Religious services "illegal" during shutdown? Since when...

There is a lot of outrage right now from the right regarding the decision to prevent military chaplains or other ministers contracted by the government from ministering or performing services during the government shutdown.  The outcry is ostensibly over the violation of their right to minister.  There is a lot of things wrong here, but I want to sort out some of the reality from the emotion.  First of all, the relevant text of the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Okay, there it is.  Congress shall make no law...period.  They can neither establish a particular religion or prohibit anyone from freely exercising their religion.  So, what is really happening here.  The military provides chaplains to our men and women in uniform.  This is a long standing tradition and ministers are provided from as many faiths as exist in the military.  This is a service provided to service members.  It is not a law, required by Congress, therefore, there is no establishment since it is provided to all religions (at least those represented in the military) alike.

The outrage being expressed here, here, and here, suggests that there is some sort of free exercise violation.  Before discussing whether or not a free exercise violation is going on, I will first try to ascertain the "facts" taking place on the ground.  First, the overwhelming majority of religious services are still taking place because active duty chaplains are not affected by this.  Secondly, contract chaplains who have received their contract for this year are supposedly not affected either.  This is only affecting those contract chaplains who had not yet received their contracts for this year.  However, there is an additional problem to consider.  The military is apparently refusing to allow these ministers to perform services even if they volunteer their time to do so.

So, are anyone's rights being violated here?  The military is trying to provide for the right to free exercise to active duty members.  However, some bases do not have active duty Catholic chaplains and therefore have to "hire them out" so to speak.  Those bases are affected by the shutdown because those chaplains aren't considered essential and aren't getting paid.  This all makes perfect sense and does not "technically" rise to the level of violating anyone's rights.

However, we have the final problem to consider.  In a location where a "contract chaplain" is in place, there is no other method of providing services to military personnel on base.  That isn't necessarily a problem because in many religions, laypersons can perform services, so any member of that religion could take on the responsibility.  This is not true for all religions though.  Catholics can't do this, nor Mormons, and others.  In fact, it is more a protestant thing.  Nonetheless, the military is not obligated to provide a chaplain, it is a service.  The troubling part in these stories is that the military will not allow chaplains to perform services even on a volunteer basis.  If there is a minister willing to provide military personnel with their religious rights and traditions on a voluntary basis, for FREE, and the military prohibits them from doing so, then the government has stepped in to the first amendment.  The point at which they tell a minister of any faith that they can't perform services on a voluntary basis (according to the stories above, they went so far as to declare that them performing religious services would be an illegal act), then the government is prohibiting the free exercise of religion of those serving in the military as well as the minister offering their services.  The government is simply wrong on this one, but I am not willing to go so far as to say it is some sort of conspiracy against religion or Catholics since it is only being carried out against those who are not active duty chaplains.

Ezra Klein misses many points on way to justifiably complain about Republicans

This post is in response to the Ezra Klein article in the Washington Post on May 28, 2013.  You can also read it here.

I found this to be a very interesting article.  It was made even moreso by the fact that Klein is only telling part of the story.  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is not being intentionally disingenuous.  At any rate, I agree with him that Republicans have narrowed on the policy front, although I don't think I'd agree on the reasons that is so, which you'll see outlined below.  In addition, I would disagree that Democrats have expanded on that front, but rather, that they’ve embraced the full range of statism rather than simply limiting it to their pet issues. The numbers show that Democrats and Republicans have both lost party members in the last several years.  The Democrats were always larger and remain so now, but independents have increased significantly.  So much so that they spent some time being a larger voting bloc than either Democrats or Republicans for the first time since we’ve been keeping track of these things.  This is part of what Klein is missing, that both parties are losing ground in terms of their appeal to the average American.  The Democrats have lost more registered voters than Republicans to the independents.  Why are both parties losing voters and why the Democrats more than Republicans?  Because they don’t really “get” Americans (in my opinion).  Democrats have embraced fully the concept of state run everything.  That somehow, if we’d just let them, the government would make all our lives better.  Good intentions aside, I want the government to make my life better about as much as I’d want a rose bush sprouting from my mouth.  It looks pretty, but it hurts like heck.  The Republicans have been fighting a war within their own party, which has actually driven many to become independents, largely because their base no longer recognizes the party.  They ran, in the nineties, on fiscal conservatism, shrinking government, and fairer taxes.  We got?  Stranger and more complicated taxes, excessive spending, two wars, and the largest expansion of government since the “Great Society”.  So...we elected Democrats, who proceeded to continue the exact same destructive policies that the Republicans had become enamored with because, well, that’s what Democrats have always done (at least in my lifetime).

Is it any wonder that independents are growing at the expense of the two major parties?  So, to address some of Klein’s specific points...The Affordable Care Act.  It is an utter train wreck and was from the beginning.  54% of Americans want it repealed!  Why should the Republicans help make a bad policy and bad bill less bad simply because a Republican had the idea 20 years ago.  Klein suggests Republicans just decided it was unconstitutional.  In reality, it was unconstitutional 20 years ago when they came up with it and it remains that way today.  Also, it isn’t really the Republican party that finds it unconstitutional, but rather, some Republican politicians (who are largely supported by independents in their districts rather than traditional Republicans) that have made that argument (and it is about time).  This is part of the inner fighting within the party.  I think most people now believe the Democrats are a lost cause when it comes to the Constitution.  The day they find something other than marijuana laws to be unconstitutional will be the first day.  The fight within the Republican party is because so many independents support smaller government, less regulation, fewer entitlements, less spending, responsible spending, and for the government to pretty much stay out of their lives.  Republicans don’t really support any of these, as evidenced by the Bush years, but rather pay them lip service to appeal to their base.  It is the growing independent movement that will likely shape the next several decades and those folks are trying to take over the Republican party from within.  Klein is also missing this phenomena entirely.  I’ve seen him miss this in several of his articles now.  Or, he is adept at ignoring it.  Back to the Affordable Care Act then.  I find it hilarious that people on the left consistently say that Republicans should support it because it was a Republican idea back in 1993, yet when a politicians says they’ve changed their nuanced position to agree with someone on the left, their opinion from 20 years ago is washed over, forgotten, ignored, but if they change their position to oppose them, then they are the devil himself.  The Affordable Care Act is like this.  Republicans came up with it to combat single payer.  Democrats finally realized that single payer would never fly with Americans, so they embraced the idea espoused by Republicans so long ago, yet failed to realize that Republicans (or at least the more independent wing of the party that is trying to reshape the party based on principles instead of power (at least this is the idealistic viewpoint)) had already moved on to the unconstitutionality of forcing Americans to do anything.

As for climate change, that anyone outside the Democratic party still supports anything related to this baffles me.  The climate is now and always has been changing and WE have very little to do with it.  To establish or support policies that would clearly damage our economy just to set up a system that does nothing to reduce human impact on climate change, achieves nothing in regards to actually lowering temperatures (and why would we want to anyway since warmer temperatures mean more food, faster growing crops, and I can go on), significantly raises energy costs on consumers, and creates a system that gives the central government the power to interfere in the lives of average Americans on a scale not seen since, well, Obamacare.  This issue is nothing more than a scare tactic used by politicians to gain power and increase influence.  Al Gore’s “consensus” never existed amongst scientists because his methodology was flawed and actually juvenile (in the sense that he showed a remarkably juvenile ability to conduct research).  The consensus was based on typing global warming into a search engine and finding nothing but supportive arguments for man made climate change.  Of course, if you did real research and used more than one simplistic and unscientific search term, you’d discover a ton of material challenging the global warming alarmists position, but that would require actual research, rather than just searching what fits your pre-determined agenda.  In my research on this topic, I’ve discovered three things of importance.  

1. Whenever the media is talking about ice melting, they are usually talking about calving events creating icebergs.  This always gives me a chuckle because calving is caused when ice becomes so heavy that it breaks off from the parent glacier.  This only occurs with ice growth.  Calving does not occur because of melting.  In addition, they talk about the melting ice in the arctic causing the waters to rise.  Again, I just have to laugh.  Almost all of the ice in the arctic is already in the water creating displacement.  If the ice in your water glass melts, does the water level rise?  NO.  Why?  Because it has already created the increase in water levels due to displacement.  That is the same phenomena in the north pole.  The only significant amount of ice in the north not already in the water is Greenland and it would cause negligible increases in water if it were to melt entirely.  Finally, regarding Antarctica, they are always talking about the dangers of it melting.  They base this on the very real fact that most of that ice is continental and so it would cause significant rises in water levels were it to melt.  However, they cite one small section of Antarctica as melting (which it is) while ignoring the real fact that the Antarctic ice has been growing in leaps and bounds for decades.

