The State of the Union Pundit Preview

Honest Democrats in the White House and Capitol Hill will say, "We're drawing these lines in the sand now because we have to, but we are willing to compromise." The question will be whether Republicans are willing to compromise, to make a deal — not a grand bargain, a semi-grand bargain — where you do something on entitlements that involves Democrats taking on some of their own constituencies. I think the President's going to talk about that tonight.

My guess is that the president will address Americans' economic anxiety by attempting to use it as a cudgel against Republicans. In the past, he has blamed the tsunami, the European debt crisis, automatic teller machines, oil prices and, most popular, George W. Bush for the economy's terrible performance under his leadership. Tonight the president will tweak this theme by arguing that constant partisan bickering in Washington -- lurching from one crisis negotiation over taxes and spending to another -- has undermined confidence in American leadership. He will say that this discord has created terrible uncertainty and that this uncertainty accounts for the economy's doldrums. He will pledge that he wants to end these high-wire acts and pass a big compromise that will apply a balanced approach of spending cuts and tax increases.

Job No. 2 is that he should propose some specific revenue measures. The White House has been cagey about this, and I don’t understand why. It plays into Republican hands because they can just say anything they please about his intentions. He should be specific about what he has in mind—whether it’s lowering the corporate rate but eliminating some loopholes or whatever, tonight is the time to spell it out.

Yes, fiscal restraint is necessary in the medium term to contain financial risks. But unlike in the 1990s, when reduced deficits stimulated investment by bringing down capital costs, fiscal restraint cannot be relied on to provide stimulus now when long-term Treasurys yield less than 2 percent. A broader growth-centered agenda is needed to propel the economy to its “escape velocity.”

Seven in 10 people in the survey said they would support a path to citizenship, including 60 percent of Republicans. But when the same question was asked of a separate sample of respondents, this time with Obama’s name attached to it, support dropped to 59 percent overall and just 39 percent among Republicans.

On other hot-button issues like banning the sale of semi-automatic assault weapons or ending the war in Afghanistan, however, lending Obama’s name to the proposal made each viewed more favorably — and therefore if he were to put his political weight behind them it could actually increase their chances of passing.

From our standpoint, Obama -- and the nation -- would be best served by focusing on challenges such as immigration, inequality and climate change. [...] The political payoff may not be as great as it is with, say, gun control. But the economic consequences will be far greater.

But it would be great if Obama gave an imaginative speech that reframed things as present versus future.

If the president were to propose an agenda for the future, he’d double spending on the National Institutes of Health. He’d approve the Keystone XL pipeline. He’d cut corporate tax rates while adding a progressive consumption tax. He’d take money from Social Security and build Harlem Children’s Zone-type projects across the nation. He’d means test Medicare and use the money to revive state universities and pay down debt.

Some scientists liken building the pipeline to lighting the fuse on the world's biggest carbon bomb. According to industry experts, without the demand from this pipeline, most of the oil in the Alberta tar sands would stay safely in the ground. Instead, Keystone would funnel the dirtiest oil on Earth from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, which would do nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign energy while causing irreparable harm.

In return, we could get higher gas prices, risk of a BP-like spill in the heartland and fewer jobs than there are people employed in thewind industry right now.

Long lines are not the inevitable result of big turnouts in elections. They are the result of neglect, often deliberate, of an antiquated patchwork of registration systems that make it far too hard to get on the rolls. They are the result of states that won’t spend enough money for an adequate supply of voting machines, particularly in crowded cities and minority precincts. And they are the result of refusals to expand early voting programs, one of the best and easiest ways to increase participation.

I think you use the word diplomatic. I mean, my father used to say you can disagree without being disagreeable. And I think that's a tone that he has to take: confident, and strong, and yet at the same time being open to other ideas and compromises and getting the work done.

...

And so I think he was a little was ready to take a more aggressive stance. He won the election pretty solidly and he feels -- who am I advising the president of the United States, that's like giving Ted Williams batting tips. But he -- it seems to me strong, confident. But a strong and confident person also listens and is willing to make compromises when the time comes.

Tuesday night he makes his fifth such address—the State of the Union that will help define his second term. While the economy is improving and the mood in Washington is changing in significant ways, the story line isn't all that different: A broader Obama agenda is fighting to break out, but the economy still hangs over all else.

...

And yet White House officials are signaling that the core of the speech will focus on ways to spur the economy and job creation. Mr. Obama was criticized by Republicans for not making jobs the centerpiece of his second inaugural address last month; it appears he won't leave himself open to that critique this time.