his most conservative critics - and particularly Republican members of Congress who have lined up against the administration's stimulus spending - that he is committed to the theme of a summit on "fiscal responsibility'' staged at the White House this week is one of Obama's immediate challenges.
But his longer-range challenge will be maintaining public support for the government's initiatives to combat a recession that already has delivered the highest unemployment since 1993 and the lowest stock prices since 1997. The stock market slump has resulted in a 50-percent loss in the values of stocks that comprise the core of many Americans' personal retirement funds.
Tonight's speech, with a potentially sizable national television viewing audience, marks his first major chance to make his best case that what his administration is doing will work.
Comments
President Obama...are you listening to Rick Santelli? If you are not, you should be!
Posted by: Sue | February 24, 2009 8:24 AM
Mark, since you love polls, here's the latest Rasmussen Poll (via USA Today), showing voters have little confidence in Your Messiah's housing bailout. http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2009/2/23/rasmussen-poll-americans-dislike-obama-housing-plan.html
Yet another poll result for David Axelrod and The Swamp to hide.
Posted by: Bruce | February 24, 2009 8:32 AM
Just how far down the spiral did the Soviet Union plunge before they declared bankruptcy and went out of existence?
Posted by: don | February 24, 2009 9:03 AM
Rick Santelli..........there's a brilliant economist. We should all listen to him. Ricks' embarrassing diatribe at the expense of the American people made me realize that these Wall Street frat boys still don't get it. America is sick and tired of the riches they have manipulated out of the system and then be lectured by people who make more money than 100 middle class workers put together. The next time I want advice on how to live I'll be sure to ask a man who was deeply involved in "derivatives."
Posted by: bill r. | February 24, 2009 9:06 AM
No more important speech than one that sets the tone on policy and direction for what could potentially be years.The recession and general economic crisis is not going away anytime soon, so Obama's fix as defined tonight will be the way forward indefinitely.
And to avoid a market meltdown, Obama will need to give out more details than he's accustomed to
http://www.political-buzz.com/
Posted by: matt | February 24, 2009 9:10 AM
Barak "Herbert Hoover" Obama surely will set us on the right path to borrow trillions of dollars from our friends the Chinese and the Arabs so we can "spread the wealth around." Our children's children will love him more than we do.
Posted by: Homer | February 24, 2009 9:10 AM
Please Sue. I wouldn't want the President listening to any TV blowhards, whether it be Santelli, Bill O'Reilly, or Keith Olberman. Bad idea!
Posted by: Flo | February 24, 2009 9:16 AM
President Obama please realize people voted you in for CHANGE maybe Chris Mathews was numb and tingling but the rest of were not - we wanted CHANGE - REAL CHANGE.
President Obama please prove to the WORKING PEOPLE of this country who are taking the hits big time as usual that you're not going to sit back and let government bask in the status quo of undeserved relative economic bliss at the expense of the WORKING PEOPLE.
REWARD THE WORKING PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY by cutting government to at least a balanced budget in 2011 and then a 500 billion surplus by his LAST YEAR in office.
EVERYONE ELSE WITH A MODICUM OF COMMON SENSE IS SUCCEEDING IN AMERICA TODAY BY FOLLOWING THIS SIMPLE ADVICE.
President Obama it's not your sparkling personality that made you president it was your promise of hope and change. We're willing and ready so please get the 15 trillion dollar gorilla off our backs.
It's gonna look real good for you in 2012 if you do.
Posted by: R Keane | February 24, 2009 9:16 AM
2003
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago... Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry...
...The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the ...Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” ...Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
Feb. 2004
Mr. Greenspan said that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy up and repackage billions of dollars' worth of mortgages every year, have grown so rapidly and accumulated so much debt that they cannot adequately hedge against the risks of financial crises... The Fed chairman said both companies, which hold about $2 trillion worth of obligations tied to home mortgages, have grown much faster than their competitors because investors think the federal government will bail them out in a crisis.
2005 John McCain:
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
Former Clinton Budget Director and FNMA CEO Franklin Raines made $90 million.
Clinton Deputy Attorney General and FNMA Vice Chair Jamie Gorelick made $26 million.
Kerry adviser and FNMA vice-chair James Johnson pulled down $21 million -- in one year.
Moreover, FNMA's secretive "Countrywide program" gave special loans to connected individuals including the Democratic Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Sen. Christopher Dodd, and the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Democrat Kent Conrad.
Now consider: two of Barack Obama's key financial advisers are -- yep, you guessed it -- Franklin Raines and James Johnson.
Tonight, the President of the United States is going to tell America that he inherited this crisis, that it was the fault of the Bush administration. He will be lying.
Posted by: Greg | February 24, 2009 9:25 AM
Posted by: Greg | February 24, 2009 9:25 AM
Ah the great revisionist. Yep 2003, 2004, 2005 all those years of complete control of government by the republicans. I guess I would try and alter the blame if I were republican too. It is embarrassing. Raines and Johnson huh?...you must have listened to the now debunked report of Diana West that they were advisors.....who's lying now?