2. They love to scare us with weather models showing how awful things will be in 500 years.  These weather models are the exact same models that meteorologists use and are only as good as the information input to them.  Several scientists have dismissed these claims for the simple reason that the information being put into them assumes more water vapor in the air than can be justified.  In other words (as we all should have discovered with the leaking of the climategate emails), the scientists couldn’t get the result they wanted, so they manipulated the data to make the models work which required massive amounts (not of carbon dioxide but) of excess water vapor to exist in the atmosphere.  In other words, the models aren’t showing what might happen if carbon continues to rise, but instead are showing what might happen if the world suddenly became a heck of a lot wetter than it is now. At any rate, basically, they are asking you to believe that they can use weather models to predict doomsday scenarios 500 years into the future using the exact same weather models that can’t even get your weather forecast accurate past 3-5 days out. 

3. There is a credibility problem developing amongst the global warming alarmists these days.  Besides the reality that they have failed to see or demonstrate any warming of global temperatures since 1998, the climategate emails also exposed a certain amount of corruption and disregard for facts.  It always strikes me as convenient that they consistently use certain date periods to show their numbers.  For instance, they like to ignore anything from before 1960ish when they can.  In addition, they like to ignore the reality that a LOT of the “warming” they are claiming comes from weather stations that were surrounded by trees in the 1950s and are now surrounded by concrete buildings.  This is a wonderful example of localized warming, but has zero effect on global temperatures.  They like to ignore the fact that their own theory says that the upper atmosphere should show significant warming, yet they have no data that supports warming in the upper atmosphere on a global scale. They like to ignore the little ice age and the medieval warm period, as evidenced by the so called hockey stick graph of temperature rises that has been utterly discredited even though it is still in use today by many media outlets.  In other words, the evidence is far from clear, the science is far from decided, and so the politicians are asking you to allow them to make unprecedented policy changes that would greatly increase your electric bill and ability to maintain your current standard of living while fortifying their political power just because something might happen to the planet several hundred years after you are dead.  Only a philosophy that believes the government should take care of us could continue to support that kind of lunacy, so in that sense, I’m glad the Republicans have rejected climate change.

Regarding the GOPs stimulus initiatives, Klein absolutely right.  They did support a plethora of stimulus activities and now seem entirely opposed to the idea.  He seems to have missed the several points here though.  1. Republicans support stimulus through tax cuts, not spending and 2. Republican infighting has resulted in those who supported stimulus, like John McCain, being labeled RINOs, or Republcians in Name Only.  Also, part of the reasons former Republicans give for becoming independents is because they think Republicans abandoned their principles through all the stimulus efforts under Bush.  So, Klein is using stimulus by Republicans to argue that it is a Republican position that they should support when the reality is that Republicans view it as an abandonment of the party’s principles.  

Regarding taxes, well, I can’t agree with Klein on his assumption of what is driving deficits.  The U.S. has the largest tax rate in the western world on corporations at 35%.  We sit around and argue that Europe and Canada should raise their rates.  However, our companies are using Europe, Canada, and many other countries with lower rates to shelter their money.  If Klein is arguing that we should raise our taxes to gain more revenue, he will find out that raising these rates won’t create more revenue but will instead drive more corporations to shelter more money thus resulting in even less tax revenue.  Sure, there is a point at which that is no longer true, but Art Laffer clearly demonstrates that there is a tax burden that causes greater revenue and a tax burden that actually reduces revenue.  That is somewhere around 19 percent according to his study, meaning that if you tax above 19 you get less revenue than you do at 19 and if you tax below 19, you are actually losing revenue you should be getting.  Now, we can argue over a few percentage points in either direction, but this is significantly lower than the current 35%.  Therefore, today’s rates are actually generating LESS revenue than they would at 20%.  This seems counterintuitive, but it actually works, historically.  Austrian economists know this.  Republicans are clueless about it.  Keynesian economists find it inconvenient to their arguments.  Democrats simply don’t believe it.  It doesn’t really matter in the end because the argument Klein is making here is not really about tax rates but that deficits are being driven by lost revenue and not spending.  I assume this is his argument based on the article.  While I’d agree that a portion of the deficit is driven by less revenue, that is only part of the story.  The highest budget under Bush was 2.7 trillion.  The government has spent over 3.2 trillion in each of Obama’s years in office.  Therefore, you can't argue that this 500 billion dollar difference is due to lost revenue.   So, to argue that only loss of revenue caused the deficits is choosing to ignore the increase in spending under Obama.  In fact, you can’t argue loss of revenue is causing anything now.  Why not? Because this past year, the United States gained 2.7 trillion dollars in revenue.  The greatest amount of revenue ever brought in by the U.S. in all its history.  Umm…so spending more than we bring in must be the real culprit if our current revenue is the greatest it has ever been in history.

Finally, I agree entirely that the way we’re labeling the political spectrum has gone horribly wrong.  The above image is how I think we should look at the spectrum.  The realities as I see it are that the Republicans are statists on the right, the Democrats are statists on the left and nobody in this country is looking out for the Constitution.

My response to the 2013 Presidential State of the Union address

A friend asked me if there was anything about this year’s State of the Union speech by President Obama that I liked and agreed with.  Below are excerpt of the speech.  Interspersed, I have made comments reflecting whether I liked or agreed with the statement and why.

“After years of grueling recession, our businesses have created over 6 million new jobs. We buy more American cars than we have in five years and less foreign oil than we have in 20.”

That we have created 6 million new jobs is misleading.  Sure, 6 million jobs have been created, but when we lost over 5 million in Obama’s first couple of years, can you say the 6 million jobs are new?  Probably, particularly considering that the created jobs of the last 2 years are largely lower wage jobs than the ones they replaced.  While the President can use numbers with the best of them, I wouldn’t say that our 6 million new jobs are an improvement.

Sure, a government program called cars for clunkers that got people to buy new American cars to replace old ones has resulted in an uptick in the total cars purchased recently, but the latest industry data shows that GM is still struggling.  In fact, both GM and Chrysler have been purchased by foreign competitors, so only Ford can really be said to be a truly American car company, in my opinion.  Therefore, this is again, simply a trick with the numbers.

As for less foreign oil than we have in 20 years, I have no idea about that about its accuracy, but regardless, we had an oil dependency problem in 1993 (20 years ago) and we still do today, so this statement doesn’t really mean much.

“Our housing market is healing, our stock market is rebounding, and consumers, patients and homeowners enjoy stronger protections than ever before.”

Nope, nope, and nope again.

“So, together, we have cleared away the rubble of crisis, and we can say with renewed confidence that the state of our union is stronger.”

This is laughable.  We just got economic numbers that show the economy contracted rather than expanded.  We have atrocious debt, the so called consumer and patient protections do more to increase costs than they do to protect consumers and patients and the idea that a stabilized housing market means it is healing is fluff opinion, not a hard look at reality.

“But -- but we gather here knowing that there are millions of Americans whose hard work and dedication have not yet been rewarded. Our economy is adding jobs, but too many people still can't find full- time employment.”

Good recognition of the obvious…however, you government must fix it solution will not put people to work.

“Corporate profits have skyrocketed to all-time highs, but for more than a decade, wages and incomes have barely budged. It is our generation's task, then, to re-ignite the true engine of America's economic growth: a rising, thriving middle class.”

Blaming the companies for what ails us again, are we?  The problem with our economy over the last 20 years is that government policy has encouraged every sector, including individuals to purchase on debt rather than profits.  Corporations use profits to expand and grow (thus creating more jobs), to come up with new ways and new products to meet the demands of consumers (thus creating more products and jobs), to increase wages and benefits to attract better workers, to pay down debt (thus securing the corporations future), and to pay taxes (thus preventing them from doing all of the above on a larger scale).

“It is -- it is our unfinished task to restore the basic bargain that built this country, the idea that if you work hard and meet your responsibilities, you can get ahead, no matter where you come from, no matter what you look like or who you love. It is our unfinished task to make sure that this government works on behalf of the many, and not just the few, that it encourages free enterprise, rewards individual initiative, and opens the doors of opportunity to every child across this great nation.”

