State of the Union Problems: Federal Control and Deceit [Contributor]

Mitt Romney emphasized that he will not run for president again.

Too bad he even needed to make that decision, since he’s not America’s president now. That was confirmed when Pres. Barack Obama offered this year’s State of the Union Address.

America’s problems its president mentioned – he was right. Correct that all are issues. Veracious in saying they must be addressed.

But where? And how much?

Most of the president’s suggestions even scared even moderate Democrats, whose responses “ranged from muted to chilly.” Counterproductively, he got Joe Manchin upset. Manchin is chairman of the Senate Finance Committee (the powerful position Sen. Orrin Hatch vied for while campaigning) and No Labels co-chairman (with former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman).

The president articulated a lot of problems. Most ought to be addressed primarily through the work of state governments. Others were simply misleading.

Education and women’s pay represent both the calls of the 10th Amendment and the president’s dishonesty. Overall, the president excellently called attention to the hanging-and-heavy issue of the federal government’s dysfunction.

Education

“…as Congress decides what it’s going to do,” Obama said, “I’m going to pull together a coalition of elected officials, business leaders, and philanthropists willing to help more kids access the high-quality pre-K they need.”

Congress shouldn’t feel like it needs to decide. States know the needs of their kids more than the federal government does.

“We’re working to redesign high schools and partner them with colleges and employers that offer the real-world education and hands-on training that can lead directly to a job and career,” Obama added.

I would have felt more comfortable if Gov. Herbert had said it about Utah, or Gov. Steve Bullock for Montana here in the Treasure State. Both would have loved to – and Bullock is a centrist.

“We’re shaking up our system of higher education to give parents more information, and colleges more incentives to offer better value,” Obama said.

Herbert and Bullock would appreciate the flexibility to pursue such for their own states.

And even if they don’t, watch out for the White House’s motivation on education. That trepidation was evidently deserving after the 2013 State of the Union Address, when the president suggested that the nation adopt a federal education “reward” program, also calling for a centralizing change to the Higher Education Act and a “College Scorecard” that is fundamentally unfair to many institutions of higher education. (With those evidences, is Common Core, a system of national education standards, a vessel for the administration to try to “hook” states into federal funding?)

The president clearly did not have the 10th Amendment in mind. Still, he said the following:

“For several years now, this town has been consumed by a rancorous argument over the proper size of the federal government. It’s an important debate – one that dates back to our very founding.”

Thank you, Mr. President, for at least deeming appropriate contributions to that dialogue.

Women’s pay

“Today, women make up about half our workforce,” Obama said. “But they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns.”

True. But if one accounts for differences in education levels and comparable work, the wage gap is about 91 cents on the dollar. Statistically significant, but perhaps not an “embarrassment” as the president emphatically emphasized.

Also, single, childless women under 30 –perhaps the main demographic the president is addressing when discussing the relationship of America’s future to women – earned on average 8 percent more than their male peers in the largest U.S. cities.

Federal dysfunction

“We all owe it to the American people to say what we’re for, not just what we’re against,” Obama said.

Yes, please—find common ground. But the president’s call is for how to move forward policies at a federal level.

His credibility was as low as his reasons few for being trusted. “With or without Congress” was a common refrain in Obama’s emphasis to exert unilateral authority. But annoyingly, the president sorely lacked evidence that his administration’s policies weren’t destructive to the country. Once, he said that the down payment to connect schools to technology over the next two years did not add “a dime to the deficit.” More factual evidence like that was needed.

It’s despicable that Congress doesn’t come together. But perhaps that’s often for the best, to open the opportunity for state and local control. (Besides, why would the president want to be demonstrative about taking over when he needs to avoid ticking off people in order to help Democrats keep the Senate?)

Obama’s premising refrain: “Let’s make this a year of action.” Usually, “let’s” shouldn’t be the federal government. “Let’s” should be lawmakers just down the road from the homes were families have crafted their own, successful lives.