Commentators, columnists, newscasters, syndicated columnists and political experts (that’s an oxymoron) all seem to have guessed the content of the annual ‘State of The Union’ address this week. One TV reporter mentioned that about 33 million people would be watching, slightly more than 10% of the US population.
This is a requirement of the President and Commander-in Chief according to Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution that states in part: “He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;” In many ways, the speech has become a dog and pony show of words; threats and promises that sound solid in concept without much substance. For example, not much that was touted in last year’s speech has materialized (think immigration, 15 manufacturing hubs, minimum wage).
In his 2014 State-of-the-Union speech it is likely that he will proclaim that something must be done about income inequality of workers. The President calls this ‘the defining challenge of our time.’ If this is truly the defining challenge of our time, why hasn’t the administration done something about it over the past five years? The mantra of ‘blame Bush’ was whined out in almost every speech and news conference during his first term. But now we are well into the second term and the inequality of incomes continues to exist. Has the President been helpless to do something about income inequality?
Well, not really, it’s just that the hundreds of cabinet secretaries, czars and advisors are mostly theorists and come from non-profit, academic and political backgrounds that have sheltered them from accumulating real world knowledge and experience. That unfamiliarity with results-oriented activities drives the administrators, speechwriters and advisors toward political solutions. These profound edicts leave the lips with great authority but are ineffective where the rubber hits the road. Absence of logic has become painfully evident in the rollout and the probable failure of the ‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’ also known as Obamacare.
Other subjects that the President may mention in his speech are increased minimum wage, immigration reform, a Pre-K national school program, college for every high school graduate, impassive feelings toward widespread marijuana use (except for his daughters), the growth of replaceable energy and the increase in hybrid (battery powered) cars.
The minimum wage will probably be increased, making it more difficult for teenagers entering the job market. Immigration reform will be contentious between those who want immediate citizenship rights and those who prefer to take measured steps to citizenship. The billions of dollars spent on Pre-K education, if passed, will insure the votes of thousands of new unionized teachers and will provide further government control over education. The college loan program will be as lukewarm and expensive as it has been in the past.
According to the International Energy Agency, three-times as much money is spent on subsidies for renewable energy sources as on fossil fuels. Fossil fuels contribute about 80% of world energy while green energy produces about 5%. Demand for subsidized expensive hybrid cars has been increasing slowly.
While those are some of the topics that may be mentioned in the State-of-the-Union address, we will surely hear nothing about the Benghazi attack of September 11, 2012. It has been recently learned that the Pentagon and the President knew it was a terrorist attack only minutes after it started. What is obvious is that the President, the Secretaries of State and Defense among others, are insulating themselves from admitting their miscreant roles and denying responsibility and accountability.
We will probably hear in the Tuesday speech that the President is unwilling to sign anything but a ‘clean budget bill’ meaning that amendments appended by the House or Senate will produce a veto. Although he speaks of negotiation and compromise, the President obviously wants to continue spending taxpayer extractions as he sees fit. That sounds like tyranny rather than democracy.
– Dick Baynton
