Last Call For Now It's A Problem

A weird thing happened when over the last couple of years the epidemic of opioids spread from inner city black neighborhoods which didn't matter to Republicans, to Red State small towns that do. Suddenly Republicans in Congress are worried about kids being born addicted to smack.

The chairman of a U.S. House committee that oversees child abuse issues opened an inquiry Friday into whether the federal government is failing to enforce a law meant to protect thousands of babies born dependent on drugs each year.

The inquiry, launched by Representative John Kline of Minnesota, comes in response to a Reuters investigation last month that identified 110 examples of children who were exposed to opioids while in the womb and later died preventable deaths after leaving the hospital.

No more than nine states comply with a 2003 law that calls on hospitals to alert social workers whenever a baby is born dependent on drugs, the news agency found.

Since the law was enacted, the number of newborns diagnosed with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome has skyrocketed – from 4,991 cases in 2003 to 27,315 in 2013, federal data show. A Reuters analysis found that thousands of drug-dependant newborns are sent home each year without a referral to social service agencies, contrary to the intent of the federal law.

Imagine that.  Now it's a problem to House Republicans, where before it was just "government overreach" for the federal government to deal with health issues.

Those referrals are intended to help social workers develop a "plan of safe care" for the newborns and mothers. Although most states fail to comply with the provisions, Reuters found none has lost federal funding.

In a letter Friday, Kline told Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell that he was "deeply concerned" that the agency may not be enforcing the law.

“A Reuters investigation released in December cast serious doubts over whether these basic requirements in federal law are being followed," wrote Kline, a Republican who chairs the House Education and the Workforce Committee. The letter was co-signed by Todd Rokita, an Indiana Republican, who chairs a subcommittee on early childhood education.

“The Reuters investigation reveals the shocking and deadly consequences when these vital federal and state child welfare policies are not properly implemented and enforced,” the lawmakers wrote.

"Even more troubling, according to the Reuters report, there are some states that have failed to put these policies in place altogether, yet not a single state is being denied … funds.”

You mean the 31 states controlled completely by Republicans are resisting federal mandates to do something about the health of their citizens despite taking federal taxpayer money to do so?

Perish the thought.

The Power Of Two

The same Republican Village pundits who told us that the smart money was on Scott Walker, Chris Christie, Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson and Marco Rubio now tell us they're sure they've got it this time, and that it's a two-man race between Trump and Ted Cruz.

As the presidential primary race moves into a more urgent and combative phase, there is growing acceptance among Republicans, including the Washington and financial elite, that Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are the two candidates most likely to become the party’s nominee.

Their commanding performances at the sixth debate — along with their continued dominance in national and early state polls — have solidified the conclusion of many Republicans that the campaign is becoming a two-person contest.

Long expected to become a race between an outsider and an establishment candidate, it is coming down instead as one between two outsiders, with dwindling time for their rivals to change the trajectory before the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 1.

There is hope that one of the four establishment candidates may emerge as a consensus choice and consolidate support. The two who seem best positioned to do so, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, had some sparkling moments in Thursday’s Fox Business Channel debate but left the stage bruised and squabbling. They returned to the campaign trail on Friday aiming more firepower at each other than Trump or Cruz.

“Trump and Cruz sucked all the oxygen out of the room, which is bad news for the establishment folks,” said Barry Bennett, a veteran GOP strategist who recently resigned as campaign manager to Ben Carson. “It doesn’t look like much is going to stop them. They’re in a tier off to themselves, and I think our nominee is going to be Cruz or Trump.”

If that's finally correct, then it's the best news for 2016 I've heard in a long time.

For the Democrats.

Iran The Table On Them

President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry come through yet again as Iran and the US arrange a long overdue prisoner swap that includes Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian.

Iran has released four imprisoned U.S. citizens, including Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian, as part of a swap, the office of Tehran’s prosecutor announced Saturday, according to Iranian news media.

