Obama's state of the union address

That President Obama, in his state of the union address, launched his re-election bid is not in debate. He contrasted the unity of command in the armed forces in general and the Navy Seals, who killed Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, in particular, focused on national interest alone irrespective of personal or political differences in contrast to the Congress which remains divided along partisan lines. He promised that as President he would pass any bill that is in the national interest. However, there is little doubt that the definition of national interest, reflecting an entire range of policies - domestic and pertaining to international relations - varies between the Republicans and the Democrats. Be that as it may, Obama focused more on the economy, considered a key determinant of elections, and in that context in true political brinkmanship. He presented billionaire Warren Buffet's secretary who, the President revealed, pays a higher income tax than her boss. The fact that Buffet himself first pointed out the inequities in the US tax system, may perhaps account for the presence of his secretary in Congress, while Obama delivered his state of the union address. President Obama stated "We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules." The fact that he made this statement in the last year of his first term reflects less his focus, if re-elected, on rendering the tax system more equitable but more on his getting middle-class America to vote for him in the forthcoming elections. Obama maintained that the bailout packages, that began during the Bush Presidency, and carried on in his own had begun to pay off dividends (notably to the auto sector) but again focused on the political angle to these packages, namely that he would ensure that the fruits of an economic upturn would not be appropriated by the rich chief executive officers of manufacturing units and financial institutions but would be disseminated to the common man. In this context, he also referred to creating a "special unit of federal prosecutors and the leading state attorney general to expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis" and assisting poor Americans by giving each homeowner a chance to save 3000 dollars by refinancing through historically low rates. In effect, the state of the Union speech was one on which campaigns are won. Obama also stated that another central policy of his administration would be to create jobs in the US, ensure that jobs are not moved overseas through foreign policy interventions as well as tax incentives and support measures that increase investment in green technology. But that was not all: the President also promised immigration reform a comprehensive energy policy and promised that he would be willing to work with anyone on the hill. However, given that it is an election year, it is highly unlikely that he would be able to get anything passed through consensus. And he knows it. The focus therefore of the state of the union speech was to convince the swing states as well as middle-income America to vote for him for yet another term. The President was quiet on US-Pakistan relations though he spent an inordinate amount of time on the US raid in Abbottabad that killed Osama bin Laden. One would assume that in his estimation, the killing of bin Laden on his watch would get him political mileage domestically. While those Americans struggling to make ends meet would be appeased by his vision of fairness in taxes and relief from mortgage payments. Whether Obama would be successful in his re-election bid or not remains to be seen, however his oblique attack on Romney, a Republican candidate, without mentioning his name, may backfire if Romney does not win the primaries. The race is on and Obama's claim that he can change the system for the better is, no doubt, compromised both domestically with the economy still performing poorly as well as in the international arena where three years down the line, his policies have not changed markedly from those of the Bush era. Copyright Business Recorder, 2012