I can agree with every word said here.  Too bad the President doesn’t.  Every single policy initiative that he puts forth is how government will solve the problem, or how government must grow to help others, or how government is the only thing big enough to achieve a task.  Tell that to all the people who have survived just fine without government over the years.  Regardless, I strongly believe that the more government tries to “help” people, the more poverty and oppression it will create.

“The American people don't expect government to solve every problem. They don't expect those of us in this chamber to agree on every issue. But they do expect us to put the nation's interests before party.”

Oh yeah, because that’s what you’ve been doing for the last 4 years, putting party aside and reaching across the aisle.  Oh wait, no, that wasn’t you, that was Bill Clinton!

“These sudden, harsh, arbitrary cuts would jeopardize our military readiness, they'd devastate priorities like education and energy and medical research. They would certainly slow our recovery and cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs.”

Here the President is talking about Sequestration.  This bill, pushed and supported by Democrats, is now trying to be hung around the necks of Republicans.  Ironic.  At any rate, Americans will probably buy this because they have very short memories.  Nonetheless, that these cuts would devastate military readiness, education, energy, and medical research are opinions, not supported by fact.  The facts are that our military is the most wasteful agency in the federal government and it is not allowed, by law, to be audited.  That speaks volumes about whether this law would devastate the military.  Also, while the military has enjoyed huge budgetary increases over the past ten years, the number of combat ready forces over that time has still decreased, by as much as one third.  It is time the military start figuring out how to control their budget and it is time we audited them.  Another fact is that people were hugely concerned about the large budget cuts that would follow the end of World War II, yet following those cuts, we enjoyed massive economic growth in the private sector and the feared rise in unemployment never occurred.  So, history doesn’t support the President’s assertion here.

“And that's why Democrats, Republicans, business leaders, and economists have already said that these cuts -- known here in Washington as "the sequester'' -- are a really bad idea. Now, some in this Congress have proposed preventing only the defense cuts by making even bigger cuts to things like education and job training, Medicare and Social Security benefits. That idea is even worse.”

Yes, Republicans and Democrats alike would say this is a bad idea.  This is solely because cutting government spending reduces the amount of power Congress has over the economy and the people.  We can’t have that now, can we.  Also, business leaders who rely on the government to fund their bloated and unsustainable business models that would never work in the real business world are against it because they know they’ll have to actually do good accounting and figure out good ways to run their businesses and they just don’t want to do that.  As for economists, there are two schools of thought on the economy, the Keynesians and the Austrians.  The Keynesians all say it is a bad idea because they across the board support government interventions in the economy.  The Austrians though, across the board, are against government interventions in the economy.  They are the ones who predicted the housing bubble and other negative government actions that would lead to the depressed economy we’ve enjoyed since the crash in 2008 that our President thinks is improving.  The Austrians were right and they don’t fear sequestration.  I think I’ll go with the economists who actually saw what was coming but got ignored over those who clearly didn’t have a clue.

“Yes, the biggest driver of our long-term debt is the rising cost of health care for an aging population. And those of us who care deeply about programs like Medicare must embrace the need for modest reforms. Otherwise, our retirement programs will crowd out the investments we need for our children and jeopardize the promise of a secure retirement for future generations. But we can't ask senior citizens and working families to shoulder the entire burden of deficit reduction while asking nothing more from the wealthiest and the most powerful.”

Medicare is the primary driving force in rising health care costs, although you’ll never hear a politician admit to that.  I have severe issues with Medicare and how it is run, etc., but that is for another post.  Nonetheless, “modest” reforms won’t accomplish anything regarding Medicare other than, maybe, slow down the rate of growth.  As for retirement, Social Security is little more than a government sponsored Ponzi scheme.  If I did what they do, I’d be tossed in jail, rightfully so.  At any rate, there are several other models for helping to secure retirement for seniors around the world.  Ours is actually one of the least successful, but seemingly because it is our model, we must stick with it even to our own detriment.  Umm…we can’t ask seniors and “working families” (a euphemism for union families perhaps, or poor families, or maybe just Democrat families, but I digress) to bear the burden.  But…even if you left Social Security alone so that seniors don’t bear the burden, how would working families have to bear the burden of cuts in government spending?  They don’t.  Working families understand that they have to work for a living, not live off government programs.  Government programs are supposed to be a temporary leg up, not a permanent handout, but instead they foster apathy, a lack of responsibility, and a sense of entitlement.  Oh, and didn’t we just raise taxes on the wealthy back to those Clinton era rates we’ve so desired for the last 12 years?  But that isn’t important when giving a speech, only what you can sell is important.  And that tax increase on the wealthiest Americans?  Yeah, thanks for the increase to over 70% of the population.  How’s that only taxing the rich promise working out?

“We won't grow the middle class simply by shifting the cost of health care or college onto families that are already struggling or by forcing communities to lay off more teachers and more cops and more firefighters. Most Americans -- Democrats, Republicans and independents -- understand that we can't just cut our way to prosperity. They know that broad-based economic growth requires a balanced approach to deficit reduction, with spending cuts and revenue, and with everybody doing their fair share. And that's the approach I offer tonight.”

A balanced approach?  Hmm…broad-based growth?  Hmmm….sure sounds good eh?  Let’s see what he actually says though.  The only real way to increase revenue is to grow the economy and cut spending, but the inconvenience of the Laffer curve notwithstanding, let’s see what the proposals are?

“On Medicare, I'm prepared to enact reforms that will achieve the same amount of health care savings by the beginning of the next decade as the reforms proposed by the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission.”

I love how politicians always say they will produce savings…later.  By the end of the next decade Mr. President?  Really?  That means your plan will produce health care savings over 17 years?  Sorry, but we’ll be bankrupt by then.  Reform must be now, not 17 years from now.  Sure, you’ll claim you spread it all out over that time.  Good for you, but I am willing to bet that you don’t account for Medicare “growth” over that time, but rather just how much less will be spent.  It is always an accounting game for the politicians in Washington.  Both increase spending, but if one increases spending less than another, then somehow that means they are against old people or sick people or children.  I’m tired of these same old same old lines.

“Already, the Affordable Care Act is helping to slow the growth of health care costs.”

This is what he means by making health care costs increase and causing many people to lose the health insurance they already had or by causing workers in some industries to have their hours cut in order for the companies to stay in business since they couldn’t afford to comply with the outrageous regulations in the bill?  Sure, one might look at the last 10 years and then compare the last 2 and say cost increases have slowed, but that’s kind of like saying there is no global warming because the last two years are the coldest on record and the previous 8 were all growing.  (This is an analogy, not based in actual numbers).

“And -- and the reforms I'm proposing go even further. We'll reduce taxpayer subsidies to prescription drug companies and ask more from the wealthiest seniors.”

Just who are these wealthy seniors and what more will you be asking of them?

“We'll bring down costs by changing the way our government pays for Medicare, because our medical bills shouldn't be based on the number of tests ordered or days spent in the hospital. They should be based on the quality of care that our seniors receive.”

So now the government won’t just tell hospitals and doctors what they can charge, but they’ll tell them what is and isn’t a commodity?  Yeah, that’ll work.  There are real costs involved in providing health care.  The more government involves itself in the process, the higher those costs go.  How about we try something novel Mr. President, get the government out of the process, but no, that wouldn’t let the politicians increase their power, so it isn’t going to happen, even if a Republican were President.

“And I am open to additional reforms from both parties, so long as they don't violate the guarantee of a secure retirement. Our government shouldn't make promises we cannot keep, but we must keep the promises we've already made.”

So, basically, I’ll listen to any idea that doesn’t really change anything.  Gotcha.

“To hit the rest of our deficit reduction target, we should do what leaders in both parties have already suggested and save hundreds of billions of dollars by getting rid of tax loopholes and deductions for the well-off and the well-connected. After all, why would we choose to make deeper cuts to education and Medicare just to protect special interest tax breaks? How is that fair? Why is it that deficit reduction is a big emergency, justifying making cuts in Social Security benefits, but not closing some loopholes? How does that promote growth?”

