Inaugural Address

I appreciated the references to our nation's founders.

There were a few parts of his speech that should raise some concern:

"The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified."

Where in the Constitution does it say the government has a responsibility to find jobs for its citizens? How are they going to make care "affordable" for all without nationalizing it? We're being set up to rely on the government, cradle-to-the-grave.

"...a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous."

In other words, those who are successful earn the money, but that won't cut it anymore for our America. In other words - redistribution of wealth.

"The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart — not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good."

This statement is completely off; economies have cycles. An economy can't grow unless it retracts.

Yes, we are told in our founding documents that all men are created free and equal. This doesn't mean the government makes people equal from an economical position. It means that from birth, all men have the same chance to get their act together and push towards the finish line.

Creating opportunity for all will mean creating a level playing field. In order to do this, you must lower the talented and successful, and raise the untalented and unsuccessful. How will this make our nation better? It will create a uniform playing field of zombies, where the smart and intellectual seek opportunities elsewhere because they can't be rewarded without sharing their success with their unemployed neighbors.

The reason an individual becomes successful is because he had the motivation to make it through the struggles to a better life. What will the motivation be to create new and better products and services if there's no fear of failure?

Haven't we already tried to equal the playing field? Look at government subsidized housing and the endless cycle of blind dependence and laziness it has created in those utilize it.

In the end, the government has no business poking into our lives, our dreams, and offering coupons and money to those who can't earn it for themselves.

Cradle to the grave.

Some snippets from Obama's press conference:

"[...]Many of those new jobs will come in areas -- such as energy independence, technology and health care modernization -- that will strengthen our economy over the long term. But if we are going to make the investments we need, we also have to be willing to shed the spending that we don't need."

Health care modernization... what does that mean, exactly? Are we following in the footsteps of the UK? [link: BBC News Health]

"This isn't about big government or small government. It's about building a smarter government that focuses on what works. And that's why I will ask my team to think anew and act anew to meet our new challenges."

Within his speech, he also discusses slashing unnecessary spending, but doesn't go into detail of what this contains aside from subsidies for farmers. Those of us who practice vigilance in keeping the government in check should mark these words: building a smarter government.

"[..]we also must restore the confidence of middle-class families that their government is on their side, that it's working for them and on their behalf to meet their families' needs. That's what I intend to do as president of the United States."

While this sounds appealing, where in the Constitution does it give our government the responsibility to provide for our individual families?

There are important questions we need to raise when we hear Obama promising a smarter government that will provide for families' needs. It sounds good, because it gives us reassurance for the safety and well-being of our loved ones in midst of economic turmoil. But we must ask, regardless of political affiliation: At what cost?

Question of Authority

There continues to be speculation over the location of the president-elect's birth. An actual birth certificate has not been produced, but rather a "certificate of live birth," which is quite different. It can be filed within one year of someone's birth. [link: here]

According to the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President[...]

This isn't partisanship, this is a question of the authority of the United States Constitution. If the President-Elect already can cause the judiciary branch to turn a blind eye to the supreme law of the United States over something as simple as a birth certificate, this country is in for more trouble than the recession. There is something really wrong here, and to write it off by considering skeptics to be doomsayers is irresponsible to the preservation of our democracy. Pride in one's country is more important than unbridled pride in one's president, especially when not much is known of his motives or agenda.

Where's Robin Hood?

Before the election, most of us knew Obama wouldn't be able to go through with his extensive tax cut plan, given the current economic conditions. Yet he kept running on the promise of provision, making the famous remark of his desire to "spread the wealth around." A past radio interview discusses his disappointment in the Constitution's lack of allowing the government to redistribute wealth. [link: here]

Yet most Americans believed him and gave him the vote. Do they realize what's going on now that the campaign is over? Probably not.

Now, the word is Obama will restrain himself from taxing the richest Americans to provide for the other 95%. [Link: here] It suggests he'll leave Bush's tax cut alone and let it expire in 2011. It would've been foolish of Obama to go through with his economic plans that he was running on, yet people believed the empty promise. Ah yes, change.

There's an article that was published by the BBC today, in which it remarks: how the world's opinion of America has already risen due to Obama's election, and secondly, how little is known of who Obama actually is.

Obama also named Tim Geithner for Secretary of the Treasurery. Who is this guy? To refresh your memory, Geithner was "a key architect of the $30 billion bailout to prevent the bankruptcy of Bear Stearns Cos." [Link: here] Someone else who believes it's the government's responsbility to prop up the economy. Where does the gov't get this money from? Tax payers. I promise you, Obama will not be cutting your taxes (or raising taxes on the upper $250k) anytime soon.


Other stories to read concerning the economy:
Obama will get stimulus package on Day 1 [Bloomberg.com, here]
Congress pledges 7.4 Trillion [Bloomberg.com, here]