# In State of the Union, President Commits to "Win the Future" January 26, 2011 Events in Washington yesterday signaled the start of what will likely be a long, contentious legislative year. In the late afternoon, the House passed legislation calling for a rollback in federal spending to pre-Recovery Act, FY08 levels, a measure sure to fail in the Senate but puts a majority of House lawmakers on record in favor of cutting tens of billions of dollars from current year spending. Hours later, in a House chamber filled with lawmakers seated in bipartisan pairings and marked by the empty chair of Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, the President spoke less about deficit reduction than he did areas of investment – including education and scientific research – necessary for America to compete successfully in the global economy, or as he put it, “win the future.” While there was much back-and-forth rhetoric between party leaders and talking heads on both sides of the aisle leading up to and following last night’s speech, one thing is certain: there is bipartisan agreement to achieve deficit reduction and a partisan divide regarding where to find savings, how much to cut, and whether and where to invest. The State of the Union address, always one of the President’s most important opportunities to address the nation and the Congress on accomplishments and goals, took on added significance this year because of the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords and 18 others in Tucson earlier this month. The President’s widely admired speech in response to this tragedy and the Congress’s efforts in recent weeks to adopt a tone of greater civility heightened attention to this year’s address. President Obama’s message clearly attempted to set a bipartisan tone and to focus on areas where there may be hope for the parties to come together. **COMMITMENT TO FUNDING RESEARCH** In his remarks, President Obama laid out a road map for growing the economy through investments in education, innovation and the nation’s infrastructure. It is notable that innovation and investment in research – including university-based research – was the first priority area of his address, and that he listed the strength of American higher education as one of our important competitive assets. He said: • “No country has more successful companies, or grants more patents to inventors and entrepreneurs. **We are home to the world's best colleges and universities**, where more students come to study than any other place on Earth.” • “Our free enterprise system is what drives innovation. But because it's not always profitable for companies to invest in basic research, throughout history our government has provided cutting-edge scientists and inventors with the support that they need. That's what planted the seeds for the Internet. That's what helped make possible things like computer chips and GPS. Just think of all the good jobs - - from manufacturing to retail - - that have come from those breakthroughs.” Calling the present “our generation’s Sputnik moment,” the President committed to propose a FY12 budget that would put the nation on a path “to reach a level of research and development we haven’t seen since the height of the Space Race.” **SUPPORT FOR DREAM ACT-LIKE IMMIGRATION REFORM** It is also worth noting that during his speech, the President called on lawmakers to work together with his Administration to reform the immigration system, including providing legal residency for those students and scholars trained in our institutions of higher education, as well as those brought to this country as minors who commit to attending college or joining the military:• “Today, there are hundreds of thousands of students excelling in our schools who are not American citizens. Some are the children of undocumented workers, who had nothing to do with the actions of their parents. They grew up as Americans and pledge allegiance to our flag, and yet live every day with the threat of deportation. Others come here from abroad to study in our colleges and universities. But as soon as they obtain advanced degrees, we send them back home to compete against us. It makes no sense. Now, I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration…I know that debate will be difficult and take time. But tonight, let’s agree to make that effort. And let’s stop expelling talented, responsible young people who can staff our research labs, start new businesses, and further enrich this nation.” **A CALL FOR THE RETURN OF ROTC TO MORE COLLEGE CAMPUSES** Noting his recent victory on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell during the lame duck session of Congress, President Obama tied the issue to ROTC and turned his attention to colleges and universities, saying: • “Starting this year, no American will be forbidden from serving the country they love because of who they love. And with that change, I call on all of our college campuses to open their doors to our military recruiters and the ROTC. It is time to leave behind the divisive battles of the past. It is time to move forward as one nation.” **A FOCUS ON THE DEFICIT AND NATIONAL DEBT** The speech also included a discussion of the debt and deficit reduction (this was an insufficiently explored theme in the minds of some commentators), which became a major issue in last fall’s elections after continued economic woes led to a third straight year of annual deficits exceeding $1 trillion. The President proposed to hold overall non-security discretionary spending flat for a five-year period; discretionary funding includes all parts of