It doesn’t, it is all about special interests.  If you wanted to do these kinds of reforms, I’m all for it.  The problem is that you don’t really, you just want to get rid of the “special” breaks for those things you disagree with.  Let’s continue to subsidize farms and solar power, but take it away from oil companies, those evil greedy guys, you know, Republicans.  I’ve got a better idea.  How about we remove ALL the subsidies and tax breaks and go with a fair tax plan that basically says everybody pays x% whether they are rich or poor.  But nope, that won’t happen either, because the Democrats, no more than the Republicans, really want to lose the power that giving tax breaks to constituents gives them and neither one wants to lose the poking stick they have that lets them point out the evils of the “other guys” tax breaks.

“The American people deserve a tax code that helps small businesses spend less time filling out complicated forms and more time expanding and hiring, a tax code that ensures billionaires with high- powered accountants can't work the system and pay a lower rate than their hard-working secretaries, a tax code that lowers incentives to move jobs overseas and lowers tax rates for businesses and manufacturers that are creating jobs right here in the United States of America.”

Good!  Excellent statement!  Too bad I have trouble believing you mean it.  After all, there is a fair tax plan out there that has some support in Congress…oh that’s right, it is a Republican plan, so no Democrat will be in favor.  All right, then claim it as your own, but actually achieving this statement?  See my comment on the section just above.

“I realize that tax reform and entitlement reform will not be easy. The politics will be hard for both sides. None of us will get 100 percent of what we want. But the alternative will cost us jobs, hurt our economy, visit hardship on millions of hardworking Americans. So let's set party interests aside and work to pass a budget that replaces reckless cuts with smart savings and wise investments in our future. And let's do it without the brinksmanship that stresses consumers and scares off investors.”

Great!  Love this idea, except the investment part.  Just what part of a free market economy wants or needs government investment?  Oh right!  The unproductive parts that have no consumer support and so shouldn’t exist anyway…you know, like Amtrak!

“The greatest nation on Earth -- the greatest nation on Earth cannot keep conducting its business by drifting from one manufactured crisis to the next. We can't do it.”

Even though the manufactured crises are created by the government?  Oh, that’s just an “inconvenient truth” I suppose.

“The American people have worked too hard, for too long, rebuilding from one crisis to see their elected officials cause another. Now... most of us agree that a plan to reduce the deficit must be part of our agenda. But let's be clear: Deficit reduction alone is not an economic plan.”

Maybe not, but I’m not willing to give the government one more cent of my money until they prove they are capable of living within their means.  Guess what, that means a balanced budget.  Get that and then we can talk about other ways to reduce the deficit.

“A growing economy that creates good, middle-class jobs, that must be the North Star that guides our efforts.”

Great!  Totally agreed!  Now, get the government out of the way and stop producing 12000 pages of new regulations every year and maybe, just maybe, we’d get back on this road towards the North Star (love the astronomical reference).

“Every day, we should ask ourselves three questions as a nation: How do we attract more jobs to our shores? How do we equip our people with the skills they need to get those jobs? And how do we make sure that hard work leads to a decent living?”

Agreed again!  Except your solutions will likely be that government must do these things and my solution is that government only hinders these things.

“A year-and-a-half ago, I put forward an American Jobs Act that independent economists said would create more than 1 million new jobs. And I thank the last Congress for passing some of that agenda; I urge this Congress to pass the rest. But... tonight I'll lay out additional proposals that are fully paid for and fully consistent with the budget framework both parties agreed to just 18 months ago.”

For the last time…government can’t CREATE jobs.  Ah well, no amount of legislation is going to fix our economy, but politicians want us to believe that they are to be trusted, that only they can save us, that we need them.  If they weren’t trying to “fix” things all the time, the lemmings I call Democrats and Republicans might actually realize we don’t need any of the politicians or any of the laws.  Freedom and liberty are what built this country (admittedly imperfectly) and only freedom and liberty for all will solve our problems.  More government, more regulations, more Washington spending won’t accomplish anything except the inevitable bankruptcy of the country.  Ask Greece how they are enjoying that.  Oh wait, no, don’t ask Greece, Germany bailed them out.  There won’t be anyone to bail us out, so our downfall will be much harder than that of Greece.

“Let me repeat: Nothing I'm proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime. It is not a bigger government we need, but a smarter government that sets priorities and invests in broad-based growth.”

Let me repeat, nice platitude, but I don’t believe you mean it.  And I’ll repeat something else…government has no business “investing” in anything!

“Our first priority is making America a magnet for new jobs and manufacturing. After shedding jobs for more than 10 years, our manufacturers have added about 500,000 jobs over the past three. Caterpillar is bringing jobs back from Japan. Ford is bringing jobs back from Mexico. And this year, Apple will start making Macs in America again.”

You want to make us a magnet for new jobs and manufacturing?  Reduce what is currently the largest corporate tax rate in the world!  It has to be lower than somebody if we want to stop the bleeding of companies moving overseas.  Right now, it isn’t lower than anybody.

“There are things we can do, right now, to accelerate this trend. Last year, we created our first manufacturing innovation institute in Youngstown, Ohio. A once-shuttered warehouse is now a state-of-the art lab where new workers are mastering the 3-D printing that has the potential to revolutionize the way we make almost everything. There's no reason this can't happen in other towns.”

Getting the government out of the economy will cause more innovation in less time, I’d wager, but we’ll never find that out because it is anathema to Democrats and Republicans alike.

“So tonight, I'm announcing the launch of three more of these manufacturing hubs, where businesses will partner with the Departments of Defense and Energy to turn regions left behind by globalization into global centers of high-tech jobs.”

Oh yes, because corporations dependent on government have worked out so well over the years.

“And I ask this Congress to help create a network of 15 of these hubs and guarantee that the next revolution in manufacturing is made right here in America. We can get that done.”

And Congress should be setting up manufacturing plants because?  I’m sorry, but this doesn’t sound like letting the market determine the growth and need of a product or industry, but just more government spending on things people aren’t asking for.

“Now, if we want to make the best products, we also have -- have to invest in the best ideas. Every dollar we invested to map the human genome returned $140 to our economy. Every dollar. Today, our scientists are mapping the human brain to unlock the answers to Alzheimer's. We're developing drugs to regenerate damaged organs, devising new materials to make batteries 10 times more powerful. Now is not the time to gut these job-creating investments in science and innovation. Now is the time to reach a level of research and development not seen since the height of the space race. We need to make those investments.”

Interesting…the President managed to sound really good here, of course, he is claiming credit for some things the government has little or nothing to do with, but that’s irrelevant I suppose, he sounds good doing it.

“Today, no area holds more promise than our investments in American energy. After years of talking about it, we're finally poised to control our own energy future. We produce more oil at home than we have in 15 years.”

I could get into why this is and that it would stop if energy prices went down, but I won’t.  I’ll just say it isn’t enough.  We need more drilling, more nuclear power, more more more, but that’s right.  Can’t drill offshore or in “protected” areas.  Ironic that the government has seized most of the productive land remaining in the country, isn’t it?

“We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas and the amount of renewable energy we generate from sources like wind and solar, with tens of thousands of good, American jobs to show for it. We produce more natural gas than ever before, and nearly everyone's energy bill is lower because of it. And over the last four years, our emissions of the dangerous carbon pollution that threatens our planet have actually fallen. But for the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to combat climate change.”

Sure, new modern cars get great gas mileage, but doubled is a stretch.  Going from 25 to 35 isn’t doubling anything.  Only the Prius get the kind of mileage where one might claim doubling.  Unless the President is including those 75 thousand dollar electric vehicles that nobody wants or can afford.

I don’t know what world the President lives in, but nobody’s energy bills have gone down recently.  Well, mine did because I bought a new system to replace my 20 year old one, but the rate I have to pay increased, the amount went down because of the efficiency of my system.

“Now, it's true that no single event makes a trend. But the fact is, the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15. Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, floods, all are now more frequent and more intense.”

He really wants to get me started on anthropogenic climate change?  Only politicians still use global warming.  At any rate, we’ve only been keeping records for 200 years.  Why does he think 12 of the last 15 being hot is particularly unique.  In fact, the world is still colder now than it was in the era preceding what is known as the “little ice age”, but that’s just another one of those inconveniences that politicians don’t want us to know because it doesn’t fit the narrative they are trying to spew.  That’s all I’ll say here about climate change.

“But if Congress won't act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct...”

Okay, so he forces me to say something else here.  The executive branch of our government, under out Constitution, has no authority to make any regulations or laws without the express permission and granting of said power by the Congress.  Therefore, Mr. President, if Congress won’t act, NEITHER CAN YOU!!!  Any attempt to do so is nothing more than tyranny from the executive office.

