State of the Union-

Before I get to the substance of the State of the Union Address, I would like to thank Justice Alito for so eloquently letting us know which statements by the President were untrue. What happened to the good old days when the Justices of the Supreme Court sat through the entirety of the speech without moving a muscle? If the Justices continue to show signs of life during the State of the Union address, the next generation of Americans will not have the yearly opportunity to watch the President speak while trying to figure out which Justices are actually alive.
Since the speech was very long and covered a variety of topics, I will pick just a few to comment on.

1- The Clapping. Everyone talks about it, it is annoying, but due the rules for the State of the Union set forth in the Constitution, it is inevitable. Personally, I enjoy watching the each round of standing ovations. The awkwardness of these moments makes for great viewing. From the Republican Senator who needed to "remind" his fellow party members when to stand to the Democrat Congressman who thought he was at a Redskins game (I am sure you all heard him yelling during the speech), these moments of brevity make the State of the Union more than just a speech, they make it an event.

2-Education. To say that I was disappointed in the four short paragraphs President Obama shared on education would be an understatement. It was all very vague. Obama said that, "the idea here is simple: instead of rewarding failure, we only reward success." Yes Mr. President, that is true, but is it really simple? How do you define success? How are we going to reward this success? Is a school corporation who finds a new way to "count" students in order to raise their "graduation rates" a success? I would be more optimistic if the President would have laid out a plan that included every American child and gave them the tools to succeed in life. Not every student is going to go to college, so while the tax credits for families with college students is great for these families, education reform must go beyond the higher education spectrum. The graduation rates of most public high schools is frightening low. The high school curriculum has changed today and is a preparation tool for students who want to pursue a higher education. What about the nearly 50 percent of Americans who do not go on to higher education? Programs must be installed to supply the tools for success for this large segment of the American population. Just like colleges and universities, high schools should set forth different "majors" in an attempt to keep kids in school. If you plan on attending an institution of higher learning, you would follow the "college prep" program and take a well rounded schedule of classes that stretches into all disciplines. Do you plan to start an apprenticeship in a labor union after high school? Than follow the "pre-apprentice" program and take math, science, and language classes that will directly correlate to the next step in your career path. Finally, if you just want to get your "high school degree", offer a program that will prepare these people for future jobs as well as real life. Teach life skills: banking, creating a budget, meal preparation, and basic language and math skills that are necessary in everyday life. The effects of these types of programs would be threefold. 1- Students would receive the type of education that is tailored to their needs and aspirations. 2- Drop out rates for students who are stuck in classes that "don't mean anything to them" would drop. 3- Classrooms would be filled with like minded students and the atmosphere of the educational environment would benefit because students are in classes they WANT to be in. This is reform, it would not be easy, but lets be honest with ourselves, reforming education is not as "simple" as Obama would like to make you believe.

3- Health Care. This has been THE hot button topic in politics for the last few months. Politically, this issue has been very polarizing for the American people, but it does not need to be. Health care reform needs to be a priority and I believe that people on both sides of the aisle would agree. Americans with good medical coverage at a moderate rate seem to have an apathetic attitude when it comes to health care reform. They do not see the plights of the American people that can not afford health coverage. Members of the House and Senate are also blind to the struggles in health care because at the end of the day, they are able to make a doctors appointment, pay their small premium, and get the best medical treatment available. However, for millions of Americans, this is not their reality. Recently unemployed Americans are losing their health coverage at an astounding rate, even those still employed are losing or having their insurance benefits cut. While there are some programs in place, like Cobra Coverage for the recently unemployed, these are usually not viable options. Can an unemployed person afford $900 a month to have medical coverage for their families? While health care should not be mandated, it should be accessible at a reasonable rate. If we can take the President's words as truth, although Judge Alito would probably tell you we can't, than members of both parties of congress have a responsibility to put together a bill that would reform the health care industry as a whole, not just throw money at it and "hope" that it works.

These were just a few thoughts that took a look at small parts of the State of the Union speech. I did not get into the economy, bank bailouts, Iraq/Afghanistan, or any of the other issues that were addressed. As usual, President Obama gave a very eloquent speech. Whether you agree with him or not, the President is a very gifted orator, which is probably the reason he is in office. I thought the State of the Union address as a whole was very vague, but that is to be expected due to the multitude of topics that needed to be addressed. If I were to grade the speech, I would give Mr. Obama an A- in delivery and a C in substance.

There was one segment though that stood out to me above the rest. President Obama said,
"But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day. We can't wage a perpetual campaign where the only goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about the other side -– a belief that if you lose, I win. Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can. The confirmation of, I'm speaking to both parties now, the confirmation of well-qualified public servants shouldn't be held hostage to the pet projects or grudges of a few individual senators. Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, no matter how malicious, is just part of the game. But it's precisely such politics that has stopped either party from helping the American people. Worse yet, it's sowing further division among our citizens, further distrust in our government. So, no, I will not give up on trying to change the tone of our politics. I know it's an election year. And after last week, it's clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to govern." I agree completely with this statement. While I do not have an alternative for a quick fix to this problem, I do see it as an issue that is plaguing our government. Candidates used to campaign for office, today it seems that candidates campaign and win elections just in order to be an incumbent the next election cycle. The time in between, the time that should define a politician, is often spent walking on egg shells so as not to ruffle any feathers in their constituency. The problem is even worse in in Congress where they are up for re-election every two years. Personally, I would rather vote for a candidate who proves their track record by the way they vote and bills they sponsor as opposed to a candidate who is hiding in an attempt to prolong his/her political future. Our politicians owe this to their electorate, if a majority of people in your district look on your votes with disdain, than it it is only fair to them to elect someone who votes according to the will of his people.