Democratic Rep. Adam Smith, ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee, Tuesday called for an end to the annual presidential State of the Union, a tradition that dates back to the origins of the republic, saying that the speech allows presidents to promise things they can’t deliver.
“The State of the Union address promised more money than I can possibly imagine,” Smith said at the opening of a committee hearing on the defense and nuclear strategy. “I think we ought to ban the State of the Union address, and I say that for Democrats and Republicans alike.”
Smith said the impasse over the fiscal 2018 budget shows that Congress and the administration lack the political will to fund the Defense Department at the levels that the House and Senate Armed Services committees believe is necessary.
And to that end, Smith argues the State of the Union address has become an exercise in unfulfilled promises.
“The main thing that it does is it gives the executive a chance to stand up there and promise things that are absolutely, utterly, and completely impossible to deliver,” Smith said. “And then the American public comes to expect it, and rightfully gets a little bit irritated when magic doesn’t make it happen.”
Smith said he was making his suggestion as a “side note,” and eliminating the speech might be in conflict with the Constitution, which states in Article II that the president “shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”
George Washington delivered the first State of the Union address Jan. 8, 1790, in Federal Hall in New York City.
Smith wasn’t there for that one, but he says all the presidents, Democrat and Republican have promised more than the Congress has been willing to fund.
“Every State of the Union address I have seen since I’ve been here, I’ve walked out of there thinking, ‘We don’t have that money. What is he talking about?’” Smith said.
