The State of the Union speech actually
wasn’t bad. President Obama said a few things with which I agree, and
he didn’t say anything that made me want to throw something at my
television. I do think however that many things he did say, can’t go
without at least being challenged. It was a long speech, so here is my
attempt to address some of the more glaring, shall we say
“misrepresentations”.
“Thanks to the tax cuts we passed, American’s
paychecks are a little bigger today… And these steps… will grow the
economy and add to the more than one million private sector jobs
created last year.”
Newsflash, that wasn’t a tax cut; it was a continuation of the
prevailing tax rates enacted by President Bush. In fact there was
actually an increase in the form of a reinstated death tax. Bigger
paychecks are the result of a temporary decrease in Social Security
deductions. It is also hard to get excited about a million jobs
created when that total is offset by the 7 to 8 million we lost since
Obama became President.
“Just recently, China became the home to the world’s largest private solar research facility…”
Yes, owned by a California company that can’t afford to do their business in the United States . So much for American “green energy” jobs
“With more research and incentives, we can
break our dependence on oil with biofuels, and become the first country
to have a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.”
Biofuels are a long way from becoming a viable petroleum substitute
, and can you imagine the effect of plugging a million vehicles into
the power grid each night to recharge? Can you say “brown out”?
Additionally with a price tag around $40,000 electric vehicles won’t be
gaining broad acceptance soon, unless of course this administration
decides to subsidize purchases for those who can’t really afford them.
What next, will we pay their electricity bills too?
“I’m asking Congress to eliminate the billions
in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies… I don’t know
if you’ve noticed, but they’re doing just fine on their own.”
Up to 90% of all oil drilling done in the United States is carried out by small independent companies
. So called “Big Oil” only accounts for the remaining 10%. I don’t
know if you’ve noticed, Mr. President, but Big Oil is doing just fine
drilling in other countries, (where they pay leases and royalties… Oh,
and hire employees). Increasing taxes and cutting subsidies on oil
production in the United States will mostly effect, guess who? Small
businesses.
“I challenge you to join me in setting a new
goal: By 2035, 80 percent of America’s electricity will come from clean
energy sources.”
A lot can happen in 25 years and new technologies will evolve,
particularly if they can provide a profit. It is difficult however to
put much faith in solar, wind or nuclear to pave the way to energy
independence. Coal and natural gas provide almost 70% of the
electricity generated in America. Hydropower and nuclear most of the
rest. With solar and wind coming in at a whopping 3%, even if you
could quadruple that, it wouldn’t amount to much as our needs increase
(remember the electric cars?). Add to that the administration’s
environmental restraints both current and future for all of these
sources, and there is no realistic end in sight for our energy
dependence on other countries. We are going to be using oil for years
to come. It would be better if it is domestic.
“…instead of just pouring money into a system
that’s not working, we launched a competition called Race to the Top.
To all 50 states, we said, “If you show us the most innovative plans to
improve teacher quality and student achievement, we’ll show you the
money.”"
What we got for $4.35 billion is a promise to do better by 11 states and the District of Columbia
No quantitative improvement in student performance, test scores or
graduation rates. In some states like Washington, it is debatable
whether the teacher’s union would allow the funds to be distributed
without their control anyway. More money spent without direct results.
The most recent data shows the United States third only to
Switzerland and Austria in per student spending for secondary
education. Further,
that same data shows a lack of correlation in these countries between
money spent and economic growth and competitiveness . The United
States clearly gets more bang for the buck in educational dollars spent
than the two countries spending more. So it begs the question: is
this a real problem, or just an excuse to direct more money toward
under-achieving schools that should be cleaned up, consolidated or
closed?
“…we will reach the goal that I set two years
ago: By the end of the decade, America will once again have the highest
proportion of college graduates in the world.”
We lost that lead in just one generation. Here is a novel thought:
Perhaps it has little to do with how much we spend on students.
