THE STATE OF THE UNION by Ardon Schambers - visit website
I watched the President’s State of the Union Address, which I do every year. I know I could get a summary and spend less time. However, I believe I should listen and get the information first hand, and not let six other people interpret what he said, each with their own spin or perspective. I also never listen to the opposing party response. This latter process is just one more of the political practices that is pulling this country apart. I don’t see we gain anything by these politicians getting air time to express their view. This was not the intent of the State of the Union Address. If the public listens to the speech, they can decide what they like, what is not good and whether they support where the president wants to go.
Now let’s get to some of the positions he presented. He seems to want to support a stronger manufacturing base in the country. Do I hear anyone against that? Not many, especially if they can make a reasonable return on their investment. We ought to be able to put in place the incentives and disincentives to support this objective. Other countries look out for their industry, why not us? The rangle seems to be about how to do this. The opposition wants only their way, which seems almost as vague as some of the outlined approaches by the President. My position is this, give him the rope he has asked for, some true support, and if it doesn’t work in a reasonable timeframe, (not the foolish expectation that business can turn on a dime), then you can say his policies don’t work and you get the same chance.
His second big push is for education of the populace. That makes sense too. If you talk to recruiters many will say they can’t find folks with the skills. Most believe it will get worse. To some extent this is a chicken and egg scenario, we can stick with what we have and “bitch” about the welfare programs that raise the debt, or we can spend the money on making these people value society’s assets through education and stop the compounded support programs that are frequently necessary that happen numerous times. It requires that we invest in people and spend upfront. They will pay taxes, buy things and not be a drain on society. What is the sacrifice? What if we traded two planes and an aircraft carrier for a 25% reduction in junior college tuition? There must be workable tradeoffs.
We need people in Washington and Lansing who can be visionaries about something other than finding a job for themselves for the election period. Let them work towards jobs and prosperity for the rest of us. By the way has anyone ever considered letting Congress Reps have a four year seat so they can actually do some work instead of just campaigning for the full two years? We could pay for a lot of things with the money we would save on campaign financing.
Now let’s get to some of the positions he presented. He seems to want to support a stronger manufacturing base in the country. Do I hear anyone against that? Not many, especially if they can make a reasonable return on their investment. We ought to be able to put in place the incentives and disincentives to support this objective. Other countries look out for their industry, why not us? The rangle seems to be about how to do this. The opposition wants only their way, which seems almost as vague as some of the outlined approaches by the President. My position is this, give him the rope he has asked for, some true support, and if it doesn’t work in a reasonable timeframe, (not the foolish expectation that business can turn on a dime), then you can say his policies don’t work and you get the same chance.
His second big push is for education of the populace. That makes sense too. If you talk to recruiters many will say they can’t find folks with the skills. Most believe it will get worse. To some extent this is a chicken and egg scenario, we can stick with what we have and “bitch” about the welfare programs that raise the debt, or we can spend the money on making these people value society’s assets through education and stop the compounded support programs that are frequently necessary that happen numerous times. It requires that we invest in people and spend upfront. They will pay taxes, buy things and not be a drain on society. What is the sacrifice? What if we traded two planes and an aircraft carrier for a 25% reduction in junior college tuition? There must be workable tradeoffs.
We need people in Washington and Lansing who can be visionaries about something other than finding a job for themselves for the election period. Let them work towards jobs and prosperity for the rest of us. By the way has anyone ever considered letting Congress Reps have a four year seat so they can actually do some work instead of just campaigning for the full two years? We could pay for a lot of things with the money we would save on campaign financing.
RSS Feed