The other released prisoners include Amir Hekmat, a former U.S. Marine, and Saeed Abedni, a pastor, and a fourth unnamed American. All four are dual U.S.-Iranian citizens. Rezaian has been held since 2014.

According to Iran’s Fars News Agency, the four were ordered released in exchange for six Iranian-Americans held in the United States on sanctions-related charges.

A statement by the prosecutor said that “based on an approval of the Supreme National Security Council and the general interests of the Islamic Republic, four Iranian prisoners with dual-nationality were freed today within the framework of a prisoner swap deal,” Fars reported.

There was no official confirmation from the United States. Kris Coratti, vice president of communications and spokeswoman for The Post, said that “while we are hopeful, we have not received any official word of Jason’s release.”

As the US-Iran nuclear deal heads towards the day of implementation as nuclear watchdogs are expected to sign off on the deal soon, the prisoner exchange is good ol' fashioned diplomacy.

It's hard to imagine any of the Republicans currently running for President Obama's job pulling this off without, you know, bombing something first.

Taking Stock Of 2016 So Far

It;s not been a good month for your 401(k) so far.  The markets are now in bear territory and have given back all their 2015 gains and then some.  Oil is now sinking under $30 and barrel and people are starting to ask uncomfortable questions about that Fed rate hike.

Wall Street bled on Friday, with the S&P 500 sinking to its lowest since October 2014 as oil prices sank below $30 per barrel and fears grew about economic trouble in China.

Pain was dealt widely, with the day's trading volume unusually high and more than a fifth of S&P 500 stocks touching 52-week lows. The major S&P sectors all ended sharply lower. The Russell 2000 small-cap index dropped as much as 3.5 percent to its lowest since July 2013.

The energy sector dropped 2.87 percent as oil prices fell 6.5 percent, in part due to fears of slow economic growth in China, where major stock indexes also slumped overnight. The energy sector has lost nearly half its value after hitting record highs in late 2014.

"Initially when oil was down, the convenient line was 'Well, it's good for the other nine sectors'," said Jake Dollarhide, chief executive officer of Longbow Asset Management in Tulsa, Oklahoma. "That tune has changed. Now, it's a contagion to the other nine sectors. It's a contagion to Main Street and Wall Street."

The technology sector was the day's biggest loser, sliding 3.15 percent as weak quarterly results from chipmaker Intel weighed heavily on chip stocks.

The S&P 500 has fallen about 12 percent from its high in May, pushing it into what is generally considered "correction territory."

Hopefully things will start to turn around here, unlike 2007/2008 we're not losing 800,000 jobs a month and not having economies collapse.  But even a mild recession at this point would be hideous news for the Dems, so I'm really hoping that this is a hiccup as it was in August.

Last Call For...Jeb?

The "smart Bush" is looking more and more like the burning Bush these days, and even Politico is writing Jeb's campaign epitaph with an eye towards who will benefit for his family's network of super-donors.

POLITICO talked to nearly two dozen major donors, and most say they are waiting for what one veteran Republican and former Bush 43 administration appointee described as the "family hall pass" to jump to another campaign after the New Hampshire primary.

“I’m resigned to it being over, frankly. It’s really disappointing,” said one top Bush Wall Street donor. “I’d urge him to get out after New Hampshire if he doesn’t do well, but he probably won’t."

The deterioration of the Bush campaign has been a humbling experience for his fundraisers. A year ago, even before he was a candidate, Bush's team was locking down donors across the country and getting commitments for six- and seven-figure checks with little trouble. Donors were pitted against each other to see who could raise more and be in the good graces of the man who, at the time, was described by many in Bush World as the inevitable nominee.

Now the fundraising pitch is decidedly different.

"Hey, I need you to throw away money on Jeb — out of loyalty," a Bush fundraiser has told donors recently.