“Now, four years ago, other countries dominated the clean-energy market and the jobs that came with it. And we've begun to change that. Last year, wind energy added nearly half of all new power capacity in America. So let's generate even more. Solar energy gets cheaper by the year. Let's drive down costs even further. As long as countries like China keep going all-in on clean energy, so must we. Now, in the meantime, the natural gas boom has led to cleaner power and greater energy independence. We need to encourage that. That's why my administration will keep cutting red tape and speeding up new oil and gas permits.”

New oil and gas permits and less red tape?  Full agreement!  Too bad nobody in your own party will support you on that one.

“That's got to be part of an all-of-the-above plan. But I also want to work with this Congress to encourage the research and technology that helps natural gas burn even cleaner and protects our air and our water. In fact, much of our newfound energy is drawn from lands and waters that we, the public, own together.”

Just curious…so, how are we supposed to make something cleaner that doesn’t pollute?  Just wondering.  After all, we call natural gas the “clean” fossil fuel for a reason.  When burned, it produces carbon dioxide and water vapor.  Ya know, the same stuff we breathe out.

“So tonight, I propose we use some of our oil and gas revenues to fund an Energy Security Trust that will drive new research and technology to shift our cars and trucks off oil for good. If a nonpartisan coalition of CEOs and retired generals and admirals can get behind this idea, then so can we. Let's take their advice and free our families and businesses from the painful spikes in gas prices we've put up with for far too long. I'm also issuing a new goal for America: Let's cut in half the energy wasted by our homes and businesses over the next 20 years.”

These are all very laudable goals, but if the market (the consumers) really wanted this, it would already be happening.  Keep preaching Mr. President, and you might change enough people’s minds to drive demand in the free market, but keep the government out of it, because that will only result in an artificially propped up industry that requires my tax dollars to stay afloat.

“We'll work with the states to do it. Those states with the best ideas to create jobs and lower energy bills by constructing more efficient buildings will receive federal support to help make that happen. America's energy sector is just one part of an aging infrastructure badly in need of repair.”

Great, agreed about the state of our energy infrastructure, but the overwhelming majority of this is intrastate, not interstate.  Makes it hard for the federal government’s role to be clearly defined, so BE MORE SPECIFIC!

“Ask any CEO where they'd rather locate and hire, a country with deteriorating roads and bridges or one with high-speed rail and Internet, high-tech schools, self- healing power grids. The CEO of Siemens America -- a company that brought hundreds of new jobs to North Carolina -- has said that if we upgrade our infrastructure, they'll bring even more jobs. And that's the attitude of a lot of companies all around the world. And I know you want these job-creating projects in your district; I've seen all those ribbon- cuttings.”

Good!  But we don’t need to be building “high-speed rail”.  Consumers in the U.S. don’t want it, it is a pipe dream for certain activist sectors that shouldn’t be built by the government in order to bring it to fruition because it’ll just end up being another money draining hole like Amtrak if it isn’t done right…ya know, by actually putting the trains where they make economic sense and where they are needed rather than just sticking them in a particular Congressman’s district as an earmark for his people back home.

“So, tonight, I propose a ``Fix-It-First'' program to put people to work as soon as possible on our most urgent repairs, like the nearly 70,000 structurally deficient bridges across the country.”

The only bridges the federal government can fund upgrading or repairing are those on the interstate highway system.  All those other ones are local and state roads that aren’t funded at the federal level.  So, how many of those 70K bridges even qualify, or did we just use that number because it is a big one that makes it sound important.

Putting that aside though, is this anything like the “shovel ready” proposal from last year’s state of the union?  Because that worked so well, didn’t it.

“And to make sure taxpayers don't shoulder the whole burden, I'm also proposing a Partnership to Rebuild America that attracts private capital to upgrade what our businesses need most: modern ports to move our goods; modern pipelines to withstand a storm; modern schools worthy of our children.”

So that we don’t shoulder the whole burden?  I thought you just said that none of what you were about to propose would cost taxpayers anything, so what burden are you referring to?  Oh, the tax increase inherent in proposing all these new government interventions in the economy.  Good idea about modernizing ports, pipelines, schools, and other things though, if you were my governor, I’d find that very important.  The only federal issues here are ports and pipelines which are both interstate commerce.

“And part of our rebuilding effort must also involve our housing sector. The good news is, our housing market is finally healing from the collapse of 2007. Home prices are rising at the fastest pace in six years. Home purchases are up nearly 50 percent. And construction is expanding again. But even with mortgage rates near a 50-year low, too many families with solid credit who want to buy a home are being rejected. Too many families who have never missed a payment and want to refinance are being told no.”

Give me the supposed numbers here.  Who is really being turned away?  I have purchased a home since the collapse and sold one and I know many others who have managed to do the same.  Those who can actually afford it are not being turned away.  Are you proposing we return to the government sanctioned debacle that encouraged banks to give loans to people who had no chance of ever repaying them?  I hope that’s not what you are asking.  So, tell me who these “too many” people are?

“That's holding our entire economy back. We need to fix it. Right now, there's a bill in this Congress that would give every responsible homeowner in America the chance to save $3,000 a year by refinancing at today's rates. Democrats and Republicans have supported it before. So what are we waiting for? Take a vote and send me that bill.  Why are -- why would we be against that?”

Just what does this bill deem to be “responsible” home ownership.  The government set the new standards and restrictions on lending, so no new bill is going to change who the banks will give money to.  You want to do that, deregulate…it really isn’t a dirty word.

“Why would that be a partisan issue, helping folks refinance? Right now, overlapping regulations keep responsible young families from buying their first home. What's holding us back? Let's streamline the process and help our economy grow. Now, these initiatives in manufacturing, energy, infrastructure, housing, all these things will help entrepreneurs and small-business owners expand and create new jobs. But none of it will matter unless we also equip our citizens with the skills and training to fill those jobs.”

What’s holding us back?  The last time the government passed laws and regulations to make lending easier the whole system collapsed in on itself.  I’d say a bit of caution is warranted.  As for overlapping regulations, well, you run the executive branch Mr. President.  ALL regulations come out of your agencies.  You want to solve overlapping regulation issues, just do it, that is one of the few things you can actually do as President.  Congress has never created regulations, they’ve always given that power to the agencies themselves.  It doesn’t take an act of Congress to remove overlapping regulations or to deregulate, just the will to do it.  Stop blaming Congress for your actions.

“But today, fewer than three in ten 4-year-olds are enrolled in a high-quality preschool program. Most middle-class parents can't afford a few hundred bucks a week for private preschool. And for poor kids who need help the most, this lack of access to preschool education can shadow them for the rest of their lives. So, tonight, I propose working with states to make high-quality preschool available to every single child in America.”

Nice, start the indoctrination process even earlier.  If you are serious about this, get the DOE’s hands out of what is supposed to be an individual state process.  Let the states decide what is best for their children.  No one size fits all solution from the top is going to solve anything.

“Every dollar we invest in high-quality early childhood education can save more than seven dollars later on, by boosting graduation rates, reducing teen pregnancy, even reducing violent crime. In states that make it a priority to educate our youngest children -- like Georgia or Oklahoma -- studies show students grow up more likely to read and do math at grade level, graduate high school, hold a job, form more stable families of their own.”

Nice number, 1 dollar spent saves 7 later.  Where’d you get it?

“We know this works. So let's do what works and make sure none of our children start the race of life already behind. Let's give our kids that chance.”

Oh yes, because No Child Left Behind has been so successful over the last 10 years that we should do MORE federal intervention to screw up the education system even more than it already is.

“Tonight, I'm announcing a new challenge, to redesign America's high schools so they better equip graduates for the demands of a high-tech economy. And we'll reward schools that develop new partnerships with colleges and employers, and create classes that focus on science, technology, engineering and math, the skills today's employers are looking for to fill the jobs that are there right now and will be there in the future.”

Again, nice idea, but you can’t do it at the federal level.  Keep preaching it though and some states might try it.  That is what federalism is about Mr. President.  You know, the individual states try out various ideas to solve a problem or deal with an issue.  Those ideas that work get adopted by other states and those that don’t get dropped and eventually go away.  All these federal ideas though…they get forced onto the states whether they want them or not and then they never go away, so any possible better ideas don’t get tried because of the federal behemoth that’s in the way.  Your proposal isn’t federalism, it’s centralization.

