I watched some, if not most of President Trump's State of the Union address Tuesday night. It seemed kind of anti-climatic since I'd been listening to public radio Monday and earlier Tuesday where it was apparent that some, if not all, of Trump's speech had already been handed over to several news outlets.
So, by the time I sat down to watch the speech I really didn't hear anything new. I didn't see anything new either. I saw Republicans clapping and I saw Democrats sitting there with frowns on their faces; just the opposite of when President Obama gave his addresses.
To me, that's the problem in Washington and the problem with partisan politics at all levels of government. If the Republicans like it, the Democrats hate it; if the Democrats vote for it, the Republicans vote against it. I'd long gone to bed before Joe Kennedy issued his response to the president's speech.
I've never liked those speeches, whether it was a Republican responding to a Democratic president or a Democrat responding to a Republican president. They always sounded like sour grapes to me.
I've often wondered what the rebuttal response would be if a president outlined a magnificent plan that addressed all the issues, put paychecks in everybody's pocket, cut everybody's taxes and improved the quality of life for every American citizen. My bet is if a Democratic president made that speech, the Republican response wouldn't like it and vice versa.
Since I'd heard bits and pieces of what Trump would tell us Tuesday night, I was most interested in his plan to invest $1.5 trillion in infrastructure across this nation. While he didn't reveal exactly how the plan would actually work he talked about using that money through public and private projects that could possibly double the amount of money actually being spent to rebuilding roads, bridges, airports and waterways.
I take that to mean some of that $1.5 trillion would be used as matching funds for states and local governments to address some of their most critical needs.
I watch on a monthly basis as the county commission and town councils wrestle to find ways to repair roads, bridges and crumbling utilities like water and sewer. Most are left to simply patch the worst problems with bandaids.
This may be the bipartisan piece of legislation that can get Democrats and Republicans on the same page. Pot holes, leaking water lines, failing bridges and unsafe sewer systems cross all party lines – they occur in the most affluent communities as well as the poorest.
Whether both sides can come to an agreement will depend on the details. But the overall concept is a win, win for all Americans. It will not only fix problems, it will put people to work. It will put paychecks into the pockets of people who buy groceries, cars, furniture and more. Money that generates additional tax dollars to the general funds of cities, counties and states.
Again, it will all depend on the details and assurances the money will go to help rebuild the nation's infrastructure.
It's like the gasoline tax the Alabama Legislature has proposed over the past few years. The concept of raising the tax to address road and bridge issues sounds good. How that money will be divided between the state, the counties and the cities is what causes concerns and has kept the bill from passing.
If there is legislation that both parties can support, it will be the investment in infrastructure. The one big question will be 'how do we pay for it'?
Doesn't seem to me that Congress has worried about how it will pay for something for as long as I can remember.
Trump made his call for unity Tuesday night. Only time will tell if it fell on deaf ears.
