« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Democrat Clowns Pass Joke Budget

By: scipio62 (Diary)  |  March 23rd, 2013 at 05:46 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

So,…do we give them a cookie now for actually doing their jobs or something? Here is the Democrat propaganda from The Hill:

The Senate early Saturday passed its first budget in four years by a vote of 50 to 49.

The close vote was a big victory for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Budget Chairwoman Patty Murray (D-Wash.),…

How is this a victory for the Democrats? That they had just enough morons to vote to pass it? Four Senate Democrats up for re-election in 2014 and from states that went for Romney in 2012 (including Mark Pryor from my state) voted against this mess, joining all of the Republicans.

The Murray budget…does not constitute a net spending cut.

Did Senate Democrats have to approve the quoted sentence before it went public? Because the correct sentence would read “The Murray budget constitutes a spending increase.” But that would make the Democrats really look bad, wouldn’t it?

Democrats argue that America cares first and foremost about economic growth, and their approach eschews austerity that could cost millions of jobs.

Another Democrat-approved statement that is quite the Krugman-esque lie. Is it stopping the Obama regime from spending billions on frivolous entertainment spending? No. Is it stopping the Obama DoJ from spending billions on its frivolous lawsuits in the courts? No. Is it stopping Obamacare? No. Is it stopping Obama from spending billions in frivolous foreign policy spending? No, and Obama is promising to spend even more money. Is it stopping the Obama regime from throwing billions of dollars in tax money down the toilet to failed “green” energy companies? No. Is it resetting the budget baseline to what it was before Porkulus? No. Where is the actual austerity? Cutting employees who work on programs that are the equivalent of paying people to first dig holes and then filling them in (e.g., Head Start, everything related to Porkulus) is not austerity; it’s fiscal responsibility.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • carolina

    At least it gets the dems ‘on the record’ for a variety of votes. That is more than we have had for years. Now that BO and Harry have been reelected – they are willing to let the other dems take some heat for actual votes. The dems are disgusting, including especially their non-leadership.

  • celador2

    scipio,
    The Democrats s have been under the gun for not having a budget since Obama has been president. They have chosen to fund the ever expanding US by Continuing Resolutions and raising the Debt ceiling. This Senate Murray budget must now reconcile with House budget authoried by Rep Paul Ryan Chr Budgt com. Then the president must sign a common budget for the budget to become law.
    This budget has a long way to go. It does provide cover for the four up in 2014 in a cheap shot kind of way though.

    I’d laugh but to keep from crying, as Pres Lincoljn said to Sec Stanton..

    • retrocal

      If the House and Senate manage to reconcile their differing budgets via a conference committee (won’t happen, but lets pretend) that’s the end of the process. It does not go to the president, he does not sign or veto it, and it never becomes law. Budgets adopted by Congress merely serve as guides for the Appropriations committees as they work to pass their annual appropriations bills (most of which never get passed anyway, hence CR’s, which aggregate spending of the annual appropriations bills that have not passed both houses).
      All of the amendments to the budget the Senate just voted on therefore never become law either. I recall someone in another thread cheering the “killing” of the medical device tax, since an amendment to do so was included in the passed Senate budget. While the vote certainly demonstrated the willingess of some Dem senators to vote to kill the tax at some future date, it won’t become law unless it is included in a bill that the president actually signs (or that is approved over his veto).
      Budgets, whether offered or not, passed or not, or reconciled between both houses or not, are basically without any force or import whatsoever, other than serving as suggested guidelines and vehicles for feeling out support for various policies via the amending process.

      • checkmate2012

        Are you saying that if the prez did sign a reconciled bill it still wouldn’t be law? I know it’s non-binding from one Congress to the next but I thought at least it’s a signed law.

        • retrocal

          The budget, even if reconciled, never goes to the president, so he doesnt have the opportunity to either sign or veto it. Its is a Congressional Budget Resolution, like a congressional resolution naming March 23rd National RedState Day. Its the Congress speaking its mind, no more.

          Prior to the passage of the Budget Act in 1974, the federal government had no budget whatsoever. Since passage of that law, Congress is supposed to pass a budget and use it to guide the appropriations committees in their work (generally by setting upper spending limits). But of course those limits can easily, and legally, be totally ignored.
          So basically its just a pointless political exercise. I have often wondered why any non-congress critter of either party gives one whit about it. Probably because the process is so arcane that nobody understands it….

