Today marks our 4th annual State of the Government address.\u00a0 In our initial analysis, we made the following primary observations:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The State of the Government is too partisan.<\/em><\/p>\n The State of the Government is too influenced by money.<\/em><\/p>\n The State of the Government is too big.<\/em><\/p>\n The State of the Government is financially imbalanced.<\/em><\/p>\n The State of the Government is too far removed from the Constitution.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The following conclusion has also been expressed these past 4 years:\u00a0 \u201cThe State of the Government has digressed over several decades, and until we responsibly address partisanship, special interests, size, spending, and straying from the Constitution, we will be challenged to admit even the Union is strong.\u201d<\/em>\u00a0 My strong sense is the above is still true; the question is what can we do.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Government is too <\/strong>partisan<\/strong>.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/em>Pre-speech analysis from multiple, varied sources suggest that Pres. Obama\u2019s speech will be aggressively progressive this evening.\u00a0 As Politico states, the President will \u201cpay lip service to bipartisanship, but don\u2019t expect anything like the call for peaceful collaboration that defined his first address to a joint session of Congress in 2009.\u201d\u00a0<\/em> Is the partisanship right?\u00a0 Is it wrong?\u00a0 Let me not answer the question; let me only ask another:\u00a0 does this approach help?\u00a0 Rightly or wrongly, during both the Obama and most recent Bush administration, the partisan divide has only gotten bigger.\u00a0 If persons within either party or the media have intentionally drummed up partisan passion in order to propel one side of the divide, then they have done an ethical disservice to our country.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Government is too <\/strong>influenced by money<\/strong>.<\/strong>\u00a0 Sticks and stones seem to fly on this issue, with people blaming one person or party or a singular judicial decision.\u00a0 Based on objective research, it\u2019s my conclusion that the moral digression due to money increased exponentially during the Carter administration, when lobbyist restrictions were significantly eased.\u00a0 Until lobbyist monies are again restricted, the purity of our democratic process will continue to be obscured.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Government is too <\/strong>big<\/strong>.<\/strong>\u00a0 Let me make this is as simple as possible.\u00a0 Who watches their pennies more: \u00a0a small business on a tight budget… or a massive conglomerate with no budget?\u00a0 The nonpartisan CBO projects the cost of the federal government to be $47.2 trillion<\/em><\/strong> over the next 10 years.\u00a0 That\u2019s an annual growth rate of approximately 6.7%, trouncing the growth of the private sector.\u00a0 In a government that was created for the people and by the people, it was never intended to do all things for all people.\u00a0 There is no way $47.2 trillion is being spent effectively.\u00a0 And there is no way all those pennies are being counted.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Government is <\/strong>financially imbalanced<\/strong>.<\/strong>\u00a0 Whether monies are spent on war or domestic programs, the government continues to spend.\u00a0 They don\u2019t balance their budget; they don\u2019t even have<\/em> a budget.\u00a0 No business entity that attempts to operate with continued deficit spending for this long with zero plan to pay it back would be allowed<\/em> to exist.\u00a0 The elect continue to simply kick the plan for balanced spending down the road.\u00a0 Is it because, as some say, in this economic state, we can\u2019t do that right now?\u00a0 Or, as I believe, do they avoid cutting spending in the sake of political expediency?\u00a0 Let\u2019s balance the budget. \u00a0Let’s make a plan. \u00a0Let\u2019s stick to it… like every other wise, existing household in this country.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Government is too <\/strong>far removed from the Constitution<\/strong>.<\/strong>\u00a0 Far too many are far too comfortable believing contemporary opinion trumps foundational truth.\u00a0 \u201cWe the People\u00a0of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.\u201d<\/em>\u00a0 The above Preamble was written to inspire an improved government (improved from that which was established via the Articles of Confederation).<\/em>\u00a0 Our founders desired a country that would be just, internally peaceful, and externally protected.\u00a0 They desired our citizens would be blessed and free.\u00a0 Too many today justify legislation that dictates exactly how people should prosper, how tranquility is insured, and what (in their opinion)<\/em> is a more perfect union.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n As said previously amidst these posts, far be it from the Intramuralist to suggest that the State of the Government is the sole fault of the current congress and administration.\u00a0 But far be it from the current congress and administration to suggest it is the sole fault of their predecessors.\u00a0 The reality is still true that the State of the Government has digressed over several decades, and yes, until we responsibly address partisanship, special interests, size, spending, and straying from the Constitution, we will be challenged to admit the Union is strong.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Respectfully,<\/p>\n AR<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Today marks our 4th annual State of the Government address.\u00a0 In our initial analysis, we made the following primary observations: The State of the Government is too partisan. The State of the Government is too influenced by money. The State of the Government is too big. The State of the Government is financially imbalanced. … <\/p>\n