State of the Union

Part of the modest agenda that President Bush set for the congress during his State of the Union speech was to eliminate half of all earmarks during his last year in office.

The day after, however, according to a report by Politico, Republicans "remain paralyzed by internal struggles over how to curb their addiction to spending projects."

For example, House Minority Leader John Boehner asked Democrats to commit to a six-month freeze on earmarks, while ranking member of the Appropriations Committee--Republican Thad Cochran--remained defiant. "Congress," he said in a press release, "has the sole power under the Constitution to appropriate funds for expenditure by the federal government. I will oppose any measure which in effect transfers this power to the executive branch."

After the Jump--Earmarks... Really?

Delivering his seventh and final State of the Union speech to a joint session of Congress last night, President Bush wasted no time in challenging Congress to come together to do "the people's business" in this election year. He said that the lawmakers should strive to show the American people that "Republicans and Democrats can compete for votes and cooperate for results at the same time."

The policy portion of the speech began with a discussion of the recently agreed upon economic stimulus package. The president cautioned the Senate to resist the temptation to "load up the bill," saying that this would delay or derail the stimulus package, "and neither is acceptable." He again optimistically called for Congress to make the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 permanent as another means of economic stimulation and told the assembled legislators that he would veto any bill that raises taxes. Recognizing that permanent extension of the tax cuts is a near impossibility in the current Congress, the president used gentle humor to make his point that allowing the tax cuts to expire is akin to increasing taxes.

"Unless the Congress acts, most of the tax relief we have delivered over the past seven years will be taken away. Some in Washington argue that letting tax relief expire is not a tax increase. Try explaining that to 116 million American taxpayers who would see their taxes rise by an average of $1,800. Others have said they would personally be happy to pay higher taxes. I welcome their enthusiasm. I'm pleased to report that the I.R.S. accepts both checks and money orders.

In celebration of the last State of the Union Address in Dubya's presidency, political junkies and hardcore drinkers alike are gathering at www.theyoungturks.com for some good old fashion drinking game fun.

Fellow Political Machiner and host of The Young Turks Cenk Uygur is already suggesting a sip every time Bushy utters the word empower. You can chortle into that beer with each empower, as far as I'm concerned.

At the moment, participants of a live chat on The Turks' Web page cite their drinks of choice in the following order:

Nothing 52 percent; Beer 18 percent; Wine 17 percent; Everything 7 percent; and Tequila 3 percent.

C'mon! Nothing? Get into the spirit. Pun totally intended.

What am I drinking during the speech? Unfortunately, coffee in preparation for an all-nighter. Sigh.

I'm saving my political drinking game antics for the big dance, as I have done the past two presidential elections. I'm sure that will be an interesting blog post.

Cheers.

The State of the Union is one of a political junkie's favorite nights of the year. This annual American political tradition has come to provide real theater. The speech is full of pageantry not seen at any other time: from the way the president is announced into the chamber to thunderous applause, and then re-introduced by the Speaker of the House with that peculiar formulation, "the high privilege and the distinct honor;" to the rise and fall of the legislators outdoing themselves to show their support for the favorite lines in the speech; the guests in the balcony; and the way in which campaign seasoned legislators morph into groupies, fighting and jockeying for a chance to shake the president's hand as he enters and leaves the chamber. There is very little in the world for which a true lover of American politics would miss a State of the Union Speech.

President Bush will deliver his seventh and final State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress tonight in the House chamber. The speech marks the official beginning of the final year of the Bush presidency, and its content is likely to reflect that fact.

It seems like only seven-hundred years ago when George W. Bush gave his first State of the Union address just a few weeks after the Supreme Court made him president.

But it was actually just seven years ago -- seven of the longest, most miserable years in America's long tragic history. And it wasn't even a real State of the Union address, back in January 2001, because presidents don't get to make such a speech until they've been in office for a year. The technical name for Bush's first address to the House and Senate was an "administrative goals speech" or "budget message."

See how much better you feel, knowing that kind of arcane political trivia? That knowledge and $2,300 will buy you a friendly handshake from Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, at a chicken dinner in a chain hotel's banquet hall in Modesto or Pensacola or Colorado Springs. But we can forget the rotten candidates and dirty campaigns for at least one night this year. On Monday, George W. Bush will give his very last State of the Union address.

So spake my sagely father many years ago, and I've not forgotten the basic wisdom of his words. Following on Eric Schulzke's post on compressed air cars below, the broader category of energy sources is a somewhat dormant topic which may be preparing to erupt. I'm not an expert on methods of energy production, but I'm aware of the historical transformations which accompany "revolutionary" advancements in technology. The Industrial Revolution caused universal upheavals which cannot be overstated in breadth or dimension - the entire social, political and economic structure of Europe was tremendously and permanently impacted by the novel methods of production.

Is it possible that we are glimpsing the dawning horizon of the next "industrial revolution?"