Where I don't generally do politics here, this seems a good time to discuss the State of the Union. Why do we have such a yearly address, and what is its stated purpose?
The 1790 state of the union address was the first one given to Congress, required by the Constitution to have the President report to Congress what he saw happening at the current time and what he saw needed to be done. That one, not titled state of the union, was delivered by President George Washington. Not sure about Adams, but in 1801, Thomas Jefferson delivered his address in writing, starting a new tradition, which lasted for 112 years. The thinking is he wasn't a gifted public speaker, and he was nervous in front of large audiences.
In 1913, that changed with Woodrow Wilson, who again delivered his message with a speech to Congress. He might be the first who recognized how it could be used beneficially by a President for what he wanted to see done-- setting the stage for the modern SOTU, which has become partisan and about political rhetoric-- where we are today.
Two more things were added-- first its name, called that by FDR and officially named it by Harry Truman. The second was when it was broadcast to the people with first radio and then television. At that point, it wasn't just about information to Congress but also the American culture, or sometimes defending a war. Reagan enhanced using it as a tool when he began to invite special guests, which hit on issues the President cared about most.-- or thought would register with the American people.
For those most interested in more about its history, an online search finds many articles. I didn't do that, as frankly, I am turned off on it and have been for some years, when I believe it became solely political and not really about the state of our country. This year was no exception to my dislike for it as I only read about it later, with no desire to see partisan rhetoric given such a broad stage.
Some have said this year's SOTU was the beginning of a campaign speech. Probably not the first, given the time a Speaker of the House tore up the papers she held with the words of the speech. She did it right after that President's speech and in front of the cameras. She wanted to make as strong a political point as she believed the President had just tried to make.
After the most recent speech, on Wednesday, I figured the left would like it and the right not. Pretty much, how it went. We see what we want to see, which is another reason (besides not believing they tell us the state of the nation), why I don't watch it. Bad enough to read about it later.
For my SOTU, I'll give my take on what I think should have been dealt with as it stands right now. It's not about what was said-- as none of it was; but rather what we need to deal with and understand as people living in the United States-- or sometimes those around the world impacted by us. I am not providing all the problems or answers, as the SOTU didn't necessarily need to do that, but rather what are some of the issues that impact daily lives. These are not in order of importance.
First would be the downing of the spy balloon (there has since been a second but this is about the earlier one). It's not so much what the spying nation got in terms of information that it could not have gotten other ways, but because it could have carried anything with it (think diseases, destruction of cyber systems, or even bombs). Since it was a remotely controlled robot, what else was it capable of doing? Plus, should one nation allow another to cross their whole country that way? We know the answer even if our President, apparently, does not.
It is claimed this one had antennaes, which means it could listen in (potentially) to conversations on the ground. Which discussions? We shouldn't care?
It is also an issue that citizens weren't told about it until a man took a photo from his window in Billings, Montana. When the military said it wasn't an intrusion could they possibly know that it was not preparing the way for a lax attitude and something different coming as a payload?
To me, it's also a big deal that many are being, and have been, sent out from a site that manufactures them and from which they are launched around the world. Are we facing a war, as why else are they used other than preparation? Maybe to find important minerals, but this one didn't go over such sites but rather bases and missile sites.
To go with this, there are currently at least two nations that could want to attack us, have threatened us. Shouldn't we be told the details and our own readiness for such a possibility? Are we in another Cold War or might this become a hot one? This isn't about fear but a realistic attitude for what might be coming. If the President doesn't tell us, what is the point of a state of the union that doesn't reveal possibilities, which could be so important! With grandchildren of the age to be pulled into fighting a war, I have selfish concerns, as well as for our nation as a whole.
Second, impacts some of us to a greater degree than others; but most of us notice it-- inflation in the grocery store and at the gas pump. We are told it's getting better; but when we get to the store, we don't see an improvement. I would guess it is even more of an issue at restaurants (but we almost never eat out; so I don't know for sure).
Instead of saying inflation is decreasing (rah rah talk) why not talk about the pain it causes and what could really be done with a realistic look at how the dollar is losing value and prices are going up up and have for many years to some degree. I have books I purchased years back for $1.29 on their jackets but today would be $20. It should be a real concern-- also for those who save money and find those dollars decreasing in value by the year. I do have some ideas why this is happening, but not sure what should be done instead-- other than this is disconcerting.
Third, while it was emphasized in the speech about the need for more training for police (or so I read), but what was there, regarding crime, random violent attacks, thefts (such that some insurance companies refuse to insure some brands of cars)? The reason we might find some of our police overly violent could be what they face daily and never know when a domestic violence call is really a trap. Add to that the haranguing they receive, which has led many to leave the job. I am all for more training, weeding out bullies and thugs, who should never have been there, and higher wages to draw the best possible candidates. We have to recognize what is going on in terms of violence as it has increased and like a black swan, randomly could hit any of us.
Rather than blame one party or the other for this anger and violence, ask the question as to why is that happening??? The answer is likely not simple and involves mental health along with many other possibilities. At least, acknowledge this in any state of this nation.
There are many more issues but I want to put two together here; since they are used by both parties in partisan ways. I believe they should have been addressed if someone really wants to talk about the state of this nation.
One is Social Security and the other abortion. They are used in different ways to inspire fear and anger with different age groups-- old and young. It seems that our leadership should delve into answers for these. I have two ideas. On SS, increase the income level on which the taxes can be levied-- way up-- and lower the percentage for all. It's an easy fix to bring in more money and was regularly done in the past. For some reason, that stopped. It's not as though anybody gets a lot of money for the checks when they reach a certain age, but it'd be a big deal to the nation,all of us, if the program failed.