the federal budget that are appropriated on an annual basis, such as most education, research, defense, veterans and other social programs, but excludes entitlement spending such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the national debt and all tax expenditures. Within this flexible freeze, where some programs may enjoy increases at the expense of others, it is significant that the president has identified research and education as necessary areas of investment. Also important is that both parties have not identified the Defense Department as off limits to budget reductions as has been the past bipartisan practice. While some Congressional Democrats feel additional fiscal priming is appropriate and needed at a time of fragile economic recovery and persistently high unemployment, leading Republicans have espoused adopting deep cuts. Indeed, just hours before the President’s address – a vote intentionally scheduled for the same day as the State of the Union to provide a budget cutting contrast with the President’s message of selective investment – House Republicans acted on their pre-election commitment to cut federal funding to FY08 levels, representing a greater than $60 billion cut in discretionary funding. Such a reduction could, according to one estimate, result in an immediate -5.7 percent decrease in federally-funded research and development, including an approximate -11 percent cut to the NSF budget, and -6.3 percent reduction at NIH. In their official response to the president's speech,House Republicans,represented by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan followed-up on the day’s vote and focused heavily on deficit reduction,saying the nation faces a "crushing burden of debt" that Republicans intended to address aggressively. Notably, Ryan did not once mention entitlements – by far the largest driver of annual deficits – suggesting the House’s sole focus will be on reducing discretionary funding. Illustrative of the differing approaches to deficit reduction is the fact that Republican leaders are calling for a $2.5 trillion reduction over the next decade, while the President’s plan is estimated to reduce spending by $400 billion over the same period. In the context of Republican efforts to scale back funding, it is important to note that the current FY11 fiscal year, which began last October, has not yet been finalized and government continues to operate under a temporary continuing resolution that expires on March 4th.This deadline ensures that the differing approaches between Republican leaders in the Congress and the President will come to the forefront soon. Given the difficult political context, the current overall spending levels will no doubt represent the high water mark for funding. Setting the tone for the 2012 budget the President will submit in February and beyond, the President made a strong case for targeted investment in areas crucial to research universities, saying “Cutting the deficit by gutting our investments in innovation and education is like lightening an overloaded airplane by removing its engine. It may feel like you’re flying high at first, but it won’t take long before you’ll feel the impact.” **LOOKING AHEAD** While civility was the fashion last evening, the battle lines will begin to be drawn today when, as the National Journal reports "Senate Democrats will step up their bogeyman-ization of House Republicans in a news conference today, when they will unveil their own estimates of how many jobs will be destroyed by the GOP's ‘extreme, ideological plans for the federal budget.’ Democrats said they did not yet have a final number Tuesday night, but rest assured: It will be a lot." Given Harvard’s participation in federal programs (both research and education), we remain very engaged in these funding issues—especially through our continued robust partnership and collaboration with peer institutions and advocacy coalitions across the sciences and in education. In the coming days President Faust is scheduled to meet in Massachusetts with Senator Scott Brown along with a small group of leaders in the life science cluster and in Washington with leaders of both parties. We will be crafting a careful message respecting the need for fiscal discipline and the practical challenges associated with that goal while making the case for investment in innovation as critical to continued and sustained national growth, and with Brown, to the Massachusetts economy in particular. Linked below is a selection of articles about last night’s address, should you be interested. We will keep you up to date (on all of these issues) as this very interesting year unfolds in Washington. **Attachments:** Inside Higher Ed, [Shielding Education and Research](http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/01/26/obama_vows_to_protect_education_and_research_from_federal_budget_cuts), by Dough Lederman The New York Times, [Obama Sets Stage for Clash of Governing Ideals](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/politics/26assess.html?_r=0), by David Sanger The Washington Post, [Beyond the State of the Union: What's next?](http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/morning-fix/beyond-the-state-of-the-union.html), by Chris Cillizza **Washington Post** **Beyond the State of the Union: What's next?