FTR... "All nine Supreme Court justices sitting stunned"... I don't see Stevens, Scalia or Thomas there. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef0120a81ae029970b-600wi

Another carefully curated selection of examples by "lifelong democrat" TVD that somehow manages to make the Republican responses to the speech appear reasonable and deserved. A tall order, but this columnist seems skilled at putting an erudite polish on Fox news talking points.

When you see the Republicans sitting on their hands when tax cuts, spending freezes, and other perennial right-wing policy favorites are mentioned, it's hard to interpret it as anything but sour obstructionist partisanship. And please stop pretending they had no opportunity to contribute to the health care plan. They had it. They didn't want it. Their own so-called health care plan (like their recovery plan) is a joke. If Baucus and the Democrats hadn't got bogged down in a charade of bipartisanship with senators spouting "death panel" talking points in their spare time, we would have passed a stronger bill already.

The Republican party you remember is no more. We can't have bipartisan legislation with so few moderates left in the Republican party, especially when those remaining are running scared from tea-baggers and purity oaths.

Mr. Van Dyk, as a ostensible veteran Washington observer, surely you should know that the Joint Chiefs never applaud or react during presidential state of the union speeches. They refrain from such reactions because they must do their jobs in a strictly nonpartisan fashion and obey the orders of both Democratic and Republican presidents. Please assure us you knew that but just forgot.

Thanks for the early comments. I presently am on jury duty and will
respond to later comments at the close of the day Thursday.

Yes, I have been a lifelong and active Democrat but would do a disservice to readers if I offered formulaic partisan responses to issues and events.
During my long involvements in national government and politics, I always
gave objective assessments to presidents, presidential candidates, and colleagues. I will continue to do the same for readers. If they find my comments insufficiently partisan, they should turn to more partisan information sources.

Of course I know that members of the Joint Chiefs applaud no State of Union speeches. I did not state otherwise but noted that Democratic Senators around them were standing in applause. The Joint Chiefs' faces and body language made quite clear their reactions.

I should have added that I found Obama's direct criticism of the Supreme Court's recent decision on campaign finance to be puzzling. Challenging the court frontally and in a national setting is about like challenging Mother Nature. Moreover, as a onetime constitutional scholar, the President knows about the separation of powers and about lines that
normally are not crossed. One way or another, Obama will pay a price down the line for this action.

For at least the last ten years, the Supreme Court has been activist and partisan. Obama is just acknowledging reality.

Van Dyke: He also made the dubious claim that his stimulus package had kept "2 million working who would otherwise have been unemployed."

So what is the correct number? Are you suggesting it's possible to spend $787 billion and not affect employment? Did it all fall through the cracks or wind up in the pockets of schemers? Is the government's tracking board lieing when it says (see RECOVERY.GOV at http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx) that 640,000 jobs had been created or saved as of 10/30/09 with more than half the money not yet awarded, or if awarded, many projects were still on the way to completion? Are three of the ten biggest projects (as of 10/30/09) that just happen to be in Washington State (Hanford clean-up) and total $1.9 billion all boondoggles? Will the $590 million in stimulus for Oregon to BC rail corridor improvements not require any hiring, perhaps through being outsourced to Japan?

And is President Obama's statement of more jobs to come as a result of the stimulus also bogus?: "Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. 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. And we're on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year."

Please, Mr. Van Dyke, after you've finished jury duty and have had a little time for fact-checking, respond to these simple questions. I will be patiently awaiting your answers.

Obama's challenge of the Supreme Court in this setting was disturbing. Like the generals, the Court's role is to sit and listen respectfully to the speech. The president did not honor this long-accepted protocol. The fact that Alito's cringe and mouthing of "It will not; That's not true" made headlines shows what an extraordinary event it was. Was Alito's action disrespectful? What about the president's action which precipitated it?

The president may not like the fact that, unlike courts since the 1930s, this one actually reads the Constitution on occasion. He can speak on that from the oval office. The Supreme Court was seen by popular culture as a sacred pillar of virtue as long as it upheld The New Deal, The Great Society, "Homeland" security and all sorts of other expansions of government power. Now that we have a court that respects the Constitution's limitations on the power of government, is it going to be painted by the Left that once worshiped it as a haven of activists and party hacks? Well, Mr. President, this perception is your problem, not the country's.

dn, when I divide $787B by 2M (the claimed jobs created and "saved") I come up with about $395,000 per job. If I am right then I hope you are right. I'll leave it up to Mr. Van Dyke to tell us if that is good economic husbandry.