Rival campaigns are watching Bush's finance operation closely and have been working behind the scenes to lay the groundwork to poach his donor network. So far, a top Florida Republican fundraiser, Brian Ballard, has been one of the only notable defections to Sen. Marco Rubio's camp after Bush's campaign attacked Rubio.

"Donors I've talked to are desperate not to abandon Jeb because of their long bonds and loyalty with the family, but they are also recognizing there is no ROI [return on investment] on this campaign," said Rick Wilson, a veteran Florida political operative who is backing Rubio. "The sense of these folks is it is so sad. They whisper to each other, 'When will Jeb go?'"

The mood is very much that in order for someone to be able to challenge Trump, the riff-raff and the chaff have to go, starting with the biggest drain holding back the most donor cash: Jebby.

I don't blame the Republicans.  They're just weeks away from putting a racist, bigoted white supremacist hatemonger out in front, and only a few months from assuring a nasty convention fight later in the year in order to try to strip him of the nomination.

The vultures are circling a lot of the remaining GOP field, frankly, but Jeb has the juiciest pickings.

Please Rise For The Trumpistan National Anthem

Republicans howled when major rap artists backed Barack Obama in their words and songs eight years ago, accusing him of being a part of a "cult of personality", Rush Limbaugh gave us the now infamous "Barack The Magic Negro" song that turned into a big GOP hit back around Christmas 2008.  Campaign songs have been with us for a while now, from "I Like Ike" to Bill Clinton's use of "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow".

And then Donald Trump shows up.




The lyrics?

Cowardice

Are you serious?

Apologies for freedom, I can’t handle this.

When freedom rings, answer the call!

On your feet, stand up tall!

Freedom's on our shoulders, USA!

Enemies of freedom face the music, c'mon boys, take them down

President Donald Trump knows how to make America great

Deal from strength or get crushed every time!

Yeah, there's nothing really horrible about this or anything HOLY CHRIST. 

And remember, this guy is currently leading the GOP pack with a third of Republicans backing him in what is definitely turning into a four-man race for the bottom among Trump, Cruz, Rubio and Carson.

America, right?

The Freedom To Discriminate

Conservatives keep saying that religious freedom legislation isn't being used as a license to discriminate against the LGBTQ community, but that's exactly what a new Republican bill in Georgia does.

Florists, bakers or any other private business owner could refuse service to gay couples getting married in Georgia, under legislation filed Wednesday that is likely to inflame the battle at the Capitol over religious freedom and gay rights. 

House Bill 756 would allow business owners to cite religious beliefs in refusing goods or services for a “matrimonial ceremony” — a blunt assessment of conservatives’ outrage after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June state prohibitions on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional. 

The bill represents the worst fears of gay rights advocates and others who have fought the last two years against other so-called religious liberty legislation. One of the most prominent bills, Senate Bill 129, remains tabled in a House committee after moderate Republicans and Democrats attached anti-discrimination language that supporters say gutted the bill. 

SB 129, however, makes no provision allowing businesses to refuse services to gay weddings for religious reasons and its sponsor, state Sen. Josh McKoon, R-Columbus, has said repeatedly that he has no anti-gay agenda.

Not that I would expect Republicans to be anything other than gay-hating bigoted jackasses, but it's almost amusing to see them stop jerking people around and come out with such an obvious bill designed to allow people to get their hate on.

There's nothing Christian about treating people badly because they're different from you.

StupidiNews!

• Japanese officials say 14 are dead after a tour bus carrying tourists to a ski resort went off a mountain road early Friday, 27 people were injured.
• Chief of US Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson says the Navy will take additional steps to stop sexual assaults in the service, calling attacks a "scourge in our workforce".
• The US Supreme Court may take up President Obama's executive actions on immigration just in time for the 2016 elections, currently the administration has been blocked by the 5th Circuit.
• Oil prices continue their drop below $30 a barrel as China's stock market entered bear territory this week and Canada's dollar is sliding lower against its US cousin.
• California lawmakers are mulling drone license and insurance requirements so that operators can be held liable for accidents and crashes.

