Deny Obama Entry to Congress for SOTU Address - UPDATED

Under the concept of separation of powers, the President is invited annually by the Congress to address the "State of the Union."  While it is a constitutional requirement that the President provide a report or address as to the State of the Union, there is no requirement as to the form it takes.  In 2013, Speaker Boehner invited the President to deliver the address:

Dear Mr. President:
As we round out the first session of the 113th Congress, we look ahead to the new year and with it the annual tradition of the president’s State of the Union address.  In the coming year, Americans expect Washington to focus on their priorities and to look for common ground in addressing the challenges facing our country.  In that spirit, we welcome an opportunity to hear your ideas, particularly for putting Americans back to work.  It’s my honor to invite you to speak before a Joint Session of Congress on Tuesday, January 28, 2014 in the House Chamber of the U.S. Capitol Building. Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
JOHN BOEHNER
Speaker of the House

However, under the current circumstances of the President's unprecedented extra-legal usurpation of powers, especially, but not only with respect to illegal immigration; Speaker Boehner and soon-to-be Majority Leader McConnell should send a letter to the President that reads something like this:

Dear Mr. President:
As we look forward to the first session of the 114th Congress, we look ahead to the new year and with it the annual tradition of the President providing the Congress a report on the State of the Union address.  In the coming year, Americans expect Washington to focus on their priorities and to look for common ground in addressing the challenges facing our country.  However, through your executive actions that have exceeded the authority provided you under law, you have failed to include the Congress in addressing the nation's challenges.  In the spirit of Constitutional observance, we welcome an opportunity to hear your ideas on addressing these issue, but not through personal appearance, rather in the form of written correspondence to be delivered by January 28, 2015. Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
JOHN BOEHNER
Speaker of the House

Such action is entirely within tradition and legitimate constitutionality.  The Congressional Research Service documents that:

Between 1801 and 1913, Presidents fulfilled their constitutional duty by sending their yearly report as a formal written letter to Congress. These written messages contained information about the state of the nation, and also included policy recommendations.

This action would underscore Congressional prerogative in the face of the President's unprecedented and unilateral usurpation of power.  There will be howls from the left; but no one can claim that anything other than Obama's feelings would be hurt.  However, that would hit him where he lives, because, like any would be dictator, he loves the trappings of power.  Indeed, the delivery of the SOTU was discontinued for a long period for just such a reason:

Likening it to a “speech from the throne” reminiscent of monarchy’s vestiges, Thomas Jefferson changed course and instead submitted his Annual Message in writing.

Obama can just get used to his coming retirement a little early by losing this perquisite due to his own arrogance.

Not Barack Obama, in any way. (Thomas Jefferson if you didn't know.)

UPDATE

Andrew McCoy (@DrewMTips), writing in the Ace of Spades blog, echoes my thoughts and adds this:

Yesterday, Boehner said, "The president had said before that he's not king and he's not an emperor," Boehner says. "But he's sure acting like one." 

Why would the Speaker invite such a man to address "the people's house"? All Obama would do would use the time to lecture members of a co-equal branch on what they must do and what he deems acceptable work product for them. Members of the United States Congress are under no obligation to sit mutely while the President brow beats them. 

Obama has said he doesn't feel compelled to listen to the voters who showed up to the polls a little over two weeks ago. The Representatives elected by those people should make it clear they are simply acting in kind, they will not listen to him.

SOTU Brutus?

I missed the delivery of the State of the Union (SOTU) address tonight, but read the text.  As usual, the President has conveniently forgotten facts and argues against straw-man positions that Republicans have never taken.  Before I plunge in with criticism, there were some things that were good, or at least not that awful.

Is Uncle Joe falling asleep back there?

• With the exception of path to citizenship, Obama said most of the right things on immigration reform.  I especially liked this quote: And real reform means fixing the legal immigration system to cut waiting periods, reduce bureaucracy, and attract the highly-skilled entrepreneurs and engineers that will help create jobs and grow our economy. If only I thought he really meant it.
• He made a feeble call for compromise, which would have been nice if he had practiced it any time over the previous four years.
• He calls for means testing Medicare, of course, he doesn't call it that, stating obliquely that he will "ask more from the wealthiest seniors." I actually believe this is a good idea, because as the level at which means testing for medicare falls, which is inevitable, given its problems, political support for the status quo will be undermined.  Without getting specific, he says that he will propose more cost savings from Medicare.  That would be great if it were not for our experience with him, that when he offers no specifics, he actually has no plan.
• Deficit reduction gets a lot of air time.  That in itself is evidence of how the tea party has changed the political dialog.
• He talked about bursting the college bubble.  I like that he points out that college costs are soaring and threatens to link federal aid to reigning in costs.  Emphasizing the known link between good technical education at two year schools and employment was also good to read.