It is not the government's job to create jobs. The free market economy creates jobs. Businesses create jobs. Politicians think they have to DO something. Taxing businesses and individuals and then using that money to create jobs makes absolutely no sense. The government is not smarter than business, it cannot shift capital to better places. That is the primary purpose of markets. If something is needed, an entrepreneur will provide it. Entrepreneurs are always poking around here and there, trying to find a need that should be filled. It is self-serving and delusional for the politicians to think they can create jobs or "fix" the economy.

Frankly, I'm quite pessimistic for the next year, and not at all impressed by the trumpeting of a statistical recovery. First, there are still several years worth of Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMs) that have not reset, piling on to a bad employment situation, and falling incomes. Second, there is increased speculation that banks are keeping homes off the market to avert realizing losses. Third, oil prices have risen above $80 dollars a barrel, and historically, $80 oil has been a preluded to recession.

Mr. V, you said nothing about the Chiefs' body language in your article. You simply indicated they didn't applaud, and didn't indicate they never applaud.

You have a habit of expecting your readers to read your mind, as well as expecting them to read your long, tendentious articles filled with "I". The articles are bad enough without trying to mind-read. "During my long involvements in national government and politics, I always
gave objective assessments to presidents, presidential candidates, and colleagues." Good heavens, man, do you have any humility? You're as bad as Anthony Robinson.

The matter of the economic stimulus package, and jobs generated, is worth some discussion. The $787-billion package, undertaken early in the Obama administration, might be one place where the President would like a do-over.

Ordinarily, a "stimulus package" is understood to jump start economic growth and employment. It would include personal and business tax cuts;
money to the states to get into spending pipelines; and, typically, public infrastructure projects which would put people immediately to work.
The 2009 stimulus legislation, passed on an urgent basis, included some tax cuts and some money to the states. But it also included huge amounts for projects which had nothing to do with jump-starting growth and creating jobs. One example: $70 billion given to the Department of Education for distribution to states undertaking desired DOE reform efforts (Washington state did not qualify and got no money). Other money went toward favored home-state programs and projects of congressional committee chairs and senior legislators. The money was slow in being disbursed. By the end of 2009, less than half the $787 billion had actually gotten into the pipeline. Immediate impacts were lacking. The full sum is not expected to be spent until the end of 2010.

I happen to like the DOE program which is attempting to upgrade educational quality and accountability in American schools. But it has little to do with economic stimulus. (It could have long-term economic payoffs as our kids are better educated and prepared; but it is not something to generate immediate jobs and growth in a severe recession).

Another departure took place early in 2009. Previously, job gains and losses were straightforwardly reported. That is, a person laid off was counted as a job lost; a person hired was counted as a job added. But the administration began talking of "jobs created and saved." The "saved" category was a new one. Who could know, after all, if a job had been saved by public spending?

"Saved" jobs often turned out to be public-sector jobs which might have been cut had federal money not flowed to the states to help them through budget squeezes.

Obama pledged in 2009 that unemployment would not exceed 8 percent in the recession. But it has been at 10 percent or above and, now, is estimated to remain at that level for the remainder of 2010.

So the administration has been under great pressure to come up with numbers proving that stimulus worked and that jobs were created.
Over the past several weeks, various administration spokespersons have said that 500,000...l million...and, now, 2 million jobs have been
"saved or created" by the stimulus legislation. No one, frankly, knows what the actual number may be. Obama used the 2 million number last night. Was it too generous? Was it low? No one really knows because reliable data are lacking and because the new "saved or created" category
leaves too much room for subjective interpretation.

For a good summary of the stimulus program, you might go to the CNN website and watch/read the reports of the past week on the subject.
If anything was learned from the 2009 experience, it would be that
longer-term, indirect spending on programs not directly related to
growth and job-creation is not helpful in getting out of a short-term
ditch. I doubt the approach taken last year will be tried again.

I prefer objective, in-depth economic analysis to the ratings seekers at CNN. Maybe you should too. Start with the November 20, 2009 NYT:

"Much federal infrastructure money has gone not to new job-creating projects but to finance existing plans, which otherwise would be unaffordable to states.

So the stimulus has not “supercharged” transportation construction as was hoped, said Charles Gallagher, an asphalt company owner, speaking for the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, but it has nonetheless been “a welcome Band-Aid” to offset state cuts.

“Many contractors across the nation have been able to sustain, if not add to, their work force,” he said.

That sort of impact is what makes federal aid to state governments rank high in economists’ reckoning of the stimulus value of various proposals. Every dollar of additional infrastructure spending means $1.57 in economic activity, according to Moody’s, and general aid to states carries a $1.41 “bang” for each federal buck.

Even more effective are increases for food stamps ($1.74) and unemployment checks ($1.61), because recipients quickly spend their benefits on goods and services.

By contrast, most temporary tax cuts cost more than the stimulus they provide, according to research by Moody’s. That is true of two tax breaks in the stimulus law that Congress, pressed by industry lobbyists, recently extended and sweetened — a tax credit for homebuyers (90 cents of stimulus for each dollar of tax subsidy) and extra deductions for businesses’ net operating losses (21 cents)."

