STATE OF THE UNION DECREE

Thank you, Mr. President…

As spurred on by the State of the Union Address last week, I’ve been recently reflecting on the state of the American Presidency. Obama’s Address was definitely a great speech (as most expected it to be), but most commentary after the Address focuses critiques on whether or not the speech accomplished what Obama needed to accomplish in order to strengthen his administration. It seems nominally questioned, though, whether or not we are simply expecting way too much from one speech, and more importantly, from one man.

The Address last week followed a cliché pattern of addressing accomplishments, admitting to trials faced and trials to come, and then proclaim a four-tiered paradigm for striving toward a strong USA…

The first layer of Obama’s speech, in terms of the direction of immediate government action, was in regards to financial reform. One can easily refer to the below post in order to gauge our sentiments on the only type of financial reform that seems to have taken place within this administration. Namely, pumping federal dollars into banks, only to turn around and tax them, in the name of redistributing such “gains” to smaller banks funding smaller businesses. This appears not only counter-productive, but wasteful.

The next layer of Obama’s speech, called for an investment in “greener” innovation. While the thought of more “green” industry in America sounds like a two-fold win, a more environmentally friendly America with more domestic “industrial” jobs. We ought also to be careful that money invested is going towards private industry, which will be more effective in providing gains in green technology while securing more jobs for the future, rather than investing more money in more government bureaucracies (i.e. $10 billion this year on the mere operation of the federal EPA), which hands greater responsibility to the federal government while also teaching us to depend on government expansion in order to create more jobs. This would not count as a win. (SOURCE)

The third step towards success was an allusion toward Obama’s newest National Export Initiative. I would fervently disagree that more agricultural exports guarantees more American jobs and that more agricultural subsidies equals more successful farmers. But even with these ideological differences aside, the logical conclusion from past patterns of government agricultural subsidies is that they are a waste. Over $95 billion was spent between 2001 and 2006 on agricultural subsidies, while 1.3 billion of those dollars went to landowners that didn’t plant a single crop (SOURCE). Furthermore, according to the current National Export Initiative, as listed under the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) Department of the US Department of Agriculture, the $54 million proposed for this Initiative will serve towards increasing salaries within the FAS by $34.5 million. Therefore, the leftover $19.5 million probably cannot be expected to ramp our agricultural prowess in the world by much. (SOURCE)

Obama’s final step in guaranteeing our comeback as a strong economically stable nation was laid out in the form of educational reform. Whereas, the need for an improved educational system is acknowledged across the board, the need to place greater responsibility in the hands of the federal government ought to be questioned. An example of Obama’s progress in educational reform includes one of his latest initiatives, referred to as “Race to the Top”. States have the opportunity to apply for grants for their schools that have been making progress in meeting national standards and for state-funded programs in meeting lower-scoring school’s needs. While more money for states sounds like a step in the right direction, this initiative will only grant money to 11 of the 50 states. (SOURCE). How is this a constitutionally sounds way to spend federal money (which ought to belong in the hands of the Union as a whole)?

If you’ve managed to even force your way this far through my droning complaints regarding Obama’s State of the Union Address, you might find yourself begging the same question I’m internally struggling with right now. How did I manage to write an entire post resembling the very whining and groaning of the thousands of journalistic commentators that I was calling into question at the beginning of my post? Maybe the greater question is how have we, collectively as a nation, become accustomed to looking to the face, speeches, and ambitions of one man, to give us our bankers, jobs, and schools? The process of critiquing this presidential figure has become much too easy for anyone (even myself), because we’ve turned his position into a presidential king of sorts, looked toward for providing us with everything and anything we can think of asking of him. Perhaps the investigation of how we’ve found our nation in this collectively needy and demanding position is worth considering. Perhaps a conversation to be continued for next week’s post…

-E.C.Soria