Of course there were multiple lapses of memory and disregard for fact:

• He calls sequestration harsh, blames the Congress for passing it, neglecting that he signed the bill.
• Standard accounting treatment of assets that are depleted is called a tax loophole.
•  He conveniently ignores that the federal government created the college bubble through various loan and scholarship programs.
• al-Qaeda is a shadow of its former self. Really? How do they strike deep into the desert and take over an Algerian gas plant? 
• We will invest in new capabilities for the armed forces.  I hardly think so when you signed the sequestration law that significantly cuts their budget.  If true, he will have to cut troop strength even more, because that is the only place to weapons development money.
• He waves the bloody shirt of Newtown to propose gun control that would not have prevented the tragedy at Newtown.
• He claims credit for increased natural gas production even while his EPA works furiously to make extraction more difficult.

And there was the plain awful stuff.

• Imperial overreach on climate change, the usual: if Congress won't act, then I will.
• More shovel ready public works.  Worked great last time.
• More green energy subsidies. Worked great last time.
• Another wasteful "Head Start" like program. For an indictment of Head Start, read here.
• Another minimum wage increase that will predictably increase unemployment.
• And there was this whopper: That is why my Administration has worked tirelessly to forge a durable legal and policy framework to guide our counterterrorism operations. Throughout, we have kept Congress fully informed of our efforts.  His illegal and unconstitutional targeting of American citizens, anywhere in the world, without authority is a heinous violation of the constitution.  Congress should rescind the authority granted the President after 9-11 because they have been stretched beyond meaning. 
• Some scheme to make sure that stricter voting laws are removed in red states.

I'm glad I didn't watch the speech, knowing Obama's style of delivery would only made it more unpalatable.  Someone I know who supposedly had some inside preview of the speech told me I would be surprised.  I was not.  This speech was devoid of any concrete proposal that will see the light of day in this Congress, with the possible exception of the immigration portion.  Meanwhile, folks, read the whole transcript here, and then check the debt clock on the right side of the page.  Let me know if the speech matched the seriousness of our dilemma.

Half Truths and Lies - Live Blogging SOTU

I am listening to the State of the Union address tonight. A few things struck me.

Obama called on us all to be like members of the armed forces, working together to overcome problems. Really? We all get meager pay and lose many of the rights that citizens take for granted.

Pretty sure his proposal for a minimum tax on international corporations would violate treaty and generally accepted accounting principles.

Took credit for Ford's success? Last I checked, they weren't bailed out.

Taking on China? Who do you think you owe all that swag to?

As with previous Presidents, Obama also wants to be head of your Community College District Board. He is also the webmaster for America's community colleges.

Talking about teacher pay, but state's won't pay for them? Calling for rewards to teachers and flexibility. Called for replacing bad teachers. Hard to believe he's serious, but I am glad he brought it up.

Here it comes, more demagoguery on college student loans. However, Obama actually calls for keeping college costs down, glad to hear it.

Oh no, here comes the DREAM Act stuff. Takes on illegal immigration, but calls for comprehensive immigration reform. Fix the border and we'll talk, sir.

Equal pay for equal work? More interference in the free market.

Obligatory Steve Jobs reference. Tear down regulations? Just do it sir, many of them are of your creation. No need for Congress to put it in a bill. What a bald-faced lie to claim you are seeking to reduce regulation. What was Obamacare all about?

Government R&D led to new jobs? It wasn't private companies that created the new products on which prosperity depends.

Opening 75% of offshore resources to oil exploration. The same 75% you previously closed?

Apparently, Obama discovered the oil coming out of the ground in North Dakota. Now he is in favor of natural gas, oh wait, he's not; proposing new regulations for natural gas producers.

This is getting boring. Renewable energy, Solyndra, blah, blah, blah.

Energetics, wind turbine manufacturer, the next Solyndra?

Clean energy tax breaks, more swag to favored groups.

Differences in this chamber too deep, whaaa. More unilateral action, shredding the constitution, Navy purchase of clean energy. Was that authorized? If not, impeach; if yes, how do you take credit for unilateralism.

He keeps using the line, "send me a bill." No, you already sent us the bill.

Here comes the infrastructure bit. More executive orders? Removing red tape? I doubt it, and the press won't hold him accountable.

Now he's going to interfere in the housing market and interfere in sound lending. Directing the banks to renegotiate mortgages? Welcome back from the dead, Juan Peron.
[Post speech note; Romney can hammer on the theme that government caused this housing bubble in the first place, more intervention props up a market that still needs to deflate.]

Smart regulation to prevent irresponsible behavior, but what new is needed? Now he's the de-regulator in chief. Taking credit for the milk spill deregulation.

Safe food, clean water, and evil health insurance practices. I will not go back to . . . I have restored everything good. Big banks won't be bailed out? Wasn't that the exact result of Dodd-Frank? Making it harder for Americans to get credit by regulating credit card companies, in the name of preventing unsavory practices.

Now he is asking for more legislation on banking. So much for deregulation.

Pay down our debt? No way, immediately on to tax hike prevention, or do you mean blowing a bigger hole in Social Security?

Here comes the tax rate demagoguery. Hey, no applauded the Warren Buffett secretary tax rate lie line. (It is a lie, because Buffet's income is first taxed at a corporate tax rate.) Fair share, blah, blah. Even Dems can barely muster applause.