Last Call For The Con-Man-Servative

The New York Times is hitting Sen. Ted Cruz on financial disclosure laws, it seems as Cruz is gaining in the polls against Donald Trump, there are new questions about Cruz's loan from Goldman Sachs for his Senate campaign four years ago.

Those reports show that in the critical weeks before the May 2012 Republican primary, Mr. Cruz — currently a leading contender for his party’s presidential nomination — put “personal funds” totaling $960,000 into his Senate campaign. Two months later, shortly before a scheduled runoff election, he added more, bringing the total to $1.2 million — “which is all we had saved,” as Mr. Cruz described it in an interview with The New York Times several years ago.

A review of personal financial disclosures that Mr. Cruz filed later with the Senate does not find a liquidation of assets that would have accounted for all the money he spent on his campaign. What it does show, however, is that in the first half of 2012, Ted and Heidi Cruz obtained the low-interest loan from Goldman Sachs, as well as another one from Citibank. The loans totaled as much as $750,000 and eventually increased to a maximum of $1 million before being paid down later that year. There is no explanation of their purpose.

Neither loan appears in reports the Ted Cruz for Senate Committee filed with the Federal Election Commission, in which candidates are required to disclose the source of money they borrow to finance their campaigns. Other campaigns have been investigated and fined for failing to make such disclosures, which are intended to inform voters and prevent candidates from receiving special treatment from lenders. There is no evidence that the Cruzes got a break on their loans.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Cruz’s presidential campaign, Catherine Frazier, acknowledged that the loan from Goldman Sachs, drawn against the value of the Cruzes’ brokerage account, was a source of money for the Senate race. Ms. Frazier added that Mr. Cruz also sold stocks and liquidated savings, but she did not address whether the Citibank loan was used.

The failure to report the Goldman Sachs loan, for as much as $500,000, was “inadvertent,” she said, adding that the campaign would file corrected reports as necessary. Ms. Frazier said there had been no attempt to hide anything.

The Cruz campaign is claiming that the failure to report is an oversight (an oversight that just happened to allow Cruz to get $1.2 million from two of the largest banks in the country that helped to crash the economy in 2008 without admitting it.)

It's not even close to being illegal, but it's just another example of how Cruz can't maintain both his outsider maverick status without taking GOP establishment cash without lying to everyone he can.

Mapping Millennial Mojo

A new USA Today/Ipsos poll finds that voters age 18-35 are most likely to support outsider candidates like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.

Donald Trump easily leads the field among younger Republicans and independents, at 26%, but that is a lower level of support that the billionaire businessman now holds in the overall electorate. He is backed by 34% of GOP voters in the RealClearPolitics average of recent national surveys.

"I'm not really sure where I stand on him right now," says Acs, the student from New Mexico and a Republican. Trump's support nationwide and in key states means "he must be doing something right," she says, "but I don't know if I would vote for him."

No other Republican contender seems to have broken through, at least not yet. Retired pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, former Florida governor Jeb Bush and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz are bunched within 3 points of one another. Other contenders are in low single digits.

But among Democrats, there's something of a surprise:

On the Democratic side, among the overall electorate in national polls, Clinton now leads Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders by close to 20 percentage points. But Sanders, the oldest candidate running, has captured the allegiance of younger voters. The 73-year-old democratic socialist from the Green Mountain State is leading Clinton, 46%-35%, among millennial Democrats and independents.

"The Bernie Sanders thing has really got me on board," says McGeary, an IT professional from Seattle. "I was pretty cynical at first about the whole movement — I mean, I supported it, but I had no idea it would pick up this kind of steam." He praises Sanders' reliance on small donors and lumps Clinton in with the Republican field as "people who keep protecting corporations instead of people."

Indeed, he says he might leave the country if Sanders isn't elected because of his frustration that the United States isn't doing more to address issues such as social inequality and health care.

