1. Infrastructure spending (not what the fed should be doing)
I disagree, if we are talking about infrastructure that genuinely supports interstate commerce. You have to do these things during prosperous times or they will never get done. Expanding the capacity of our ports, freight rails, and interstate highways would go a long way to increasing economic prosperity, and is within the Constitutionally defined role of the federal government as long as it pertains to items relevant to interstate commerce (as I see it.)
2. End the sequester of military spending (we spend d way too much already)
Disagree again, mainly because of how the current spending limits have programmed military spending. Service branches are told how they have to spend every dollar. By bureaucrats. Even the DoD has very little discretion in reprogramming how the money is spent. The amount of decline in our military readiness over the past few years due to this idiocy is difficult to overstate.
3. Sounded like he wants to expand the war on drugs
I hope that he means the more realistic war to keep drugs out of the country (which would fall within the federal role of securing the borders.) Increased prosecution inside our borders is a fool's errand requiring vast resources and producing little, whereas minor surges in enforcement outside of the US have proven to be productive. Another case of needing to set a budget and then let experts decide how to use it best.
4. Said he wants to force drug prices down
An admirable and humane goal. Probably penny wise and pound foolish, but that depends entirely on Big Pharma delivering on the research side. I think Julio posted something recently that showed Big Pharma has stopped delivering.
5. Sounded WAY too hawkish on military
Agreed. We diverted a huge amount of military spending to the Army over the past 25 years to go on our Middle East escapades. There should be plenty of that money to go around now. Reprogram it instead of reinforcing it.
6. Applauded decision to keep GITMO open
I don't get it.
7. Investment in job training (not fed job)
While I agree in principle, I think we both feel that the entitlement industry is also not the federal government's job. The entitlements aren't going away, so maybe this can reduce the demand for them and at least be productive. I would feel better (again) if it was a reprogramming of existing entitlement funds instead of a new entitlement that we can never ever ever get rid of without being called racist/sexist/ageist/whatever PC-ist term, but we know that simply isn't possible with entitlements.
Many others I'm sure.
I was just laughing when Dems were sulking about the celebration of low unemployment, etc.
The responses of both parties to the SoTU have been shameful since sometime during the Pelosi/Bush years. I gave up watching Presidential speeches when the SC rep screamed "You lie", or whatever it was, a few years ago. Grow up, all of you.
