Why the SOTU doesn't really matter

The Constitution requires that the U.S. president "from time to time" inform Congress on "the state of the union."
Interestingly, the Founding Fathers never imagined that State of the Union (SOTU) speeches would primarily consist of
a. blather
b. a forecast of failures

The Constitution requires that the U.S. president "from time to time" inform Congress on "the state of the union."
Interestingly, the Founding Fathers never imagined that State of the Union (SOTU) speeches would primarily consist of
a. blather
b. a forecast of failures

The blather comes when the president - no matter of which party - declares, "The state of the union is sound."  And, for some reason, all the members of Congress applaud.

The forecast of failures comes when the president - no matter of which party - proposes new legislation, new programs, major changes to existing programs.
All of them ultimately fail.
In 1993 Clinton proposed major health care reform.
Within months the proposal was in tatters.
In 2005 Bush proposed major Social Security reform.
Within months the proposal was in tatters.
History indicates the same outcome for SOTU proposals from Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush I.  (And probably, although it wasn't in my lifetime, Washington through Eisenhower.)  
So I never, ever watch the SOTU.  I read about it the next day.
In the New York Times, of course.  They will even print the complete text.

The president gives the SOTU each year.
And each year life goes on as if the SOTU had never been made.
Next to pardoning the annual Thanksgiving turkey, the SOTU is probably the most meaningless act any president participates in.