There is an age divide within the millennial generation. Among those 18 to 25 years old, Sanders has a big lead. Among those 26 to 34, Clinton has a small edge.

There is a gender gap as well — and not the one that favors Clinton among baby boomer women. Men under 35 support Sanders by 4 percentage points. Women back him by almost 20 points. The possibility of breaking new ground by electing the first female president apparently carries less persuasive power among younger women than their mothers' generation.

This isn't the first poll to find that Millennial women are backing Sanders and not Clinton.  Whether or not they show up to vote in primaries or in the general, remains very much to be seen as this remains the age group least likely to cast a vote at all in 2016.

The Supreme Sanction In Florida

The Supreme Court this week made a rare 8-1 decision that the practice of Florida trial judges being the sole arbiter of death penalty punishment without a trial by jury violates the Sixth Amendment and is unconstitutional.

In an 8-1 de­cision, the court said Flor­ida vi­ol­ated the Sixth Amend­ment by al­low­ing judges, rather than jur­ies, to de­term­ine wheth­er cer­tain cri­ter­ia for a death sen­tence had been met.

Timothy Lee Hurst was sen­tenced to death more than a dec­ade ago for the bru­tal murder of a wo­man he worked with at a fast-food res­taur­ant. Un­der Flor­ida law, murder is nor­mally pun­ish­able by life im­pris­on­ment; a death sen­tence can be im­posed only if a judge de­term­ines that “ag­grav­at­ing cir­cum­stances” war­rant the tough­er sen­tence.

But that de­term­in­a­tion ought to be­long to a jury, not a judge, the Su­preme Court ruled.

“The Sixth Amend­ment pro­tects a de­fend­ant’s right to an im­par­tial jury. This right re­quired Flor­ida to base Timothy Hurst’s death sen­tence on a jury’s ver­dict, not a judge’s fact­find­ing,” Justice So­nia So­to­may­or wrote for the ma­jor­ity. “Flor­ida’s sen­ten­cing scheme, which re­quired the judge alone to find the ex­ist­ence of an ag­grav­at­ing cir­cum­stance, is there­fore un­con­sti­tu­tion­al.”

Flor­ida’s sys­tem re­quired jur­ies to make an “ad­vis­ory sen­tence,” which judges are sup­posed to take in­to ac­count when they make the fi­nal de­term­in­a­tion about wheth­er to ap­ply the death pen­alty. The state’s law­yers ar­gued that was enough, and Justice Samuel Alito—the only dis­sent­ing vote—agreed.

“Un­der the Flor­ida sys­tem, the jury plays a crit­ic­ally im­port­ant role,” Alito wrote.

In last summer's Glossip v Gross death penalty ruling on the constitutionality of lethal injection, it was Alito that wrote the opinion for the 5-4 majority that the method of administering capital punishment had to itself be Constitutional, prompting dissent from Justice Steven Breyer that there was no way to do that.

In the 41 pages that followed, Breyer explained why he believed it was “highly likely” that the death penalty violated the Eighth Amendment. “At the very least, the Court should call for full briefing on the basic question.” Two weeks later, in the first capital case after Glossip, David Zink offered them the means to do so. In his last-minute petition to the Court, Zink presented a question that the Court had not heard in over four decades:

Whether the death penalty today violates evolving standards of decency and concepts of human dignity embodied in the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and the Eighth Amendment as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment?

So again, this makes sense, Alito has been the hard-hearted one here on the death penalty.  But the question of the practice amounting to cruel and unusual punishment is looking like an opinion looking for a case, and hopefully such a case will come soon.

StupidiNews!

