For 220 years our presidents have given State of the Union addresses, or as we like to call them, The Once-a-Year Washington Aerobics Olympics.

86 times the left side of the aisle felt compelled to leap to its feet to applaud the President. That's the most exercise most of Congress gets all year, unless you consider Congressional groveling to lobbyists and special interests on hands and knees exercise.

So, to paraphrase the usual Congressional question, "What's in it for us?"

On the positive side, the President did make overtures towards a more bi-partisan second year by offering tax credits and the elimination of capital gains taxes on small business as well as the mention of innovation in our energy strategy to include, new nuclear power plants, off shore oil and gas development and clean coal technology.

However, the President continued with his insistence that Congress must pass Cap and Trade (Cap and Tax) because of the "overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change." (His exact words, not ours.) That little bit of rhetoric actually provided some laughter from the peanut gallery; we would guess not the reaction he was going for.

Couple his continuing insistence on Cap and Trade with his reiteration of the need to pass the health care bill and we find that most of last night's speech was a rehash of his first address to Congress one year ago.

The number one focus in 2010 we are told will be a new jobs bill. Last year he called it a stimulus package. Renaming more government interference in capitalism will not bring us jobs. It will only bring more spending that we cannot afford.

As for the 2 million jobs we are told he saved, isn't it funny how the highlighted still-employed are teachers, police, firefighters and first responders, all UNION jobs?

Unless we're mistaken, the American people say jobs and the economy should be priority numero uno. (For English, press one.) We don't believe they are expressing a desire to all become card-carrying union members to get employed. Yet, that seems to be this president's idea of employment for all.

(We'll address the deleterious effect of union jobs on the overall economy in another posting.)

But the cornerstone of new-found fiscal responsibility is the announcement of a spending freeze that starts in 2011.

Will this help? We're not going to answer that. We'll let you decide by fleshing this concept out in Main Street terms.

Let's say that you and your family earn $80,000 a year. But in 2008 you spent $96,800. Then in 2009 you spent $99,200. By our reckoning by 2010 you're $36,000 above your total family income. But you decide to spend another $20,000 over your income for 2010 making your deficit to the credit card company now $56,000.

Visa comes calling and asks you to pay the money back. Since you don't have it to pay you tell Visa that you have a plan to make good on the debt. In 2011 you will "freeze" spending on $9520 of the $56,000 you owe (the President's proposed 17% freeze) and only increase your spending on the remaining $46,480 at the current rate of 24% (the actual increase for the first year of Obamanomics).

Do you believe "the suits" at Visa would leap to their feet to applaud you in the same way Congress did last night when the President proposed the same fiscal responsibility plan?

We sincerely doubt it.

We would call last night an evening of "smoke and mirrors" but it does a disservice to both smoke and mirrors.

Prepare yourselves for continuing unemployment, shrinking pay checks and another dip back down on Wall Street and Main Street if this is all that Congress and the President can propose to solve our fiscal insolvency.