State of the Union... I guess...

The State of the Union address was a flop as far as most pundits are concerned. If you missed the address you didn't miss much. It was primarily a reiteration of each previous speech Obama has made. Apparently the TOTUS (Teleprompter of the United States) was feeling lazy.

So what happened in the speech that was note worthy? First let's take a look at what he said in relation to the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United State) ruling on the issue of the McCain-Feingold Act.

Obama:

But we can't stop there. It's time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my Administration or Congress. And it's time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office. Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.

There are quite a few incorrect statements here. The SCOTUS ruling had nothing to do with foreign corporations much less "reversed a century of law." Is John McCain more than 130 years old? For an individual to sit on the U.S. Senate they must be at least 30 years of age. For McCain-Feingold to be centuries old its supporters would be more than 130 years old. The McCain-Feingold Act was passed into law in 2002. McCain-Fenigold only coveres contributions for TELEVISION ADS, not direct contributions that put feet on the ground. As far as companies are concerned, companies can consist of as little as one person. So, is it wrong for one person to be able to fund an ad? And should the congress be able to abridge free speech rights in any way? The United States Constitution strictly prohibits this. The president's remarks are completely baseless.

The interesting thing here is that the Obama campaign might be one of the the first presidential campaigns to collect foreign money.

More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won't disclose.

Federal law does not require the campaigns to identify donors who give less than $200 during the election cycle. However, it does require that campaigns calculate running totals for each donor and report them once they go beyond the $200 mark.

Surprisingly, the great majority of Obama donors never break the $200 threshold.

“Contributions that come under $200 aggregated per person are not listed,” said Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the FEC. “They don’t appear anywhere, so there’s no way of knowing who they are.”

It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002.

Biersack would not comment on whether the FEC was investigating the huge amount of cash that has come into Obama’s coffers with no public reporting.

I wonder why Obama is worried about foreign interests in elections? Obama might be one of the only U.S. presidential candidates to openly accept foreign donations. If the campaign doesn't know where the donations came from, they can't claim that they were from domestic sources.

Back to the speech. Another noteworthy part of the speech was where Obama pledged to keep going forward with health care reform. As I recall the vast majority of polling shows that Americans want to stop the current health care reform legislation.

Obama:

Now let's be clear — I did not choose to tackle this issue to get some legislative victory under my belt. And by now it should be fairly obvious that I didn't take on health care because it was good politics.

I took on health care because of the stories I've heard from Americans with pre-existing conditions whose lives depend on getting coverage; patients who've been denied coverage; and families — even those with insurance — who are just one illness away from financial ruin.

After nearly a century of trying, we are closer than ever to bringing more security to the lives of so many Americans. The approach we've taken would protect every American from the worst practices of the insurance industry. It would give small businesses and uninsured Americans a chance to choose an affordable health care plan in a competitive market. It would require every insurance plan to cover preventive care. And by the way, I want to acknowledge our First Lady, Michelle Obama, who this year is creating a national movement to tackle the epidemic of childhood obesity and make our kids healthier.

Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan. It would reduce costs and premiums for millions of families and businesses. And according to the Congressional Budget Office — the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress — our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades.

Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, this process left most Americans wondering what's in it for them.

Whenever Obama says, "Now let's be clear" It means that he is attempting to distort the truth. There are so many problems with this I don't know where to begin. The fact is that as soon as individuals are educated on the current proposed legislation, many don't want it! Not because they are partisan or mean or anything else. People don't want this legislation because it's bad policy.

Obama:

From some on the right, I expect we'll hear a different argument — that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts for wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, and maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is, that's what we did for eight years. That's what helped lead us into this crisis. It's what helped lead to these deficits. And we cannot do it again.

Here are a few things wrong with the above statements. Obama just shifted the argument away from providing health care, to reducing the deficit. How did health care have anything to do with the current economic crisis? Health care is one of the few industries still hiring people.

- What does it mean to make "investments in our people?" If the government is to invest in anything, they do it with tax money. Redistribution anyone...

- Extending tax cuts to anyone is better than not! Wealthy Americans create jobs.

- Regulations are the exact cause of many "real" problems with health care.

- It is misleading to use phraseology like "maintain the status quo on health care." There is no status quo, there is only what Obama "claims" is the status quo --at any given point in time.

The point in the speech I want to cover is public high-speed real. Obama is "on" about public rail systems. As if spending tax payer dollars on public rail systems is really going to make things better. Why not just spend the money on more rides at Disney World, or a bigger tank for the whales at Sea World? That would create jobs too! Oh, and people might actually pay real money to visit those attractions.

Obama:

Next, we can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow. From the first railroads to the interstate highway system, our nation has always been built to compete. There's no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products.

Tomorrow, I'll visit Tampa, Florida, where workers will soon break ground on a new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act. There are projects like that all across this country that will create jobs and help our nation move goods, services, and information. We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities, and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy efficient, which supports clean energy jobs. And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it's time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs in the United States of America.

The House has passed a jobs bill that includes some of these steps. As the first order of business this year, I urge the Senate to do the same. People are out of work. They are hurting. They need our help. And I want a jobs bill on my desk without delay.

Again this is another example of cronyism within this administration. Since when is there a public outcry for high-speed rail? As a matter of fact the high-speed rail system in Florida was voted down by a large margin. These kinds of projects are always started from within government not from the outside.

That was the essence of Florida voters' behavior on Nov. 2nd. Sunshine Staters went to the polls that day and defeated the very same constitutional mandate for a state bullet-train network (www.floridahighspeedrail.org) that they'd approved in 2000.
And the outcome was certainly no Bush-Gore nail-biter. Sixty-four percent of 2004 Florida voters cast a "yes" ballot on Amendment 6, repealing the bullet-train appendage to the state's constitution.

To sum things up, Obama told the American voter that he is determined to help push through any piece of legislation congress puts in front of him.

If only congress were producing legislation the American people actually agreed with and wanted.