The second very partisan one, abortion, could be dealt with in Congress by passing a federal law allowing it up to certain times in the pregnancy-- in all states. As it stands, even the so-called morning after pill could be called murder in some places. Do Americans want abortion returned to back streets and turned criminal for women and doctors? Some do, but the big thing with it, as a partisan issue, is votes-- not concern for women or babies.
Should not our President discuss his ideas for both of these important issues? IF state of the union actually meant what the people in that nation actually need for concerns.
There is more I could say about each of these issues and a ton of other critical ones to evaluate for risks and possible solutions; but this blog is already too long. My main point is the SOTU has become a rallying cry for either party and a campaign speech where Presidents toot their own horns, more than discuss real issues facing the nation. Some are cultural; but this time, one involves war, which could involve attacks on our own country but also sending more of our young off to fight wars. We've been there, and it's a big deal, but no reference to it-- or other major issues impacting the country-- some with obvious fixes and some not so much. If it's not a campaign speech, issues and reality should be at the head of the list, not ignoring or casting blame but looking for real solutions. Currently, they are not while each party rah rahs their own side while the other side groans and Americans suffer.
Update: Turns out the second UFO is not thought to be a balloon, but they are still not saying what they think it was until they can identify what they shot down-- if they ever tell us.
8 comments:
Mostly agree.
At retirement I felt comfortable with the nest-egg. Now? Notsomuch. We'll be okay so long as inflation doesn't continue to eat it up at the rate we see now, or the economy doesn't collapse as it did in Weimar Germany after The Great War. How long before our children realize our government is dumping TONS of debt in their laps?
The primary thing that troubles me about abortion is that I'm paying for them with my tax dollars. That, couple with the fact that LOTS of people are using it simply as birth control...
Pisses me off greatly.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this, Graybeard. I know on SS, that for many in my family, it is what allowed them to live on their own, not dependent on moving from family to family. I guess it also helps in times when the economy turns down and the old can still spend money.
As for abortion, I don't care so much who pays for it but just it remains a legal option-- within reason.
SocSec is a demographic catastrophe.
When the program was started there were something like 35 workers contributing for every recipient. Now? Last figures I heard were 3 workers per, and it will get worse.
Untenable. Your suggestions are valid, BUT, once again, "We're from the government and we're hear to help" is in play.
Never underestimate our corrupt politicians ability to screw something up royally.
Interesting discussion, Rain. It certainly needs airing.
Yes, it's important we discuss important issues without attacking each other. Sadly, that is often hard to do. I don't know why they didn't keep increasing the income level who paid SS taxes. It had been that way from the time we began and maybe to the end, but seems to have stopped. It's not good that the tax rate kept going up because of this and then the fear talk for the elderly, those without savings, who worried what would they do if it stopped.
I am not a believer in privatizing it. In a way, that was done by the private funds where business and employees each paid part (as is true with SS). We have seen how many lost all their investment when Lehman Brothers went bust. Pension funds in states face that problem with not enough money to pay what they promised and still pay for modern services. In Oregon, that was a huge mistake where they promised some get what they get while working... that meant a million dollars for some high earners. That was a true Ponzi scheme.
I think keeping SS at a survival level, which is where it is, is a good approach. If you want luxuries when retired, you better have something else. Sadly many do not. Fortunately, we didn't want that but feel lucky we can still help our kids (as frankly that generation is facing a lot of difficulties that we didn't-- although we sure knew inflation during the Carter era.
This printing money to pay the costs is very disturbing and should be to us all-- of any age.
Not long ago I read that there is a proposed bill in the Senate from, believe it or not from Ted Cruz, that would modify the Constitution to place term limits on both houses of Congress and, I think, an age limit on Supreme Court Judges. This probably has something like a snowball's chance in Death Valley in the summer of surviving and becoming law. Maybe if enough of us push our own Congressional members it might have a chance.
Social Security needs more income and/or limiting its outgo expenses. Raising the limit on taxable income would help, as would taxing other forms of income than strictly that from labor, such as dividends and capital gains. People support themselves from either their own labor or putting their dollars to work. It probably should all be taxed by SS.
I think the abortion issue is primarily a religious issue. Before the fetus is viable is can hardly be considered to be a person. Now science can probably clone a full person from many of the body's cells. I'd rather not have abortions happening but will go along with the viability position. It also seems odd to me that the main religion that is against abortion is also against birth control, which in no way destroys a fetus, it just keeps it from being created.
Thanks for your astute comments, Dick :). I agree with them, of course
I don’t know a lot of women who use abortion as a form of birth control. Given all the other forms of birth control available I can’t think why a woman would choose abortion. Ignorance maybe? Of course making it illegal would not cure a lot of ignorance, but oh well. If tax dollars are the problem, making it illegal is kind of a roundabout way of solving that problem. And why on earth would a secular government (it is, right?) want to be ruling on religious matters? Especially given all the religions and religious sects there are out there?
Having had an abortion back in the day when birth control was not available to me, I can’t imagine any woman wanting to do that twice. And if she does, then there is some much bigger problem behind that.
ElizabethAnn, Thanks for your comment I agree from what I know-- it's not a pleasant procedure and anyone wanting to do it multiple times has to have other problems. I really want it to stay legal as I grew up when it was not-- many negative consequences to that.
Post a Comment