“So, tonight, I ask Congress to change the Higher Education Act so that affordability and value are included in determining which colleges receive certain types of federal aid.  And -- and tomorrow, my Administration will release a new college scorecard that parents and students can use to compare schools based on a simple criteria: where you can get the most bang for your educational buck.”

“Federal aid” is one of the driving forces behind out of control cost rises in education.  At any rate, just how would they include this information in the factors and what criteria will they use to determine “bank for your buck”?  Seems like the kind of thing that will make it more expensive, not less.

“Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration's already made, putting more boots on the southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years. Real reform means establishing a responsible pathway to earned citizenship, a path that includes passing a background check, paying taxes and a meaningful penalty, learning English, and going to the back of the line behind the folks trying to come here legally.”

Senator Rubio has a plan for this that outlines every aspect you just stated, but Democrats won’t bring it to the floor.  Sounds good Mr. President, but you can’t even get your own party to bring something to the floor, seemingly for the reason that it came from a Republican.  So much for working together and crossing the aisle.

“In other words, we know what needs to be done. And as we speak, bipartisan groups in both chambers are working diligently to draft a bill, and I applaud their efforts. So let's get this done. Send me a comprehensive immigration reform bill in the next few months, and I will sign it right away. And America will be better for it.”

Like I said, you have a plan…so…what’s taking so long?

“But we can't stop there. We know our economy is stronger when our wives, our mothers, our daughters can live their lives free from discrimination in the workplace and free from the fear of domestic violence. Today, the Senate passed the Violence Against Women's Act that Joe Biden originally wrote almost 20 years ago. And I now urge the House to do the same.”

Nice politics Mr. President.  Completely dissing the opposition and making your side look good over an issue that has nothing to do with women.  What’s next if this bill isn’t “reauthorized”?  You’ll declare that Republicans are continuing their fictional war on women?  This bill was passed by a bipartisan majority in 1994 (a Republican controlled Congress) and was again passed in 2000 and again in 2005 (both Republican controlled Congresses).  So now, it is Republicans fault that it isn’t being passed?  This has absolutely nothing to do with women, by the way.  After all, the reason Republicans have objected this time is because the Senate version of the bill included protections for same sex couples (that’s not about protecting women from violent men) as well as protections for undocumented aliens in the form of temporary legal status (this doesn’t really help women either, but seems more like a back door to amnesty for a particular class).  So, Republicans always supported this bill when it helped women, but when you add in other things that really have nothing to do with preventing violence against women?  The President was very specific in using the term domestic violence rather than violence against women, even if that is what the bill is called because he is fully aware of why the Republicans object.  And by the way, the House HAS passed the bill, they just passed the original one that has been on the books for 20 years that doesn’t include the two provisions I stated above.

“And I ask this Congress to declare that women should earn a -- a living equal to their efforts and finally pass the Paycheck Fairness Act this year.”

Ummm…did I miss something?  Didn’t the Democrat majority in your first two years pass an equal pay for equal work bill???  Hmm???

“We know our economy's stronger when we reward an honest day's work with honest wages. But today, a full-time worker making the minimum wage earns $14,500 a year. Even with the tax relief we've put in place, a family with two kids that earns the minimum wage still lives below the poverty line. That's wrong.”

Yes, thanks for informing us what a fictitious family of four where both parents make minimum wage stands.  This bill isn’t about raising income since very few people actually work for minimum wage, but I’ll get to that after the next part of the speech.

“That's why, since the last time this Congress raised the minimum wage, 19 states have chosen to bump theirs even higher. Tonight, let's declare that, in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full time should have to live in poverty -- and raise the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour.”

Um, yes, states are the PROPER place for a minimum wage.  It shouldn’t even exist at the federal level because standards of living across the country vary.  At any rate, it is also easily fixed, but no politician would ever do it.  Just peg the minimum wage rate to inflation and you never need to vote on it again, but Democrats couldn’t have that because they wouldn’t be able to use it as a political bludgeon against their opponents.  At any rate, this request isn’t about raising wages for real people because so few people actually make minimum wage, it is about rewarding unions, many of whom have their salaries set at minimum wage + X.  So, a raise in the minimum wage raises the salaries of all those unions.  Nice gig if you can get it.

“This single step would raise the incomes of millions of working families. It could mean the difference between groceries or the food bank, rent or eviction, scraping by or finally getting ahead.”

It means nothing of the sort.  The only way you get the “millions” number is by including all those union members I just spoke of who already make more than minimum wage.  In fact, the higher you make minimum wage, the harder it becomes for the poor and unskilled to find jobs.  Minimum wage jobs are for the unskilled.  After they work at it for a bit, they use their new found skill and they get higher paying jobs elsewhere or within the same organization.  That’s how economics is supposed to work.  By raising the minimum wage, you discourage companies from hiring unskilled workers because the cost to benefit ratio is too high.  At any rate, anything you can do to make the opposition look bad, in this case, by having them vote down something that would hurt the very people you claim to be helping and then blaming them for it.

“For businesses across the country, it would mean customers with more money in their pockets. And a whole lot of folks out there would probably need less help from government. In fact, working folks shouldn't have to wait year after year for the minimum wage to go up, while CEO pay has never been higher.”

For businesses across the country, it would mean lower profit margins, assuming they hired anyone at that rate anyway, and therefore higher prices for consumers…thus the increase in salary for those few results in an increase in prices for all.  Yep, that’s smart.  NOT!

“So here's an idea that Governor Romney and I actually agreed on last year: Let's tie the minimum wage to the cost of living, so that it finally becomes a wage you can live on.”

You didn’t really agree on this did you?  After all, he wanted to tie it to cost of living at the current rate and you want to raise it $1.85 and then tie it to cost of living.  Except you don’t really want to do that because you’d lose that bludgeon I spoke of earlier, but it sounds good in a speech.

“Tonight, let's also recognize that there are communities in this country where, no matter how hard you work, it is virtually impossible to get ahead -- factory towns decimated from years of plants packing up, inescapable pockets of poverty, urban and rural, where young adults are still fighting for their first job. America is not a place where the chance of birth or circumstance should decide our destiny.”

The higher you make the minimum wage, the more difficult you make it for those young adults who are trying to get their first job, but, ya know, you don’t even see the conundrum.

“And that's why we need to build new ladders of opportunity into the middle class for all who are willing to climb them. Let's offer incentives to companies that hire Americans who've got what it takes to fill that job opening, but have been out of work so long that no one will give them a chance anymore. Let's put people back to work rebuilding vacant homes in rundown neighborhoods.”

STOP TRYING TO FIX THINGS!  That’ll do more than anything else to create jobs.  Once good jobs are being created (not the lame ones you are touting in your 6 million number), then people will hire those who’ve been out of work for a long time.  Skilled labor is always valued more than unskilled labor.  Of course, those people might have to take less money and be lower on the totem pole than where they used to be, but they can work their way back up and that’s better than being unemployed.  Listening to this speech though, you make me wonder, Mr. President, if maybe you think they deserve to be hired back at the same levels where they were before?  Maybe you do!  That’s not how reality works.

As for rebuilding vacant homes in rundown neighborhoods…well, this shows more than anything else that your so called housing market isn’t very healthy.  If people can’t find good deals on run down houses in rundown neighborhoods so that they can fix them up and resell them or use them as rental properties, well…nothing the government does is going to change that reality either short of just demolishing said homes and making parks.

“And this year, my administration will begin to partner with 20 of the hardest-hit towns in America to get these communities back on their feet. And we'll work with local leaders to target resources at public safety and education and housing. We'll give new tax credits to businesses that hire and invest. And we'll work to strengthen families by removing the financial deterrents to marriage for low- income couples and do more to encourage fatherhood, because what makes you a man isn't the ability to conceive a child, it's having the courage to raise one. And we want to encourage that. We want to help that.”

The whole partnership thing is a bit dubious.  Which 20 communities?  How are they chosen?  You going to do like FDR did and only help in the areas that are politically expedient and will get your party votes or are you going to have some sort of criteria that is partisan neutral.  Can’t support this without many many more details.

As for this idea that we have to encourage fatherhood, you are so right!  I support this 100%.  Since it is federal government “social assistance” programs that have discouraged fatherhood, particularly amongst the poor, are you going to have the courage to dismantle these failed programs?  Oh, and just how would you go about encouraging fatherhood?  By talking about how important human life is with one side of your mouth while espousing unlimited abortions out of the other?  Oh yeah, I see this ending well.