• A series of attacks by armed militants involving firearms and explosives have killed at least six in the Indonesian capital of Jakarta on Thursday, officials believe ISIS may be involved.
• The Michigan National Guard continues to help residents of Flint get clean water as Gov. Rick Snyder has asked for assistance from FEMA to deal with the city's contaminated water.
• Winning tickets for last night's nearly $1.6 billion Powerball jackpot were sold in California, Tennessee, and Florida.
• Atlantic City may have to declare bankruptcy as deteriorating casino revenues force New Jersey lawmakers to consider options for dealing with the city's $90 million budget hole.
• The FDA has signed off on a new implant that will help patients kick the opioid habit, but critics say the product may have been rushed to approval amid safety concerns.

Last Call For Number One With White Supremacists

Gosh you guys, for some strange reason Trump keeps on racking up endorsements from white supremacist groups. It's really weird, because of course they tell me Trump can't possibly be racist, racism is over in America and the notion of a major party leading candidate getting endorsements from white supremacists groups would mean that racism is still with us.

That can't be, right?

William Daniel Johnson has a vision for America. The Los Angeles-based lawyer thinks that the United States will see the creation of a white ethno-state within his lifetime.

“I think Trump’s candidacy is helping move us in that direction,” Johnson said in a Monday phone interview with TPM. “Whether he is elected or not, his candidacy is a big factor in helping destroy this middle-of-the-road Republican mindset.”

Johnson is the chairman of the American Freedom Party, a white nationalist political party, and the founder of a super PAC that plans to blanket early voting states with robocalls encouraging voters to turn out for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. As TPM reported Saturday, voters in Iowa got their first taste of the automated recordings—which heaped praise on Trump’s anti-immigrant views—from the American National Super PAC this weekend. It branded Trump its "Great White Hope" in a press release for the robocall campaign.

But, but Chief Justice Roberts promised me racism was a barbarous relic of America's past.

The AFP has its own candidate for the 2016 race: a minor Reagan administration appointee named Robert Whitaker, whose campaign slogan is “Diversity is the codeword for white genocide.”

But the party sees no conflict in endorsing Whitaker and Trump simultaneously.

“Donald Trump’s campaign may help remind Americans that all genocide, even against white people, is evil," Whitaker notes in a statement on the AFP’s website. "My campaign is there to help keep the candidates on point regarding race in America.”

Johnson has assembled an all-star cast of white nationalists to assist him in spreading Trump’s message. The first round of robocalls featured Rev. Donald Tan, a Filipino-American minister, and Jared Taylor, founder of the white
supremacist magazine American Renaissance. Johnson told TPM that a number of additional Trump supporters would eventually lend their endorsements to the American Nationalist Super PAC's efforts.

Taylor also serves as the spokesman for the Council of Concerned Citizens, a white nationalist group Charleston shooter Dylann Roof credited with making him aware of the problem of “brutal black on White murders” in the U.S.

After Roof gunned down nine parishioners at a historically black church in June 2015, Taylor condemned the killings but defended the “legitimacy” of Roof’s grievances.

In a Monday phone interview with TPM, Taylor called Trump “the first candidate in many, many years to take positions that may in fact be beneficial to the white majority.”

Donald Trump, 2016. Not a white supremacist, just number one with white supremacists.

Look For The Union Label

All eyes will be on Justice Anthony Kennedy again this term as the only question after yesterday's oral arguments on public employee union dues before SCOTUS is whether or not he'll be the fifth vote to sink union agency fees.

In a closely watched case brought by 10 California teachers, the court’s conservative majority seemed ready to say that forcing public workers to support unions they have declined to join violates the First Amendment.

A ruling in the teachers’ favor would affect millions of government workers and culminate a political and legal campaign by a group of prominent conservative foundations aimed at weakening public-sector unions. Those unions stand to lose fees from both workers who object to the positions the unions take and those who simply choose not to join while benefiting from the unions’ efforts on their behalf.

Under California law, public employees who choose not to join unions must pay a “fair share service fee,” also known as an “agency fee,” typically equivalent to members’ dues. The fees, the law says, are meant to pay for collective bargaining activities, including “the cost of lobbying activities.” More than 20 states have similar laws.