** By Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake **President Obama's** [State of the Union address](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/25/AR2011012504068.html?hpid=topnews) Tuesday night laid out a broad blueprint for his legislative agenda for the rest of the year. Now comes the hard part, as a divided Congress begins to wrestle not only with the president's speech but also with an electorate that remains nervous and unsure what it wants out of its elected officials. So, what's next on Capitol Hill? Where do the House and Senate go from here? The short answer is no one -- really -- knows. In the Senate, the immediate focus is coming to some sort of resolution on the proposed change in the filibuster rule being championed by New Mexico Sen. **Tom Udall** (D) and Oregon Sen. **Jeff Merkley** (D). It's not yet clear whether the reform crowd -- led primarily by Democrats elected in 2006 and 2008 -- will accept a more modest proposal of rule changes championed by Sen. **Chuck Schumer** (D-N.Y.) and **Lamar Alexander** (R-Tenn.) that leaves the filibuster intact. Another x-factor in plotting out the immediate future for the Senate agenda is how serious Republicans are in their desire to force a vote on repealing Obama's health care law. South Carolina Sen. **Jim DeMint**(R), a favorite of the tea party movement, is preparing a bill to do just that, and, on Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader **Mitch McConnell** (R-Ky.) pledged that there would be a vote. But Senate Majority Leader **Harry Reid** (Nev.) seems disinclined to offer Republicans that platform and the bill would almost certainly never get through the still Democratic-controlled chamber. On the House side, things are a bit more clear. The Republican majority passed legislation Tuesday that would return federal spending levels in the 2011 fiscal year to 2008 levels -- handing Budget Committee Chairman (and GOP State of the Union responder)**Paul Ryan** (Wisc.) leeway to go to the Appropriations Committee and ask them to begin the process of making cuts to meet the 2008 goal. A vote on that proposal is expected in the middle of next month, although it remains to be seen how the Ryan effort will square with Senate Democrats approach to spending. Either way, the two sides will need to work out some sort of deal before March 4, the day when the continuing resolution that funds the government expires. If they don't -- and they may well not -- circle early March on your calendar for the first "rubber meets the road" moment of divided control of Congress. **A Talent-less race in Missouri?:** It's decision time, and it looks like former Sen. **Jim Talent** (R-Mo.) will not run for his old seat. Sources tell The Fix that Talent is set to announce his decision by the end of the week, and several news outlets report that he won't run. And if he doesn't run, it adds all kinds of intrigue to the primary to face Sen. **Claire McCaskill** (D-MO.). Former state Treasurer **Sarah Steelman** is the lone Republican in the race, but she's got no shortage of potential GOP opponents, including Rep. **Sam Graves**, former state party chairwoman **Ann Wagner** and former congressional candidate **Ed Martin**. What that suggests is that many aren't quite ready to embrace her as their next big Senate candidate. And if Talent bows out, these candidates will feel free to enter the race at will. But that could be changing. Politico's Dave Catanese (who broke the news Tuesday) smartly points out that Sen. **Roy Blunt's** (R-Mo.) former chief of staff has penned a fundraising letter for Steelman. (Steelman, you may recall, opted against challenging Blunt in a primary last cycle.) Whether that's a simple return of a favor or a sign of a larger amount of support from Team Blunt remains to be seen. The jury is still out on Steelman as a candidate, especially after she severely wounded the GOP's governor candidate in their 2008 primary. If Blunt jumps on board with Steelman, though, that would discourage other Republicans like Graves and Wagner (who was chairman of Blunt's campaign) and could help Steelman avoid another bruising primary. **No surprises in Kentucky:** The field is set for the 2011 governor's race in Kentucky, as the state's filing deadline passed uneventfully on Tuesday. Gov. **Steve Beshear** (D) will not face primary opposition in his bid for reelection. Meanwhile, state Senate President **David Williams** and businessman **Phil Moffett** -- the tea party candidate in the race -- will face off for the GOP nomination, with Jefferson County Clerk **Bobbie Holsclaw** entering the race late as a long shot. In the attorney general's race, 2010 Senate candidate **Jack Conway**(D) will be seeking reelection against Hopkins County Attorney **Todd P'Pool**, who was the only GOP candidate to file. Filing day is often a wild one in the state. You may recall this time in 2008, when Rep. **Ron Lewis** (R-Ky.) pulled his name fro mthe race in the closing minutes before the filing deadline, aiming for his chief of staff to file and, hopefully, avoid much opposition. National Republicans and then-state Sen. **Brett Guthrie** (R) got wind of what was going on, though, and Guthrie wound up winning Lewis's seat. Kentucky is one of four states hold a governor's race in 2011, along with Louisiana, Mississippi and West Virginia. **Fixbits** Obama's speech got high marks in a pair of polls conducted last night. Newly minted Sen. Joe Manchin looks solid in his quest for a full term in 2012, according to a new poll from Democratic-leaning automated pollster Public Policy Polling. He holds a nine-point lead in a hypothetical matchup with Rep. **Shelley Moore Capito** (R). A poll conducted for Rep. **Chris Murphy's** (D-Conn.) newly launched Senate campaign shows him leading his primary and beating two potential GOP opponents by double digits. He leads 2010 GOP nominee and former wrestling executive **Linda McMahon** by 19 points and former Rep. **Rob Simmons** (R) by 12 points. In the primary, he leads former Secretary of State **Susan Bysiewicz** by nine points. (Bysiewicz also released a poll showing her leading the primary.) Omaha Mayor Jim Suttle (D) appears to have survived a recall attempt. New Jersey Gov. **Chris Christie** (R) hosted a dinner at the governor's mansion with Mitt Romney on Monday. Duluth Mayor **Don Ness** and state Sen. **Tony Lourey** both say they will not challenge freshman Rep. **Chip Cravaack** (R-Minn.). But **Daniel Fanning**, an aide to Sen. **Al Franken** (D-Minn.), is considering a run. **Inside Higher Ed Shielding Education and Research** January 26, 2011 WASHINGTON -- "Cutting the deficit by gutting our investments in innovation and education is like lightening an overloaded airplane by removing its engine." No statement in President Obama's State of the Union speech last night better summed up the protected status he envisions for the federal programs most important to colleges and universities, even as his administration vows to embrace a more austere approach to federal spending. The president's speech was relatively short on details about programs he would seek to shield from the overall five-year freeze on domestic spending he proposes; it made no mention of Pell Grants or other financial aid (which many college leaders fear could face cutbacks if Republicans stick to their goal of slashing domestic spending), and referred only in passing to increases in spending on biomedical and other research. (A fact sheet released by the White House during the speech, however, did say the president "will continue efforts to strengthen the Pell Grant, promote more affordable student loans, and revitalize and expand access to America’s community colleges.") But the central theme of 50-minute address was that for the United States to rebuild its economy and "win in the future" in a competition with with rising powers such as China and India, it must "out innovate, out educate, and out-build the rest of the world." Yet it must do that, the president acknowledged, without burying its citizens "under a mountain of debt," which will require shrinking federal spending to diminish the massive budget deficit. Doing so "will require painful cuts," Obama said, though he mentioned few ( and Republicans on a day when the GOP- led house [passed a resolution calling](http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hres38rh/pdf/BILLS-112hres38rh.pdf) for rolling back federal spending on all non security programs to their 2008 levels, derided his proposals as inadequate to the task). But in making those cuts, the president argued (using his airplane analogy), it would be a mistake to shortchange investments that will ensure a stronger economy and country down the road. "It may feel like you're flying high at first, but it won't take long before you feel the impact, " he said. Resuscitating the "Sputnik" language that he used several weeks ago during a trip to North Carolina's Forsyth Technical Community College (one of whose students was in First Lady Michelle Obama's box for the speech), Obama said his 2012 budget would continue to push the country toward the goal he set two years ago to "reach a level of research and development we haven't seen since the height of the Space Race." To help pay for increased spending on energy and other research, the president called on Congress to eliminate the "billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies." He also vowed to veto any legislation that contains Congressional earmarks to specific recipients. The president had relatively little new to say about other aspects of higher education, though he reiterated his call for ensuring that America "will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world." He urged Congress to follow up on its 2010 overhaul of the student loan programs and $40 billion investment in Pell Grants and other programs with a modest goal: making permanent the $10,000 tax credit for college expenses. And he put in an indirect plug (without naming it) for the recently defeated Dream Act and for changes in immigration policies that now require foreign graduate students to return to their home countries as soon as they obtain advanced degrees, "to compete against us." "Let's stop expelling talented, responsible young people who can staff our research labs, start new businesses," he said, "and further enrich this nation." And with the coming abandonment of the government's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gay service members in the military, the president urged all colleges to "open their doors to our military recruiters and ROTC. It is time to leave behind the divisive battles of the past." — **Doug Lederman** January 25, 2011**Obama Sets Stage for Clash of Governing Ideals** By DAVID E. SANGER WASHINGTON — At a moment when the momentum in Washington is driving toward slashing budgets and shrinking government, President Obama argued on Tuesday evening that the politics of austerity, mindlessly applied, would amount to a pre-emptive surrender to China, India and a raft of smaller competitors who are investing while Americans are cutting. It is a theme Mr. Obama has struck repeatedly since the Democrats’ devastating losses in the midterm elections exactly 12 weeks ago. He warned soon after that America must “step up our game,” and on Tuesday night he told Congress and the nation that this is “our generation’s Sputnik moment.” With those words, Mr. Obama was defining the ideological battle of the coming year: strikingly different views