As promised last night in a Twitter post, here’s my response to the State of the Union address. I’m using the text as it appears on whitehouse.gov.

I’ll begin by saying that I’m going to have a hard time doing this. In past States of the Union addresses, a lot of the comments have been far more specific. I’m not saying I saw a lot of meaningless rhetoric in this text, but I do wish I had seen some more specific plans to back up some of the blanket statements.

It begins with our economy.

I hope nobody thinks this is new news.

Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that helped cause this crisis.

That’s a pretty gutsy statement; and despite the fact that I work in banking now, I have to agree with it. Back when the bailout was actually going on, I had a few comments about just how easy it is to get locked into a cycle of crushing debt and bills other people don’t have — simply because you truly don’t think you’re gambling — and why people will grab at a chance to live the American dream.

If something comes along that might offer that chance to someone who might not otherwise get it, they’re going to grab at it. And I do believe that the banks took advantage of that. That’s not a negative statement; matching your product offerings to consumer demand is good business. But it can backfire…and with respect to the banks, it did. Unfortunately, our banking system is too critical to our economy to let it collapse.

I’ve proposed a fee on the biggest banks. Now, I know Wall Street isn’t keen on this idea. But if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need.

Which is why I was pretty impressed by some companies’ decisions to take those bonuses away. I’d like to see if there will be an exemption for that.

Now, the true engine of job creation in this country will always be America’s businesses. But government can create the conditions necessary for businesses to expand and hire more workers.

I wonder how many people will refer to that statement as “liberal.” From my point of view, it’s classic capitalist theory. The government’s job is to make sure the market is as free as possible.

So tonight, I’m proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. I’m also proposing a new small business tax credit — one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages.

Good idea. The vast majority of Americans in corporate work are employed by small businesses.

There’s no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products.

Mr. Obama, you just made my day. We need alternatives to the pollution caused by our car-dependent society; and there are a growing number of people (including me) who really only drive because we have to. Last year’s gas panic showed that people are willing to consider cars that pollute less.

This being said, the population density in Europe and China is a lot different than the population density in the United States. As much as I’d like to see this happen, I wonder whether our population density can support it on any sort of a meaningful scale. If anyone can point me toward any statistics or studies, I’d appreciate it.

We should…give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy-efficient, which supports clean energy jobs.

Didn’t we just pass a law about that?

We can’t afford another so-called economic “expansion” like the one from the last decade — what some call the “lost decade” — where jobs grew more slowly than during any prior expansion; where the income of the average American household declined while the cost of health care and tuition reached record highs; where prosperity was built on a housing bubble and financial speculation.

And where economists and many other people kept warning that that would happen.

…to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. And, yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.

Now, this? This is a nice, specific statement. It’s also a statement I like. But let’s be realistic: this is going to take an awful lot of bulldozing to get around those on the liberal side who oppose nuclear power and offshore drilling; and those on the conservative side who just plain don’t want change at all.

…we need to invest in the skills and education of our people.

Sorry for the cynicism, but I’ve heard this one before.

…let’s tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years — and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college.

Most student loans are paid off on a ten-year schedule anyway, so I’m not sure this means much. I know a lot of people with unpleasant student loan payment amounts (my own hasn’t always been fun), but just how many people’s loan payments truly are 10% of their gross income?

The statement also begs the question about how he plans to cover the “written off” tuition costs. Any smart college or university will demand recompense — and well they should.

This year, we will step up refinancing so that homeowners can move into more affordable mortgages.

Isn’t that what started the banking crisis? I’m not saying this can’t be done, but we need to be very, very careful.

…it should be fairly obvious that I didn’t take on health care because it was good politics.

Anyone who believes otherwise has their heads in the sand. I’m not sanguine about his re-election possibilities.

Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan.

I know this, and so does anyone who’s actually read the legislation, but it needs to be made clearer somehow. Many opponents of the current bill are making a big deal out of it.

…according to the Congressional Budget Office — the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress — our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades.

If I remember right, the GAO had something different to say about that.

I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people.

So what are you going to do about it?

If anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. Let me know. Let me know. I’m eager to see it.

All due respect, but there have been some pretty good suggestions out there that ended up being ignored. The most important one, at least in my mind, is to decouple the completely artificial connection between employment and health coverage. It’s a dinosaur that needs to go away. But that’s another rant.

At the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program.

It’s about time someone said that in a broad public address.

Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years.

Hm. That’s just about the time he’s going to start becoming a lame duck.

…we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, for investment fund managers, and for those making over $250,000 a year. We just can’t afford it.

Try running that one past the corporate “citizens” who now have the same rights — but not responsibilities — as I do, courtesy SCOTUS interpretations.

From some on the right, I expect we’ll hear a different argument — that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts including those for the wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is that’s what we did for eight years.

And those same corporate citizens benefited greatly. You think they won’t fight to uphold the status quo?

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

You just made my day again, but with the number of both Democrats and Republicans whose positions depend on such corporate interest, please forgive my skepticism. Seeing is believing.

But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day.

I wonder what would happen if the term limits discussions came back up.

Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, no matter how malicious, is just part of the game. But it’s precisely such politics that has stopped either party from helping the American people. Worse yet, it’s sowing further division among our citizens, further distrust in our government.

One thing that drives me crazy about many people with political opinions is how they see “the gubmint” as a completely separate entity than the people. That problem has been around at least for a significant fraction of this country’s existence.

This is precisely the reason why, but it’s going to be one hell of an uphill battle. I don’t think it can be solved in a single administration.

Let’s reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values.

Let’s start with the idea that “innocent until proven guilty” isn’t waived when a U.S. citizen is charged with a terrorism-related offense. Let’s also start with a redefinition of that phrase as well.

Now, even as we prosecute two wars, we’re also confronting perhaps the greatest danger to the American people — the threat of nuclear weapons.

No, that would be chemical and biological weapons. And it’s a sad state of affairs when I make a comment like that concerning such a spectacular category of weapon.

But remember this — I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I could do it alone. Democracy in a nation of 300 million people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy. That’s just how it is.

Very true, but there were an awful lot of people who expected to see change quickly. There were a lot more who expected to see “them getting theirs.” I respect Mr. Obama for refusing to pander to that group, but it’s going to cost him.

God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.

And God bless everyone else, too. But that, as well, is another rant.

Overall, this was a pretty good address but for the lack of specifics. I’m interested to see how he plans to deliver over the next year.