State of the Union

First of all, good job Saints, but come on Colts! Get it done! I'm disappointed. Let's get a snow day! And this is my first post on the newly downloaded Google Chrome. I'm trying it out... I've heard Internet Explorer isn't very good. So far I like Chrome. I might try Firefox eventually, but who knows?

More importantly, I read a transcript of Obama's State of the Union '10, and I definitely have some comments. I know it took me longer than expected, but I'm doing my best. It's really long, so I've only read about half of it, but hopefully I can finish. It's similar to when I read books... it's hard to just read half. Once you get that far you might as well finish. But I need to write something, so I'll discuss what I know so far.

The worst of the storm has passed, but the devastation remains

One of Obama's greatest messages that I've heard. It's a great line, very profound. This line came about not very far into the speech, when the President was talking about the economy and jobs-- one of the most pressing issues of his administration. However, a lot of what he said was that they're doing their best, because after all, he was left with the responsibility of fixing the situation when he took office. In the very same paragraph as the storm metaphor, he said, "One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt."

This seemed to be a big theme in the speech, that the current administration was given many problems, and have done their best to help. Which I think is partly true, partly false. They might have saved the banking system, but by doing that, the government added historical amounts of debt to the national deficit. They might have helped the automotive industry stay afloat, but once again, they added huge amounts of debt. That seems like something that would be bad for the economy...

One of my questions, though, is if this administration talks big, but contradicts themselves in many ways? It sure seems like it to me. In the midst of all these economic stimuli and bailouts, the government is saying they want to cut spending. They also say that the deficit is bad, but they've set record numbers of spending in one year. I think Obama had an excuse for this, too, though. It was that they were fixing a previous administration's errors.

There were a few things that I liked to hear from Obama. I can't say if it's all talk, but I think it's good that he at least acts like he realizes that people are against these two things:

Party politics. I think I've talked before about how divided the government is, and even today, I saw it in the congressional votes. The Democrats seem to vote for Democrat-sponsored bills, and the Republicans seem to do the same for their party's bills. Like I said, it is so sad that the Congress members from one state mostly don't agree on issues. In the Senate, it seems impossible to pass anything without 60 votes. Because of that, not much is getting done, simply because of the party divisions.

"I'm also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform," Obama said. The second thing that he talked about that Americans are pissed about is earmarks. If the government wants to cut spending, they absolutely need to do something about earmarks. Senators and Representatives should not be able to tag spending for a rainforest in Iowa onto a defense spending bill. It is such a huge waste of money that could be prevented. Defense spending bills should only have items in them that have to do with defense.

For now, that's enough. I'll be back, though.

State of the Union

As I was busy last night, I unfortunately missed President Obama's State of the Union address. My goal is to watch it this weekend and have a post by Tuesday. For now, you can just read this. It's not a comprehensive summary of the speech, but it takes a good look at one of the aspects of the speech.

Money Talk

I won't repeat everything this NY Times post says, but basically it says that the Senate will vote this week on the possibility of creating a commission focused on finding ways to reduce the deficit. In some ways, I totally agree with this, but I do have reservations about it.

Spending is definitely a problem in our government, and not just now, it has been for a while. In recent years, the federal deficit has grown immensely, especially in with the 'bailouts' that have been given. This graph shows the federal deficit as a percentage of GDP starting with the Hoover presidency. "Hoover got us in, and WWII got us out. Bush got us in, and to his credit, started trying to get us out," Stephen Stoft wrote under the graph. 

To end the Great Depression, the federal government started huge spending projects to stimulate the economy and give people jobs, much like they have attempted during the current recession. However, the difference between those projects and those of today is the fact that Roosevelt's New Deal helped revive the country from a horrible economy, where unemployment was much higher than the dreaded 10% that we hear about today. 

Today, the NY Times also reported that Obama, in his State of the Union Address, will call for a freeze in many federal spending programs. Once again, I am so happy that the government at least seems to be acknowledging the fact that they spend way too much money! However, the deal that Obama is proposing will only cut a tiny fraction of the spending that is expected in the years that it will be in effect. And somehow, at the same time as this freeze occurs, the government wants to be able to provide more services...

Healthcare? How can health care reform be achieved if the government is truly dedicated to cutting spending and reducing the deficit? That makes absolutely no sense, unless someone in the government is named Alexander Hamilton.