The State of the Union

I am sure that most reading this blog were pretty bothered by the President’s State of the Union Address last night, if they watched it.

In my mind the economy has always moved based on certainty and when there is uncertainty they economy slows. Right now there is no certainty as to what the government is going to do. I would say that 80% of the speech was the “same old” stuff. A lot of political rhetoric and statements about what a great job they’ve done since taking over from the previous administration (because we all know it’s the administration that enacted all of the laws that grew the government and created the bubbles…right?). Then, of course, there was the obligatory sharing of personal stories from around the country that we know the President was involved with personally…or maybe it was a letter that a staff member read and put on his teleprompter (Does it bother anyone else that the Presidents – I do realize all of them have done this – parade these personal stories around for their own political agenda?). And then the statements of how great we are and how great we’ll be if everything said is taken care of, etc.

No, it wasn’t the same old stuff that bothered me as much (though it would be nice if everyone would give the “I inherited this problem” line a rest); it was the direct attack on the Republicans.

Now, in interest of full discloser, I haven’t been exactly thrilled with the work done by the Republicans of late either. But for the President of the United States to come right out in a combative posture towards one political party, while at the very same moment talking about the need to work in a bi-partisan way, is just downright maddening. From his snide comment while talking about freezing government spending for three years that his party would find it difficult because they would want to use that money to help people (because we all know Republicans just want to withhold money so that we can enjoy watching people suffer), to his tone and body language when he was giving both(?) parties a “talking to” about their partisan fighting of late (Did you notice how most of the time was spent looking at the Republican side of the aisle as he talked about the need to quit fighting and even when he did occasionally glance towards the Democrat side he still kept his body angled slightly to the Republicans, giving the impression that the entire talk was for them), he just seemed to ooze out his true colors as a hypocrite. I am not naïve enough to think that cases of hypocrisy are rare in politics, but usually the President is better at covering it up in his major speeches.

Then to reiterate to the Democrats that they still held the majority and therefore should press on (more attacking the Republicans too in my mind), despite what their constituencies told them showed his true colors as a politician. I have said it once and will continue saying it most likely until we can get rid of most of those currently in office: Why is it that the Democrats seem to think that the definition of bi-partisanship means that the Republicans should quit causing such a stink and just agree to what the Democrats want? It would be nice if the Democrats – and especially the President now after this attacking speech – would come to understand the true meaning of bi-partisanship. In my mind that definition would include the thoughts that even though, as the President himself stated in his speech, the very reason for two parties comes from the vastly different philosophical points of view which have existed for centuries, we should still be able to come together and in a form of compromise (that means give and take from both sides…just to clear that up) pass laws that the majority of Americans can believe in.

And, again to clear things up, that doesn’t mean that when elected they can ignore their constituencies until the next election. Just because you won, doesn’t mean that the voters agree with everything you stand for or will stand for over the course of your term, and even if they do agree now they have the right to change their mind. I have to say that I agree with the President when he said that now is the time to be more open and transparent than ever. There is a severe amount of distrust from the American people. DOESN’T HE AND THE REST OF THE POLITICIANS UNDERSTAND WHY?!!!! It is because of the exact things he did in his speech: spit out several inconsistent statements, tell outright lies, and in general pretend that they weren’t part of the problem (Let’s all keep in mind that voting records don’t lie). I still think that every speech and every proposal should include sources of where they came up with the information to base their viewpoints on. If they feel like they can't cite the source because it is from a lobbyist then maybe they should change the way they do things or quit.

All that aside there were a couple of proposals that bothered me. One of the proposals that bothered me was regarding his proposal to lower taxes on the small business owner. He seemed to push that quite hard and several in the media were talking about how great and benevolent that was. What a great idea! Except for the fact that the majority of small business owners make over $250,000 a year and they are going to be taxed up the wazoo since they dared make more than most and the government is now going to need that money to pay for their agendas (which brings up another thought: it makes sticking to the budget easier when you tax everyone like crazy to expand income doesn't it? But, of course, the Democrats are only doing that because they can't stand seeing anyone suffer unlike their Republican counterparts).

The other proposal is something that has always bothered me, and I do realize that this is an unpopular opinion, is this idea that we need to “punish” (though removal of tax shelters and I would be willing to bet the addition of taxes by the time their through) those businesses that “ship our jobs overseas.” How exactly would they delineate what it means to ship the jobs overseas? How exactly are they then going to help those American companies, which for the vast majority still employ a significant number of Americans, compete? Despite all the rhetoric and chest puffing that we do to say we only buy American we tend to buy the cheapest product without regard as to where it came from. If American companies are to compete they will have to cut costs somehow and, for now, one way to do that is to outsource some jobs. As to my question regarding how they are going to delineate, think about those companies who purchase parts from all over the world. A lot of those parts are produced here in the U.S. too, so aren’t they “shipping our jobs overseas” by not buying American? If you look at the comments from those who are angry about their jobs being taken by someone overseas, a good portion of them fit this scenario. It may sound great to some, especially when jobs are so hard to find (especially for the less educated, who’s jobs tend to be the ones outsourced), to say that we should punish those companies who take jobs away from U.S. citizens, but in practice it makes a lot less sense. Why don’t we instead focus on making American made products more competitive? Lower/eliminate the massive amounts of taxes levied on American companies. Quit the verbal trade fights that just close borders not open them wider. In other words, get the Government out of the way and let the world’s most innovative and entrepreneurial business owners and workers compete on an even playing field.

In all, if not completely obvious after reading this post, I was very disappointed with the President’s Address. I thought that while he claimed to be moving forward politically, he un-abashedly continued the backward process that has picked up pace in the last 3 years.