Government workers who are not members of unions have long been able to obtain refunds for the political activities of unions like campaign spending. Monday’s case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, No. 14-915, asks whether such workers must continue to pay for any union activities, including negotiating for better wages and benefits. A majority of the justices seemed inclined to say no.

Collective bargaining, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said, is inherently political when the government is the employer. “Many critical points are matters of public concern,” he said, mentioning issues like tenure, merit pay, promotions and classroom size.

The best hope for a victory for the unions had rested with Justice Antonin Scalia, who has written and said things sympathetic to their position. But he was consistently hostile on Monday.

”The problem is that everything that is collectively bargained with the government is within the political sphere, almost by definition,” he said.

If state laws to collect agency fees are rendered unconstitutional, then public employee unions will suffer, which of course is the point, but the view that everything a public employee union says or does is inherently political would ironically grant it more power under recent campaign finance reform rollbacks in a post-Citizens United world, yes?

Perhaps that's the next step, to call public unions political tools that somehow have to be invalidated because their "money as free speech" does not deserve the same freedoms of corporations. That's probably the angle Scalia's writings would supposedly prevent, but then again we know as of recent rulings that Scalia will gladly ignore his own precedent when it's politically expedient.

Still, it stands as I've said before that guessing SCOTUS is a crapshoot at best.

The Farewell Tour Begins

President Obama's final State of the Union address was a frank admission that he felt he could have done more for America, and should have been able to, when he was allowed to by Republicans.

In his remarks, Mr. Obama said America should harness innovation and not be intimidated by it. He called for a “moonshot” effort to cure cancer, to be led by Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., who lost his son to the disease last year.

The address before a joint session of Congress departed from Mr. Obama’s past practice of outlining executive actions intended to sidestep gridlock in Washington.

Instead, Mr. Obama sought to pose and answer the four central questions his aides said were driving the debate about America’s future, including how to ensure opportunity for everyone, how to harness technological change, how to keep the country safe, and how to fix the nation’s broken politics.

He called for an end to gerrymandering — the gaming of political districts to ensure one party’s advantage — reducing the influence of secretive campaign contributions and making voting easier. Mr. Obama also called on Americans to get more involved in politics and participate, a theme of his first campaign and of his presidency.

The speech was one of Mr. Obama’s few remaining opportunities to shape the public conversation before the nation’s attention shifts to the campaign to replace him that is already underway. Except for a final address at the Democratic convention this summer, Tuesday night might have been Mr. Obama’s last big speech.

“I know some of you are antsy to get back to Iowa — I’ve been there,” he said at the start, acknowledging that the political focus is on the state, which holds the country’s first nominating caucuses.

Mr. Obama was determined that the address be forward-looking, aides said, even as his time remaining in the White House is limited. The president called for compromise with Republicans on an overhaul of the criminal justice system, approval of a broad free-trade agreement spanning the Pacific Rim and new initiatives to address poverty and the opioid crisis in the United States. He proposed to provide jobless workers with retraining in addition to the unemployment payments they already received.

In an effort to find common ground with Speaker Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, Mr. Obama noted that Mr. Ryan, a Republican, supports expanding a federal tax credit for low- and middle-income workers. “Who knows, we might surprise the cynics again,” he said, noting a bipartisan budget agreement they struck late last year.

And he repeated past calls for legislative action on his domestic initiatives that have fallen short, including raising the minimum wage, revising the nation’s immigration laws and enacting stricter gun restrictions.

It was less of a challenge of issues and more of a "It's my last year guys, cut me some slack" directed at both Republicans who probably would oppose efforts to research a cure for cancer if Obama called for it, and at Democrats who have spent the last seven years moaning about what could have and should have been.

We'll see if it motivates anything like an effort to come together to do something useful, but after all this time and all this rancor, it was more of an appeal to those who may be so exhausted of fighting this President that they just leave him alone long enough to get a couple last boxes on the list ticked off.

Which, frankly, is the best we can hope for at this point.