Millionaire bashing, no real new ideas here. Yes, sir, I am calling this class warfare, because it is built on a foundation of lies. The rich pay twice, first on corporate taxes then on gains. He envisions a nation of dependents, whose lives depend on taxes from the rich. What a poverty of imagination, if that were true we would truly be a nation in poverty.

What are we thinking? Who will win the Super Bowl?

Bemoaning partisanship. Corrosive influence of money in politics. Banning insider trading by members of Congress? Ain't happening.

Going after the cloture rule in the Senate? Really? Don't recall him being for that when he was in the Senate. Asking for a simple up or down vote on nominees? Be careful what you ask for, there will be a Republican President some day.

Building consensus? Quoting Lincoln? Huge lie, Obama has been the chief contributor to partisan fighting. He then talks about the health care bill, the epitome of partisan and lobbyist driven legislation.

I think he's finishing. Terrible speech. Nope, back to taking credit for being Commander-In-Chief. Hey, where's the talk about engagement in Iran? Now he's talking Arab Spring and whacking Ghadaffi. He's going to whack Assad too? Who'd have thunk it, a dude named Barack Hussein Obama is all about whacking Arabs?

Iran isn't going to get a nuke according to Obama, no options off the table. Of course he should say it, even if we aren't really going to bomb them. Oh no, now he's Bibi's his best friend, or at least Israel's.

America is back! Hey, I agree that we are not in decline, but I think he is targeting Romney. Opinions of America in other countries are higher than in years? Don't think so, will look it up later. American exceptionalism.

Budget cuts for the military, cyber threat legislation. Waiting for the other shoe to drop on this issue. Already let the first one fall at the start of the defense review this month. VA spending going up. Veterans rebuilding this nation, with tax credits for veteran hiring. Hey, I'm a veteran, and honestly this all feels like pandering after a while.

Back to the topic of learning from the servicemen and women, we are all in it together, serving one nation. More bin-Laden and flag waving, almost literally. Am I awesome as CINC or what? Mission only succeeded because of ME, is the not so subtle subtext of recounting SEAL speech. More fascist rhetoric about how we all work together as a team. Sorry, we are no longer in the service, as I opined before.

Finally, no mention of Obamacare, expected; but also not much about Defense budget, which I had expected.

Defense Budget and the SOTU

As reported by Reuters, the Obama administration plans on cutting 10-15% of the nation's ground forces. Supposedly, this will represent a slowing in the growth of the defense budget. Why it doesn't represent a decline in spending is not clear, but it seems that the Marine Corps and Army will be the biggest losers in this scenario. Politico is reporting that getting control of military health care, pay and retirements will also be on the agenda. Retired pay is particularly difficult, because retirees are scattered throughout the country, are often successful people with the means to donate to political campaign and are networked through a number of veteran's organizations.

I would expect the President to discuss defense budgeting and strategy in the State of the Union address. Prior SOTU's have not had much focus on those subjects. Based on the initial leaked reports it looks like the Navy and Air Force face fewer force reductions.

I am torn on the defense issue. The potential for mischief by dictators throughout the world remains high. A win-spoil strategy seems risky, and would seem to invite mischief. However, defense spending can't be a sacred cow any more than any other kind of spending in order for us to get our fiscal house in order.

My Issues With the SOTU

There was a lot to like in the President's State of the Union speech tonight, if you take him at his word. He successfully tacked to the center and talked in a way that most Americans will agree with. Because he was short on specific details, it was a good speech to lay out platitudes that will continue to raise his approval numbers. As is often said, however, the devil is in the details. That said, I still had a few issues with the speech.

First, I was worried he was going to milk the whole civility and aftermath of the Giffords shooting. He stopped just short unseemliness.

The President made great statements about the infrastructure needs of America, including the high tech infrastructure. But my issue is that he makes the assumption that only the government can fund these improvements. If we don't fund infrastructure through private investment, we will never make the needed improvements.

He talks about the legacy of deficit spending, but the emphasis on more "investment" which equals spending in new infrastructure is incompatible with his call for a freeze in discretionary spending.

His call to reform social security ring hollow, because he proposes nothing except tax increases for the wealthy. Even though the two issues were not directly conflated, they were juxtaposed in his speech. What conclusion am I to draw. Also, it is a lie that the health care law reduces the deficit.

Calls for a government that is more efficient, but the complexity of government is largely due to its size not only inanity. If his proposed re-organization is to be effective, it must reduce the size of government.

I liked the call for a simplification of the individual tax code. It will in fact raise more revenue, especially if accompanied by a lowering of rates, just like Reagan and Rostenkowski worked out in the eighties.

The bipartisan fiscal commission called for cuts to excessive spending in all areas. I tend to agree. But the President didn't point out a single idea from that commission with which he agreed or disagreed. Sorry, he is still voting present.

On health care, he was combative and I get that. At least he indicated his willingness to revisit the 1099 issue. His call to move on will go unheeded by me, because the health care bill merely doubles down on all that is already wrong with a third party payer system that divorces benefits from payer and is inevitably inefficient and ineffective.

There were some nice touches at the end like paying homage to the humble beginnings of Boehner and Biden and to Brandon Fisher and the new drilling technology used to save Chilean miners.

It was certainly a good speech that sets a good tone for further debate.