Obama's State of the Union Dilemma

Obama can deliver a speech. Seriously. Though I am admittedly not a fan of his political prespective, and though I think in the end his speech doesn't mean much, I must give him credit for the strategic approach employed in the address.

I think for the first time, the president cast himself as a citizen of America first, and an ideologue second. Of course, it is just a speech, and plenty of pens and minds collaborated to bring it to life. The delivery, though, was excellent.

Ideologically, the presentation stayed true to democratic principles, as the proposed solution to many problems is believed to be government intervention, especially in terms of allocation of money. What stood out to me was that the president spoke in glowing terms of the traits that Americans believe serve as the backbone of the country.

For instance, the focus seemed to be almost Reaganesque in its optimism and praise of self-sufficiency. Entrpreneurial spirit was mentioned in one way or another on many occasions. When the president says that Americans do big things, and when he suggests that improving productivity and prosperity in American manufacturing, I was reeminded of the Gipper.

Where I maintain concern is often the ideological chasm between Obama and me. The plan seems to be to throw money at education, for example. As a career educator, I like the idea of supporting public education. However, as the worst elements of NCLB have shown, federal involvement in education isn't necessarily a great thing. Once the federal governemnt sends money to schools, they understandably want a say in how schools are run. In the broadest sense, that is fine. In practical terms, however, the result is unfunded mandates that actually make schools more expensive, in my opinion.

How does this happen, you might ask? Well, NCLB in broad strokes has been a significant catalyst for change. Educators are being held more accountable for producing results. Because teachers are generally resourceful, imaginative, and hard-working, the call to accountability has driven many schools to improve. The cost to the taxpayer, though, and the cost to the relative health of the teaching staff, has been huge. Federal money has not paid for the increase in teachers that followed the call to action. Likewise, federal money has not paid in full for the increase in money spent for special education teachers and programs, increases that have been necessitated by the programs that demand similar achievement for students with identified barriers to education and the rest of the student population.

The principle and the dynamic replicates itself with all governemnt controlled programs. I know the left-leaning people aren't as sure of this as I am, but in very few cases does a large, unwieldy government agency produce results that aren't much more expensive than they could be.

So the speech, in its call to a blending of private innovation supported with governemnt dollars, might be a positive thing, if the innovators are allowed to profit from their innovations in some way. I like the call to do these things for the good of America, but if the plan is to have the federal officials' oversight and supervision to squelch the spirit, none of the impetus will last.

ADDENDUM: A reader asked why the headline mentions Obama's dilemma? I thought it had been implied. Government intervention and control are at odds with entreprenurial spirit and innovation. A bureaucracy can support those rogue, cowboy type efforts, but it can never create them itself. The two forces are mutually exclusive.