Local party chair: State of the Union ‘more of the same’

“More of the same” was Cache County Republican Party Chair David James’ response to President Obama’s State of the Union speech. “I thought his lead out was interesting where he said we’re going to freeze spending, next year, ‘after we get spending well ratcheted up this year and, oh by the way, I would like a special, gigantic spending bill on my desk by tomorrow’. “About 10 minutes into the speech I thought, it’s official, ‘Hope and Change’ is just more of the same. There was a lot of ‘…it was Bush’s fault.’ The President explained how he was forced to spend all this money that he really didn’t want to, that he didn’t like to, they just twisted his arm and made him do it. It seemed preposterous to me. “He said he wanted to end the perpetual campaign season, which I thought was really funny, because he spent the last year campaigning. “In a lot of ways I was just frustrated with the speech.” President Obama said everyone on both sides of the aisle agreed on one thing: no one liked the bailout. “If we all hated the bailout,” said James, “my question to President would be, why don’t you execute it the way it’s supposed to be executed? It has an ending provision to it. When the money is repaid, it is to go back to pay off the debt that was incurred to bail the companies out. In the same speech he said he’s going to take that money and give it to some other banks. Maybe he doesn’t hate the bailout so much.” Late in his remarks the President addressed health care, saying now that we’re so close to reform the country has wanted for decades, don’t walk away from it. “Clearly, his agenda hasn’t changed,” said James. “At one point he said we’re going to be more cooperative, but his remarks indicate he is of no mind to listen to new ideas. Maybe it’s time to just let this one (health care reform) go for a little while. They’ve made it so polarizing I’m not sure they can come to an agreement.” With members of the Supreme Court present, the President was critical of the high court’s decision on campaign finance reform. “It seemed like he was intending to intimidate,” said James. “It was the executive branch saying to the court: ‘We don’t like what you do and we want a lot of changes.’ And he said it to their face. “Then he said to Congress, ‘If you don’t do what I want you to, I will execute things with an executive order.’ So much for a balance of power, and respect in Washington. He set a pretty bad tone there, as well.”

Free News Delivery by Email

Would you like to have the day's news stories delivered right to your inbox every evening? Enter your email below to start!