          • checkmate2012

            Talk about madness! Thanks retrocal as I thought the Budget Control Act had teeth but it doesn’t. So they should either pass a new BCA that has actual penalities for failure to pass a budget or better yet, pass a bill that requires Appropriations bill to mirror a mandated budget.
            .
            The spending restrictions under the BCA of 2011 have also been violated. Nothing is worth the paper it’s printed on!
            .
            No wonder we have such a huge debt; there are no controls whatsoever except the debt-ceiling and it gets raised everytime! Ahhh!

          • retrocal

            Ha, it is quite the conundrum. There are some additional components to the process, but save for one they’re all easily dismissed. If Congress wants to exceed the spending limits set by an approved budget (which we will not see again for many years, if ever) there are some potential “roadblocks”. If the House wants to increase spending above the budget limit on program X all they have to do is have a majority vote to waive the Budget Act (which they would get if a majority wanted to spend the money).
            The Senate differs; they require a 3/5ths majority to waive the spending limits, but then of course there are exceptions to that rule as well. And of course we dont currently and will not have a budget approved by both houses for years so none of that even applies.
            There will be no change to the process either, so no one should get their hopes up in that regard.
            The real battlefield for limiting spending is in the Appropriations Committees and the committees with authorizing jurisdiction over entitlements. The Budget committees make fine venues for making political points and getting members to take risky positions, but as a vehicle for actually doing something (as opposed to posturing) about cutting spending, it ain’t what its cracked up to be.
            This is one reason members of both parties move heaven and earth to get on the Appropriations Committees and to stay off Budget. Plus Appropriation members get far more political contributions than the lowley Budget Committee members………

          • checkmate2012

            I still think insanity is a better description than conundrum (which happens to be one of my favorite words and wine). The conundrum is our country’s financials were better off before 1974 when we didn’t have a Budget Control Act! Go figure.
            .
            Yes, I’m aware of the “exceptions” like emergencies so of course everything is considered an emergency now to overcome the budget limits that they’re supposed to stick. I was alluding to that when the D’s said they didn’t have to pass a budget the last couple of years since the BCA of 2011 was in effect and it capped spending limits in 2012 &’13, but then they exceeded the caps whenever they wanted.
            .
            We need a lawful binding budget and know that you’re right that it won’t happen anytime soon. Happy spending!

    • http://twitter.com/patmcguinness Patrick McGuinness

      The budgets are $5.7 TRILLION dollars apart over 10 years.

      it is great to see the Senate actually produce something and nail down the jello Democrats and their real tax-and-spend-forever plans.

      The real sad thing is the total wimpout on the CR means we have less leverage than ever to force tough decisions now. retrocal is right – unless this goes all the way to forcing appropriators to change their decisions, it has no force of law.

  • OhioHistorian

    All that this budget proves is that the Democrats will insist on a budget above this one (which is about $1T larger than the last budget they passed 4 years ago). I never saw a Congress come in under their budget, and this one won’t be any different.

  • Mike Ferguson

    Glad to see another Arkansan on here. I hope Pryor is toast, but we will have to see.

  • checkmate2012

    The games they play. The 4 D’s that voted no were undoubtedly “given permission” by leadership for 2014 since they could pass it without their votes. Surely the voters can see thru this scam.
    .
    Anyone know why NJ- Lautenberg didn’t vote? I thought he was leaving the Senate so his vote wouldn’t matter anyway.
    .
    I’m really sorry I missed the exhange between Landrieu and Ted Cruz…must have been entertaining! “Landrieu Angrily Confronts Cruz Over Abortion Amendment” from,
    http://www.rollcall.com/news/landrieu_angrily_confronts_cruz_over_abortion_amendment-223396-1.html?pos=hln
    .
    And it says alot of the D’s trickery to come if the budgets are ever reconciled when D’s defeated Sen. Crapo’s amendment on to require reconciliation instructions on the health care savings parts like they did for the tax parts of the bill.
    ” allowfullscreen=”true”>

    • http://twitter.com/patmcguinness Patrick McGuinness

      “No one — no one in this body supports forced abortions. No one,” … said a weasal Democrat Senator who voted to turn a blind eye towards it by voting against the amendment.