Perhaps it is because we send too many kids to college who simply do
not belong there. In education as with most other things, our
government insists on assuring not only equal opportunity, but equal
results and this is proof that it can’t be done.
“…when our own engineers graded our nation’s
infrastructure, they gave us a “D… Within 25 years, our goal is to
give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail. For some
trips, it will be faster than flying –- without the pat-down.”
These two points are related in an uncomfortable way. Japan has
high speed rail. They are meticulous about maintenance and repair.
Their safety record is excellent. In the United States, passenger rail
systems are not profitable and virtually always subsidized by the
Government. Our current roadbeds are barely adequate for hauling
freight, and would require a total replacement to switch to high
speed. Considering the “D” given to our infrastructure, you have to ask how many people will
trust a 200 mph train with our established lack of upkeep? And, I have
to add, “Why not the pat-down? Wouldn’t a bomb in a high speed train
traveling through urban areas be as devastating as a plane crash?
“But now that the worst of the recession is
over, we have to confront the fact that our government spends more than
it takes in. That is not sustainable. Every day, families sacrifice to
live within their means. They deserve a government that does the same.”
My day job is associated with the building trades. I haven’t talked
to anybody who believes that the worst is over. In fact most are
scrambling day to day to keep their employees working and their
businesses open. Virtually none are expanding, and many have given
up. Daily they see the wasteful government spending and deal with
needless and costly regulations. Nobody believes the President on this
point.
“So tonight, I am proposing that starting this
year, we freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years. Now,
this would reduce the deficit by more than $400 billion over the next
decade…”
Freezing spending now is closing the gate after the cattle are in
the corn. It should have been done two years ago before we added 5
trillion to the national debt. $400 billion over 10 years is
laughable. At $40 billion a year, it is about what we spend right now
on weight loss products in the United States. Mr. President, if you
are going to talk about reducing the deficit, please talk about real
money.
“This freeze will require painful cuts.
Already, we’ve frozen the salaries of hardworking federal employees for
the next two years.”
You mean, after they got their cost of living raises?
“I’ve proposed cuts to things I care deeply about, like community action programs.”
Like ACORN?
“The health insurance law we passed last year
will slow these rising costs, which is part of the reason that
nonpartisan economists have said that repealing the health care law
would add a quarter of a trillion dollars to our deficit.”
Considering what Obamacare will actually cost America, I’ll accept
the quarter trillion to repeal. If that figure is accurate, it would
be money well spent. However the word “cost” itself has dubious
meaning in this debate. Are we talking about the cost to Americans for
their insurance, or are we talking about the actual cost to provide
health care? Obamacare doesn’t address in any meaningful way the
actual costs of hospitals, procedures or drugs. Mandating health
insurance for everyone is not affordable healthcare, it is the road to
another monumental entitlement program and we need to recognize it for
what it is.
“In the coming months, my administration will develop a proposal to merge, consolidate, and reorganize the federal government…”
It is hard to believe this considering the fact that Obamacare adds 100+ offices, agencies and departments alone.
“Because you deserve to know exactly how and
where your tax dollars are being spent, you’ll be able to go to a
website and get that information… I ask Congress to do what the White
House has already done — put that information online.”
If it is as accurate as the White House website, you may as well spend you time at TheOnion.com
“If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it. I will veto it.”
I’ll believe it when I see it. When I see it.
The very first thing President Obama spoke, before he got a chance
to fabricate and embellish was perhaps the most important thing he said
all night. It is the very point that I and other Conservatives have
been trying to make all along. It is what we need to keep as our
guiding light and compass in the years ahead, and thankfully an
increasing number of Americans have recognized and support it:
“At stake is whether new jobs and industries
take root in this country, or somewhere else. It’s whether the hard
work and industry of our people is rewarded. It’s whether we sustain
the leadership that has made America not just a place on a map, but the
light to the world.”
If we think of these words every time we step into the polling booth, everything’s going to be OK.
Originally posted on 01/30/2011at ConservativeCompass.com