of the role of government, even as both sides agree that cuts will be necessary. To the new Republican majority in the House, the path to restoring American “competitiveness” — the word itself is something of a Rorschach test — includes slashing taxes and getting the government out of the way. To Mr. Obama, even a leaner federal government must play a central role in guiding the country’s economic future, helping the United States to confront the rising economic powers that ate away at America’s lead while the country was distracted in the post-Sept. 11 decade. “South Korean homes now have greater Internet access than we do,” Mr. Obama said, ticking off the list of how America had fallen behind. “Countries in Europe and Russia invest more in their roads and railways than we do. China is building faster trains and newer airports.” He noted at another point that the world’s biggest private solar research facility and fastest supercomputer were now in China. Mr. Obama is hardly the first president to try to rekindle the spirit of cold-war competition in an effort to force Americans to set aside political differences and join together to face a common threat to their prosperity and security. “Americans are prone to cycles of belief in their own decline,” Joseph Nye wrote in his newest exploration of America’s status in the world, “The Future of Power.” Mr. Obama was clearly seeking to pull America out of its latest funk, arguing that no country has a deeper bench, better universities or a more entrepreneurial spirit. But he also portrayed those as fragile assets, and his bet is that Americans expect their government to preserve the country’s lead, a view that puts him in direct competition with Tea Party-fueled calls for a diminished Washington. In his speech, Mr. Obama tried once again to differentiate between his short-term tactics to get the country working again — which led him to agree to extending tax cuts, including many he believes to be unwise — and a long-term strategy of selective investment and deficit reduction. “Let’s make sure that what we’re cutting is really excess weight,” Mr. Obama said, in what may be the line in his hourlong speech that was most directed at the Tea Party caucus. “Cutting the deficit by gutting our investments in innovation and education is like lightening an overloaded airplane by removing its engine. It may feel like you’re flying high at first, but it won’t take long before you’ll feel the impact.” In some ways his warning was reminiscent of the Obama style circa 2008. As a candidate, he prided himself on ignoring the passions of the moment, not letting hyperventilation on cable television or predictions of impending political doom drive his tactics, much less his strategy. His coolness, his detachment, seemed a political virtue after eight years of an intensely ideological presidency. But this is a different moment, and it is far from clear that the formula that worked so well two years ago retains much potency today. As several of his own aides concede — especially those who have left the White House or are preparing to — Mr. Obama failed to rally the country behind his strategy for combating the most marked economic crisis since the Great Depression. His health care victory came at a tremendous cost. Foreclosures and a jobless rate of just under 10 percent seemed a symptom of national drift, downward. Only with his speech in Tucson two weeks ago, in response to the actions of a gunman who shot a congresswoman in the head and caused a nation to question the proper limits of political divisiveness, did he begin to turn the narrative back in his direction. Now his challenge is to win the argument against those who say that when government intervenes in the economy, it is usually for the worse. While directly hailing the wonders of free enterprise — an effort to beat back his opponents’ charge that he is a socialist in capitalist clothing — he made the case that at moments, government intervention has been inspired. “Because it’s not always profitable for companies to invest in basic research, throughout history our government has provided cutting-edge scientists and inventors with the support that they need,” he said. “That’s what planted the seeds for the Internet. That’s what helped make possible things like computer chips and GPS.” But that is an argument that President Bill Clinton could have made, and often did, 15 years ago. What Mr. Obama stepped around is the reality of American competition today — that innovation, education and infrastructure are necessary ingredients for global competitive success, but no guarantee. Many of the technologies on which Mr. Obama is depending are the product of joint ventures that combine American ideas, European design and Asian manufacturing. That is something few in this Congress may want to hear, much less finance, given that many of the jobs those innovations create do not go to Americans. “We do big things,” Mr. Obama repeated, twice, as he concluded his speech. That has been a hallmark of America, especially in the past century. Yet Mr. Obama has all but said that his biggest challenge is to take a country that often seems to want to retreat into its shell and force it to do big things again. One of his subtexts on Tuesday night was that doing big things these days may require a bit more humility, a lot more work, and some international partners that Americans rarely thought about 20 years ago but whose competition they have now grown to fear. See also:- [ Budget and Appropriations ](/issues/budget-appropriations) Share on:- [ Facebook ](#) - [ Twitter ](#) - [ Linkedin ](#)