I probably won't watch anyway. The Pacers unveil Peja Stojakovic.

What about 2001?

The SOTU address is important because the President uses it to propose policy directions. However, those who don't enjoy the political theatre aspect of it can just as easily read the text later on. Personally, I like watching the pomp and circumstance, but the constant interruptions for standing ovations quickly get old.

This is one of those rare occasions where I agree 100% with what Eric says -- it's good to have a once-a-year agenda-setting session, that people have to pay a bit of attention to. But if they could somehow cut down on the ovations, then, absolutely, that would be a good thing indeed.

The theme this year is something like "Strong, and together, we'll grow stronger."

Gerald Ford, State of the Union:

1975: "The state of the Union is not good."
1976: "The state of the Union is not good enough."

November 1976: Gerald Ford loses to Jimmy Carter. Maybe that is why every president since seems to pronounce that the state of the union is good, strong, or whatever. ;-)

In 2001, Bush laid out a "Budget Message" rather than an official SotU. The addresses in 1993 and 1989 were likewise not officially SotU's.

And whether the SotU is worth reading depends on how relevent it is to the actual agenda Congress follows. I'd say that this president is in a relatively weak position to be setting the agenda.

Judging from past State of the Union addresses, we're going to Mars and Iraq was getting uranium from Kenya, or something. Oh yeah, and we need tax cuts because our surpluses are too big. From 2001:

Many of you have talked about the need to pay down our national debt. I listened, and I agree. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to act now, and I hope you will join me to pay down $2 trillion in debt during the next 10 years. At the end of those 10 years, we will have paid down all the debt that is available to retire. That is more debt, repaid more quickly than has ever been repaid by any nation at any time in history. We should also prepare for the unexpected, for the uncertainties of the future. We should approach our nation's budget as any prudent family would, with a contingency fund for emergencies or additional spending needs. For example, after a strategic review, we may need to increase defense spending. We may need to increase spending for our farmers or additional money to reform Medicare. And so, my budget sets aside almost a trillion dollars over 10 years for additional needs. That is one trillion additional reasons you can feel comfortable supporting this budget. We have increased our budget at a responsible 4 percent. We have funded our priorities. We paid down all the available debt. We have prepared for contingencies. And we still have money left over. . . Unrestrained government spending is a dangerous road to deficits, so we must take a different path. The other choice is to let the American people spend their own money to meet their own needs. . . . The people of America have been overcharged and, on their behalf, I am here asking for a refund.

My mistake. The mission to Mars was a plan unveiled by Mr. Bush about a week before the 2004 State of the Union but somehow didn't merit mention in the address itself.

Well we can still meet the president's goals of 2001 except that instead of paying down $2 trillion in debt over ten years, we just have to pay down $3 trillion in debt over the next five years.

We can do that through a targeted series of deep tax cuts to the rich and very rich which will stimulate the economy so much that the federal government will run a $600 billion dollar revenue (tax) surplus for each of the next five years.

greg

How about a reality check here is the national debt http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/a hell of lot more than 3 tril.