Mr. Van Dyke, it would seem by your logic we (Washington State)should have taken the approach of Governor Mark Sanford and refused the money. You might want to check with the several hundred people working to clean up Hanford to gauge their opinion on the value of the stimulus.

@brenenan- "The Supreme Court was seen by popular culture as a sacred pillar of virtue as long as it upheld The New Deal, The Great Society, "Homeland" security and all sorts of other expansions of government power. Now that we have a court that respects the Constitution's limitations on the power of government, is it going to be painted by the Left that once worshiped it as a haven of activists and party hacks? Well, Mr. President, this perception is your problem, not the country's."

Funny, I haven't seen the Supremes make any move to limit Homeland Security or the vanishing of the 4th Amendment, which the left seems more concerned about than the anti-statists on the right. We've left our guy know that, but since we're just dirty f hippies and not serious people it hasn't made much of an impact. Furthermore, now that activism is serving the right you guys don't seem to think of it as bad anymore. Fine, we'll remember that when the balence shifts away from the falangist four.
And since we're discusing the Constitution @taupe, when you say "It is not the government's job to create jobs." you might recall that the mission statement contained in the preamble to our basic law- "to promote the general welfare" , under which keeping people usefully working might be seen to be a government goal if the free market- a term found nowhere in the basic law - fails to provide. As important as the socialist roads, radio and tv spectrum, police, patent-copyright-ip protection laws, standing military, fire protection, minting and nuclear accident insurance underwriting functions of the people's government you right wingers don't seem to mind.

Ted, still waiting to hear of a single goal of the Democratic Party you support. Universal Health? Equal Rights? Equal Opportunity?

NickBob: I was active in the movements toward equal rights and equal opportunity...and much other landmark liberal legislation, both in and out of government, as policy director for several Democratic Presidential candidates, as principal author of several Democratic national platforms. and as president for five years of the party's unofficial national think tank. I support gay rights and gay marriage now. I also have been involved over the years in extension of health care for all, serving on the four-person board of a foundation established by Ted Kennedy to further that aim. I don't know how you define being a Democrat or being a liberal. I have been there for many years. Suggest you examine your own beliefs.

Thanks Ted, I simply haven't seen you write anything but attacks on liberals here on Crosscut, and I don't know your political history, much less in detail. Those are all good liberal causes to have been involved with, and as a liberal I thank you for the work you've done for all of us. I hope to see you support continued progress in the future. And I've always tried to keep an eye on my own political beliefs, from my first neighborhood canvas for LBJ to my first votes for McGovern and Dan Evans. There was a time when it was posible to be bipartisan and maintain a consistancy of support. No longer possible, sad to say. Lincoln and Teddy would Democrats if they were drawing breath today.

Comments that view Mr. Van Dyke as some sort of Republican Fellow Traveller puzzle me. Is it a condition of employment at Crosscut that all house writers support the left? is Mr. Van Dyke not simply wrong but, somehow disloyal? (his comment above could almost be considered a loyalty oath) I think I get it; he's not Republican but he's anti-anti Republican. I guess that should be indictment enough but some of us need to have it explained.

There were some fairly clear missed opportunities for leadership in the State of the Union this year. The president talked up his initiatives for nuclear non-proliferation, but said nothing about bringing the Test Ban Treaty back to the Senate. Why not? It fits perfectly with his goals, and many of the objections that opponents of the Treaty had last time should be overcome this time. Also, the president has not followed through on his campaign promise to pursue serious talks with Iran.

And why should defense spending be exempt from a budget freeze? I was encouraged by the administration's effort last year to phase out production of the F-22, which was successful, and the C-17, which was unsuccessful, but there is so much more potential for leadership here. How about real reform of the corrupt Pentagon contracting process? To say that the United States cannot reduce, let alone freeze, military spending without compromising the important military commitments indicates a genuine lack of imagination.

I also find it hard to believe that President Obama does not really understand our energy predicament. We can do so much better that just subsidizing every type of energy we can think of. A far better plan would be to place an appropriate price on carbon dioxide, reflecting the costs of global warming and future scarcity, together with environmental protections with sharp teeth. Maybe some subsidies for research. If these things are done right, then there is no need for subsidies for actual production. Subsidizing energy production creates unnecessary uncertainty in energy markets (look at the halting development of wind and solar due to the lack of a long-term plan for wind and solar subsidies), often favors inferior technologies, as in the green diesel versus biodiesel issue, and discourages conservation.

As a candidate, Barack Obama ran with the theme of "change", and I still believe that the country is hungry for some real changes in how we do business. The leaders are still lagging behind the people.