“Stronger families. Stronger communities. A stronger America. It is this kind of prosperity -- broad, shared, built on a thriving middle class -- that has always been the source of our progress at home. It's also the foundation of our power and influence throughout the world. Tonight, we stand united in saluting the troops and civilians who sacrifice every day to protect us. Because of them, we can say with confidence that America will complete its mission in Afghanistan and achieve our objective of defeating the core of Al Qaeda.”

Okay, strange transition from domestic to foreign policy, but whatever, I’ve seen worse.  At any rate, your statement sounds wonderful here, except for one tiny error.  Our nation has been built on economic freedom.  Our middle class was built on economic freedom.  Our upper class was built on economic freedom.  The foundation of our economy and prosperity was never “built on a thriving middle class” but rather the other way around.  We have a thriving middle class because of the economic freedom enjoyed over the past 2 centuries.  Virtually every policy you espouse in this speech either removes some of that freedom or just compounds areas where that freedom has already become limited.  The problem is, that you don’t even realize it, Mr. President.

“Already we have brought home 33,000 of our brave servicemen and women. This spring, our forces will move into a support role, while Afghan security forces take the lead. Tonight, I can announce that, over the next year, another 34,000 American troops will come home from Afghanistan. This drawdown will continue. And by the end of next year, our war in Afghanistan will be over.”

WooHoo!!!  Of course, that means that one year after that the Afghani government will likely be in shambles and Al Qaeda will again be on the rise, building up a power base and training camps once again…but we will see.  I would LOVE for it to turn out all rosy, just as you seem to think it will.  I just don’t agree that it will.  How many of our servicemen will die the SECOND time we have to invade Afghanistan.  I have a better idea.  Let’s just leave the rest of the world to their own devices, establish energy independence and bring all our troops home.  Never mind, I don’t think I can even get 4 members of Congress to agree with me on that one.

“Beyond 2014, America's commitment to a unified and sovereign Afghanistan will endure, but the nature of our commitment will change. We're negotiating an agreement with the Afghan government that focuses on two missions: training and equipping Afghan forces so that the country does not again slip into chaos and counterterrorism efforts that allow us to pursue the remnants of Al Qaeda and their affiliates. Today, the organization that attacked us on 9/11 is a shadow of its former self.”

Good, but just how do you plan to do that again?  Kind of skimpy on the details here.  Oh, and, I think there was a 60 minutes or 20/20 episode recently that sort of showed that Al Qaeda is hardly a shadow of its former self, but maybe that reporter just didn’t get the message that everything the media says is supposed to support the words out of your mouth.

“It's true, different Al Qaeda affiliates and extremist groups have emerged, from the Arabian Peninsula to Africa. The threat these groups pose is evolving. But to meet this threat, we don't need to send tens of thousands of our sons and daughters abroad or occupy other nations. Instead, we'll need to help countries like Yemen, Libya, and Somalia provide for their own security and help allies who take the fight to terrorists, as we have in Mali. And, where necessary, through a range of capabilities, we will continue to take direct action against those terrorists who pose the gravest threat to Americans. Now... as we do, we must enlist our values in the fight. That's why my administration has worked tirelessly to forge a durable legal and policy framework to guide our counterterrorism efforts. Throughout, we have kept Congress fully informed of our efforts.”

So, this is why you will give tanks and F-16s to Egypt?  You do know that the government there is controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood.  You know, a radical worldwide organization known to support terrorists?  But, they’ll be able to defend themselves against Al Qaeda for sure…or Israel, which is probably more than likely the true reason to give them those kinds of weapons.  But I digress…

“And I recognize that, in our democracy, no one should just take my word for it that we're doing things the right way. So, in the months ahead, I will continue to engage Congress to ensure not only that our targeting, detention and prosecution of terrorists remains consistent with our laws and system of checks and balances, but that our efforts are even more transparent to the American people and to the world. Of course... our challenges don't end with Al Qaeda. America will continue to lead the effort to prevent the spread of the world's most dangerous weapons. The regime in North Korea must know, they will only achieve security and prosperity by meeting their international obligations.”

Okay, great.  Umm…you do know we are a Republic, right?  We are not now, nor have we ever been a Democracy.  Well, surely you know this, you taught law at Harvard, so you must know the very real difference between the two…right?  At any rate, I agree that we have a role to discourage the creation of dangerous weapons around the world.  Not just because they could be used against us, but also because they could be used against the citizens of those countries or their surrounding neighbor nations.  But…and maybe I’m missing something, why is North Korea evil enough to single out, but Iran is perfectly fine…it’s okay that they snub their nose at the international community.  After all, they are harmless right?  It isn’t like they’ve directly threatened to bomb and entire nation into oblivion or anything.  Oh wait, Iran has made that threat whereas North Korea hasn’t.  Hmm…but North Korea is the evil one deserving of being called out in the State of the Union address.  Got it.  Makes perfect sense.

“Provocations of the sort we saw last night will only further isolate them, as we stand by our allies, strengthen our own missile defense, and lead the world in taking firm action in response to these threats. Likewise, the leaders of Iran must recognize that now is the time for a diplomatic solution, because a coalition stands united in demanding that they meet their obligations. And we will do what is necessary to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon.”

Oh yay!  Finally we get to Iran.  So, to prevent either of these two countries from getting a nuclear weapon, we are going to do what?  Sit around and talk?  Prepare more sanctions that haven’t worked so far but tend to starve the innocent populations under the control of these ruthless governments?  At what point of development do we say…that’s enough.  That’s too far, no farther.  When they’ve actually tested one?

“At the same time, we'll engage Russia to seek further reductions in our nuclear arsenals and continue leading the global effort to secure nuclear materials that could fall into the wrong hands, because our ability to influence others depends on our willingness to lead and meet our obligations. America must also face the rapidly growing threat from cyber attacks.”

Okay, I can actually agree with every word here.  So, how ya gonna do it?

“We cannot look back years from now and wonder why we did nothing in the face of real threats to our security and our economy. That's why, earlier today, I signed a new executive order that will strengthen our cyber defenses by increasing information-sharing and developing standards to protect our national security, our jobs, and our privacy.”

No we can’t

“But now -- now Congress must act, as well, by passing legislation to give our government a greater capacity to secure our networks and deter attacks. This is something we should be able to get done on a bipartisan basis.”

Every time someone calls for this, it sounds wonderful and logical.  Then Congress comes up with a bill that is so onerous that every internet user in America rises up against it.  Giving the President the power to shut down entire networks, to spy on emails and texts, etc., to have access to people’s private accounts doesn’t secure our freedoms.  Instead, it gives government unprecedented power to control information.  That, Mr. President, is why this hasn’t happened to date and the tyrannical power that any President could wield if some of the “ideas” brought forth to date became law is undesirable to say the least.

“Now, even as we protect our people, we should remember that today's world presents not just dangers, not just threats. It presents opportunities. To boost American exports, support American jobs, and level the playing field in the growing markets of Asia, we intend to complete negotiations on a Trans-Pacific Partnership. And tonight, I'm announcing that we will launch talks on a comprehensive Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the European Union, because trade that is fair and free across the Atlantic supports millions of good-paying American jobs.”

I’m all for free trade.  This thing we call fair trade is nothing more than a Keynesian fallacy, but nonetheless, I’ll wait and see what this “partnership” entails before judging it.  At least this is a legitimate power of the federal government.  One big caveat though…no giving up national sovereignty like the European Union treaties have required of their member states.

“We also know that progress in the most impoverished parts of our world enriches us all, not only because it creates new markets, more stable order in certain regions of the world, but also because it's the right thing to do. You know, in many places, people live on little more than a dollar a day.”

Yes, it is the right thing to do, just not the role of government.

“So the United States will join with our allies to eradicate such extreme poverty in the next two decades, by connecting more people to the global economy, by empowering women, by giving our young and brightest minds new opportunities to serve and helping communities to feed and power and educate themselves, by saving the world's children from preventable deaths, and by realizing the promise of an AIDS-free generation, which is within our reach.”

Umm…and we are empowering women, children, and communities to help themselves by doing food drops and giving weapons to woman hating regimes like the one coming into power in Egypt?  The last of those two points should be self-evident.  The first is the same as giving a man a fish rather than teaching him to fish.  It won’t achieve anything in the long run.