Posted by: bill r. | February 24, 2009 9:41 AM
Obama has made mistake after mistake in his short term as president. The only reason his poll ratings are relatively high is because the fawning media don't hammer him daily as they did Bush. He's tripled the national budget deficit, appointed tax cheaters to his Cabinet, wasted literally millions of dollars in photo ops across the country, and introduced a national downer with his constant crisis/catastrophe rhetoric. Bill Clinton had it right: Obama's got to get his act together and begin talking up America instead of ripping it constantly.
Posted by: Derrick | February 24, 2009 10:06 AM
Obama has made mistake after mistake in his short term as president. The only reason his poll ratings are relatively high is because the fawning media don't hammer him daily as they did Bush. He's tripled the national budget deficit, appointed tax cheaters to his Cabinet, wasted literally millions of dollars in photo ops across the country, and introduced a national downer with his constant crisis/catastrophe rhetoric. Bill Clinton had it right: Obama's got to get his act together and begin talking up America instead of ripping it constantly.
Posted by: Derrick | February 24, 2009 10:06 AM
Greg,Democrats were not chairmen of committees then; Republicans were. So who's really lying? And you've totally left out Bush's Ownership Society of 2003-2004.
Posted by: Flo | February 24, 2009 10:12 AM
The only conclusion I draw is that the President is capable of lying to the American people in order to get his spending justified.
The rest is just a history lesson.
Raimes and Johnson were among the largest doners to the Obama campaign, but they didn't advise. Ayres was just an acquaintance. Obama casually knew Rezco.
These were only debunked if you still worship the Chosen One. For the thinking population, we will remain skeptical.
Posted by: Greg | February 24, 2009 10:41 AM
Do I give a merd? I'm not listening. I want the nation to go down! So does God!
Posted by: Harold Reimann | February 24, 2009 11:11 AM
Yes we can - yes we will - change we can believe in- is that what we are going to hear tonight ? Folks go out to dinner and a movie....skip this sideshow . The glorious oratory is not enough and this stimulus bill will bankrupt us and do nothing to help those who really need it.
Posted by: junglejim123 | February 24, 2009 11:18 AM
The options traders Santelli was rabble rousing are the very people who created this mess. Options traders, Maddoff, wall street,... all crooks who have never done an honest day's work!
Posted by: Reality | February 24, 2009 11:28 AM
Posted by: junglejim123 | February 24, 2009 11:18 AM
Yes...I miss the good ole' days when we held our breath to see if our president could put a string of words together that actually made sense. I agree with you...speaking is overrated.
Posted by: bill r. | February 24, 2009 11:42 AM
Greg, You note a number of facts and lies together that point out absolutely nothing. Bush and the Republicans were at the ships helm for the last eight years. They doubled the deficit with Cheney saying deficits don't matter. Now it is all Obama's fault after being in office for what, six weeks. Do you think before you write? Can you reason or just spit back Rush lies.
Posted by: pd | February 24, 2009 11:43 AM
I smoked the HOPIUM, and now I see what a mistake it was to trust the government to this DOLT!
Barack H. Obama = Jiummy Carter 2.0!
Really. The. Worst. President. Ever.
(and it's only been a month!)
Posted by: Mal | February 24, 2009 12:48 PM
I smoked the HOPIUM, and now I see what a mistake it was to trust the government to this DOLT!
Barack H. Obama = Jimmy Carter 2.0!
Really. The. Worst. President. Ever.
(and it's only been a month!)
Posted by: Mal | February 24, 2009 12:48 PM
Aaah, the dulcet tones of fearmongering.
Hope and change, baby. Hope and change.
Posted by: Vast Right Wing Conspirator | February 24, 2009 12:53 PM
Read that House Dems unveiled $410 billion spending bill to keep the gov running, an 8% increase from last year. Didn't they increase their office budgets by $93k in the porkulous bill? So much for fiscal discipline -- oh that's right, that discipline is just for the little people. Save you speeches Mr. President, get a handle on the spending in your own back yard.
Posted by: vla | February 24, 2009 1:05 PM
After reading the comments, blaming one Political side and not the other, blaming one President and no-one else, blaming Wall Street - not the people or the Politicians, I thought I'd do a search for what is believed to be the start of this mess so hit the link, read, and stop with the trash. Actually keep up the trash because it's fun to read. It shows how indoctrinated some are in believing anything these lying Politicians will say.
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=fannie+mae+1990's+expand&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
The search was: fannie mae 1990's expand
Posted by: PG | February 24, 2009 1:16 PM
Sue, Rick Santelli was very quiet when Wall Street was being bailed out. Where was his outrage then?
I suggest you don't listen to tv blowhards, as someone else has also said.
Posted by: Roger | February 24, 2009 1:59 PM
I have a quick question for Mr. Silva.
In the story, you wrote that the "annual deficit, estimated at $1.3 trillion when Obama took office, can be cut to $533 billion by 2013 ... though even that figure surpasses the record deficits reached during the [Bush] administration."
If President Obama inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit doesn't that mean it once belonged to former President Bush? If that's the case then how can a $533 billion deficit be worse than one at $1.33 trillion?
Math isn't my strong suit, so I apologize in advance if the answer to this question is painfully obvious.
Posted by: Michael Sebastian | February 24, 2009 3:28 PM
It is really a debatable issue regarding what category it should come under. But under normal circumstances, the property is sure to command a high rate of rent.
Posted by: Yellowstone Lodging | March 19, 2009 3:56 AM