State of the Union

So that was a good one, as far as States of the Union go.

Whenever the President gives a speech like this, I always hear the same thing from people.

"That was just a bunch of fancy words. He didn't propose anything concrete."

They're right of course. Obama's speech, like every other SotU, was broad, eloquent and totally abstract.

What I fail to see is how this is a bad thing.

Think for a second -- would we really want to see a speech that gave concrete policy proposals?

The answer, of course, is no. Rhetoric is fun. Rhetoric is sexy.

Policy is boring.

While this may be a bit cynical, it's true. But even if that seems a little too Machiavellian for you, consider this: even if a President did somehow manage to make a speech with bullet points detailing how to fix the economy, how many of those points would Congress adopt?

The answer, of course, is we have no idea.

That's because a single man (or, more accurately, a single man and his legion of policy advisers and other assorted lackeys) can't and shouldn't make policy by himself. As painful as the sausage-factory that is Congress is sometimes, there's a reason why laws go through so much rigamarole before they hit the books.

These things need to be open from debate on all sides by all kinds of people. That includes Congressmen, our representatives (if they aren't too busy arguing), lobbyists, the people who work in or work for people who work in the industries (if they aren't too busy buying votes) and us (if we aren't too busy watching Jersey Shore.)

So a SotU isn't meant to be a policy laundry list. It's meant to help the President do what political scientists call agenda-setting.

Agenda-setting: n. The process by which political figures attempt to control what issues and what aspects of those issues are discussed in the court of public opinion through discussion in the news media.

(If you don't like my definition, try this scholar's.)

When the President talks about broad, sweeping issues, he's trying to use the huge podium this speech gives him to shepherd the public into talking about what issues he thinks are important.

Of course, this time around there's only one issue, and that's the economy, stupid. Democrats and Republicans and everybody who ever commented on politics ever agree that's the issue that's going to be the focus of public attention.

There, however, we get into the real agenda-setting battle. We know we need to fix the economy, but how do we do it?

Obama's answer in this speech is thus:

"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."

Compare that to Paul Ryan's response to Obama's speech:

"Limited government and free enterprise have helped make America the greatest nation on earth."

For Obama, the way to fix the economy in the long-term -- to make the country competitive with other countries -- is to invest in green energy and education. For Ryan and the Republicans, it's cutting the deficit and letting the free enterprise system work it's magic.

That's the main debate we're going to see going forward. In part because of this speech, the larger agenda is set. Whose nitty-gritty agenda will end up being implemented, however, is yet to be seen.

State of the Union tonight

The State of the Union's tonight, ladies and gents.

We'll be watching it, of course. Expect a Breakdown sometime later in the evening.

The Breakdown: LSU Provost Jack Hamilton at the Press Club

Jack Hamilton, LSU's Provost spoke at the Press Club today.

Before The Rundown, a few words about this guy. As Provost, Hamilton is the boss of the school's academic side. Depending on who you ask, that makes him the University's #2, behind Chancellor Mike Martin.

That also means he's the guy closest to and with the most power over -- and the most intimate knowledge of -- budget cuts to the school's "academic core."

Without further ado, here's the Rundown:

-Hamilton's basic message is essentially the same one we've been hearing from LSU administrators for months: cuts have hurt LSU and will continue to hurt LSU in the future.

Oh, and don't forget: when LSU hurts, the state's economy hurts too.

-Although the message was the same, his presentation was new. He was flanked at the podium by 140 empty folding chairs -- Hamilton said these represented the 140 faculty he claims LSU has lost because of the cuts:

"Each of these chairs represents a victim, not of war or prison or celebrity death, but of our state’s budget woes. Count, and you’ll find 140 seats, representing the 140 faculty positions eliminated at LSU since the budget cuts began. That’s 140 faculty who could be teaching class, producing research,winning federal grants, and shaping students’ lives."

The 140 number is one Hamilton and other administrators have thrown around before, and it's a perhaps a little deceptive. 140 faculty haven't lost jobs at LSU -- most of the positions Hamilton's talking about are vacant positions that have gone unfilled.

Does that mean Hamilton's lying? No. Does that mean LSU's faculty isn't hurting from these cuts? No again -- several colleges and departments are hurting because they lack funds to fill vacant positions. And Hamilton's discussion of reductions to foreign language don't seem to be overstated.

But 140 empty chairs is perhaps a bit -- dramatic.

Still, it's a pretty effective visual, from a pure communication's standpoint.

-Hamilton's words about Governor Jindal are interesting:

"The Governor and other state leaders are doing serious work to save higher education in this state. The governor and his staff have been toiling in recent weeks to find creative solutions. We consider them our partners.

If I am here today for any reason, it is to help the governor make the case that LSU needs help

and is worth saving."

While Hamilton and his colleagues have rarely outright criticized Jindal's administration, they've seldom seemed so supportive of him either. We certainly didn't hear such praise last semester when Hamilton made similar speeches.

Is Hamilton's enthusiasm inspired by Jindal's quick, earnest support for the Flagship Coalition, the group of businessmen looking to protect LSU -- and only LSU -- from cuts? Maybe. In fact, probably.

-Hamilton also lays down down hard numbers for what kind of cuts LSU could sustain without real devastation. $20 million in cuts in "Direct Student Impact" is Hamilton's hypothetical cut-line.

But these aren't really hard numbers at all. What constitutes "Direct Student Impact" is hugely ambiguous -- and, I might add, a definition Hamilton controls.

How much of funding cut constitutes DSI? Only Hamilton (and his staff) knows. Which is kind of suspicious.

Additionally, a number that raises my eyebrows is this: Hamilton says a DSI cut of $20 million is the equivalent of cutting 5 or 6 of the University's 14 colleges.

LSU's total operating budget is well over $400 million; that's just discretionary spending. How does $20 million -- 1/20th of that -- amount to almost half the academic core?

There might be an answer. Of course, there also might not.

-3PO