And by the way, efforts to eradicate poverty in the U.S. worked so well that poverty rates were declining steadily and consistently for years until the government decided the Great Society would finally eradicate it.  Since those programs have been enacted, poverty rates have remained stable.  They have never gone down any significant amount.  How is it that we can look at the data from our own history and choose to project those failures onto the rest of the world?!

{lots of fluff deleted here}

“And all this work depends on the courage and sacrifice of those who serve in dangerous places at great personal risk: our diplomats, our intelligence officers, and the men and women of the United States armed forces. As long as I'm commander-in-chief, we will do whatever we must to protect those who serve their country abroad, and we will maintain the best military the world has ever known.”

Yeah, because you were so quick to act in Benghazi, but perhaps I’m simply being unfair.  Otherwise, this statement sounds great!

{lots of fluff deleted here as well}  Now, there were some very nice statements about supporting women in society, so I don’t want to minimize those, but my statement here simply means that no real policy statements were made, but rather simply nice sounding platitudes that everyone can agree with in principle were uttered, thus…FLUFF!

“Defending our freedom, though, is not just the job of our military alone. We must all do our part to make sure our God-given rights are protected here at home. That includes one of the most fundamental rights of a democracy, the right to vote.”

Yes we must…not that you believe we have a God-given right to protection, free speech, a free economy, the ability to make bad choices, the ability to do stupid things.  Everything you espouse says you want the government to tell us what we can and can’t do and say because somehow those of you in Washington knows what is best  for everyone, even though the majority of you in Washington can’t even keep your own lives together.

"When any American -- no matter where they live or what their party -- are denied that right because they can't wait for five or six or seven hours just to cast their ballot, we are betraying our ideals. So... tonight, I'm announcing a nonpartisan commission to improve the voting experience in America. And it definitely needs improvement. I'm asking two long-time experts in the field -- who, by the way, recently served as the top attorneys for my campaign and for Governor Romney's campaign -- to lead it. We can fix this. And we will. The American people demand it, and so does our democracy."

Again with the democracy statements.  Ah well, most Americans don’t even know the difference between the two, so why should I expect our President to know the difference.  At any rate, anyone standing in line is allowed to vote, so while I’d prefer not to have to stand in line, nobody is denied their vote because of lines…so…what’s the point here?  What exactly are we trying to fix?  Why are we using taxpayer money on a commission, even a bipartisan one?  Just curious.

“Of course, what I've said tonight matters little if we don't come together to protect our most precious resource, our children. It has been two months since Newtown. I know this is not the first time this country has debated how to reduce gun violence, but this time is different. Overwhelming majorities of Americans -- Americans who believe in the Second Amendment -- have come together around commonsense reform, like background checks that will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on a gun. Senators -- senators of both parties are working together on tough new laws to prevent anyone from buying guns for resale to criminals. Police chiefs are asking our help to get weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines off our streets, because these police chiefs, they're tired of seeing their guys and gals being outgunned. Each of these proposals deserves a vote in Congress.”

Our founding fathers believed the second amendment was about two things.  Yes, personal protection, but even more importantly to them, the ability to defend oneself from a tyrannical government.  Getting rid of weapons of war and large magazine ammunition clips isn’t going to keep them out of the hands of criminals, just law abiding citizens.  Studies have shown that armed societies have less gun violence than unarmed ones.  At what point are people going to realize this?  Right…never, because we are driven more by emotion than logic.  The more guns you take away, the more gun violence you will create.  The more guns you take away, the closer we get to tyranny.  Those two statements are the essence of the second amendment.  So we want more laws that prevent law abiding citizens from getting their hands on whatever weapons they choose because???

“If you want to vote no, that's your choice. But these proposals deserve a vote, because in the two months since Newtown, more than a thousand birthdays, graduations, anniversaries have been stolen from our lives by a bullet from a gun. More than a thousand. One of those we lost was a young girl named Hadiya Pendleton. She was 15 years old. She loved Fig Newtons and lip gloss. She was a majorette.”

FLUFF!

"She was so good to her friends, they all thought they were her best friend. Just three weeks ago, she was here, in Washington, with her classmates, performing for her country at my inauguration. And a week later, she was shot and killed in a Chicago park after school, just a mile away from my house. Hadiya's parents, Nate and Cleo, are in this chamber tonight, along with more than two dozen Americans whose lives have been torn apart by gun violence. They deserve a vote."

MORE FLUFF!  However, I will point out that Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country…and…the highest rate of gun violence, but you won’t here that inconvenient truth during the fluff part of a State of the Union address.

“They deserve a vote.”

Sure they do.  A vote NO!

“They deserve a vote. Gabby Giffords deserves a vote. The families of Newtown deserve a vote. The families of Aurora deserve a vote. The families of Oak Creek, and Tucson, and Blacksburg, and the countless other communities ripped open by gun violence, they deserve a simple vote. They deserve -- they deserve a simple vote. Our actions will not prevent every senseless act of violence in this country. In fact, no laws, no initiatives, no administrative acts will perfectly solve all of the challenges I've outlined tonight. But we were never sent here to be perfect.”

Seriously?!  So, since you know that 80% of Americans are against you on this issue, you are just going to tug at the heartstrings in hopes of guilting some of those people into believing your reckless concept of limiting guns actually stands a snowballs chance in hell of working?

“We were sent here to look out for our fellow Americans the same way they look out for one another, every single day, usually without fanfare, all across this country. We should follow their example. We should follow the example of a New York City nurse named Menchu Sanchez. When Hurricane Sandy plunged her hospital into darkness, she wasn't thinking about how her own home was faring. Her mind was on the 20 precious newborns in her care and the rescue plan she devised that kept them all safe.”

But don’t tell anyone that FEMA botched the recovery efforts for Sandy just as badly, if not moreso, than they did those in New Orleans and Katrina.  That might take away from your heartwarming story…particularly the fact that so many people are still struggling, yet you, Mr. President, seem to have moved on just fine.

“We should follow the example of a North Miami woman named Desiline Victor. When Desiline arrived at her polling place, she was told the wait to vote might be six hours. And as time ticked by, her concern was not with her tired body or aching feet, but whether folks like her would get to have their say. And hour after hour, a throng of people stayed in line in support of her, because Desiline is 102 years old. And they erupted in cheers when she finally put on a sticker that read ``I Voted.''”

Wonderful story!  I love it!  Great example of how people in a community can come together to support one another.  But guess what?  They didn’t do this because of any prompting by the government…they did this because they are good people and it is the right thing to do.  This story doesn’t really support your government is there to “help” us all narrative, Mr. President.

“We should follow the example of a police officer named Brian Murphy. When a gunman opened fire on a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, Brian was the first to arrive, and he did not consider his own safety. He fought back until help arrived and ordered his fellow officers to protect the safety of the fellow Americans worshiping inside, even as he lay bleeding from 12 bullet wounds. And when asked how he did that, Brian said, ``That's just the way we're made.'' That's just the way we're made.”

Another great story…I always expect great stories from the State of the Union.  Every President comes up with them.  They are always there, meant to tug at the heartstrings.  They are FLUFF!

“It's a word that doesn't just describe our nationality or legal status. It describes the way we're made. It describes what we believe. It captures the enduring idea that this country only works when we accept certain obligations to one another and to future generations; that our rights are wrapped up in the rights of others; and that well into our third century as a nation, it remains the task of us all, as citizens of these United States, to be the authors of the next great chapter in our American story.”

Umm…the word citizens doesn’t say all that, but if you insist, let’s look at it closer, shall we?  Our country only works when we accept certain obligations to one another and future generations?  Our founders said our nation should never go into debt greater than what could be paid off in their lifetime.  That it was immoral for the government to carry that kind of debt.  Huh, so what obligation are you referring to Mr. President? That our rights are wrapped up in the rights of others?  This can only be true to someone who doesn’t understand the concept of rights.  Someone who believes rights are something we are given, not something that we simply have.  Our rights are not wrapped up in the rights of others.  Rather it is quite the opposite.  Rights are INDIVIDUAL!  They are unalienable.  They are NOT communal.  The only rightful role of government is to set laws establishing rules of conduct for society for the occasional times when those individual rights overlap, which does happen.  That is the ONLY legitimate role of government when it comes to our rights, Mr. President.

“Thank you, God bless you, and God bless these United States of America.”

And the obligatory ending to every speech that every politician is using these days.  *sigh*