Democrats Punt … Again

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we are now going on two years since the Senate passed a budget. And Harry Reid is just fine with that:

Passing a yearly budget for the federal government is a fundamental responsibility of Congress. Lawmakers do not have to spend their time naming post offices or passing health care reform. But they do have to pass a budget. In 2010, neither the House nor the Senate did so. It’s not that members just didn’t get around to it, which would have been scandalous enough. No, Reid and then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi feared that passing a budget would hurt their chances in the November midterm elections. So they did nothing and took a beating at the polls anyway.

Now Pelosi is out of the picture. But Reid is still at it. The Republican-controlled House has passed a budget, but Reid will not produce a Democratic spending proposal. And if Reid doesn’t want to pass a budget, then a budget won’t be passed; the majority leader controls what is and what is not considered in the Senate.

“There’s no need to have a Democratic budget, in my opinion,” Reid told the Los Angeles Times last week. “It would be foolish for us to do a budget at this stage.” Instead, Reid wants to wait to see if the deficit-reduction meetings led by Vice President Biden bear any fruit. Before that, Reid wanted to wait for the Gang of Six — now nearly defunct — to come up with something.

This is simply appalling. I’m guessing what happened here was that the Democrats produced a budget that reduced the deficit mostly through tax hikes and then chickened out on actually presenting it. Right now, they’re milking anti-Republican sentiment, culminating in last night’s win in NY-26. They’re running with their Mediscare tactics. And … that’s it. That’s all they are prepared to do.

There are plenty of people criticizing the Republican plans to privatize Medicare and cut spending without any tax hikes. But here’s the thing: at least the Republicans proposed a budget. At least they’re trying to get out deficit under control. Whatever you may think of their plan — and I have issues with it — at least it’s a plan. That’s a a massive improvement over the big democratic pile of fucking nothing.

Here’s a question for the floor: why do we even have a Congress anymore? They won’t vote a war up or down; they’ve punted much of their law-making ability to the bureaucracies; they won’t pass a budget; they want to repass the Patriot Act with zero changes. As far as I can tell, their primary duties are appearing on TV and collecting campaign contributions.

What are we paying them for? Why do we even have these clowns around? They have made themselves irrelevant and immaterial.

Comments are closed.

  1. richtaylor365

    I’m guessing what happened here was that the Democrats produced a budget that reduced the deficit mostly through tax hikes and then chickened out on actually presenting it.

    That, and with it a budget that actually increased spending, like Obama’s last proposed budget, which in the face of their new austerity push prompted by Simpson/Bowles would of really made them out as incompetents.

    There are plenty of people criticizing the Republican plans to privatize Medicare

    Including some that should know better.

    their primary duties are appearing on TV and collecting campaign contributions.

    And giving their fat contributing constituents waivers on Obamacare.

    To tell you the truth, I would much prefer a do nothing Congress more than one that colludes to promote the Obama agenda. And if 2012 congressional elections go as I hope, we will have more of the same. There is still a lot Obama could do to damage the country, unsound energy policies, cap and trade, more QE2 manipulation, more stimulus, higher taxes, and more onerous government intrusion into our lives and that of our businesses. No, I like a do nothing Congress, not only because they are abdicating their power to annoy us, but it puts more of a spotlight on Obama, that is always a good thing.

    Thumb up 0

  2. Rann

    I guess they all saw how well a “Present” voting record can do for ya.

    But yeah, this is definitely setting the tone heading into the next election. We’ve already seen that the Democrats are going negative… really negative… right from the start. They’re not even going to try riding on their successes, mostly because anything they’ve accomplished has now turned to poison on them. So it’s going to be blaming everything on the Republicans, and while I don’t think they’ll go to it as a mainstay, I’d expect at least a good double-handful of ads “reminding” everyone about how things are Bush’s fault.

    Which is pretty bad when you’re the incumbent party and you’re having to rely on bitching out the other guy. It would be naturally expected that the challenging party would be mostly tearing into the top dog’s crap and trying their best to point out every mistake. But when you’re actually in charge and all you can do is point at someone else and say “It’s HIS fault!”?

    Thumb up 1

  3. AlexInCT

    If you don’t pass a budget then nobody can easily show how fiscally insane what you have been doing is and then point out that your attitude of more of the same is proof you need to be locked in a padded room. Even better, it allows so many of those moderates that don’t really do anything but listen to sound bites from being shown how dispicably insane the spending in DC has become, to find out how damaging what you are doing is, and you are not going to take the massive hit proof positive of your near criminal activity would have resulted in at the polls.

    Seriously, these elitest scum now holding us all hostage need to be dragged through tar, feathered, and run out of town, if not thrown in jail for their damaging and crimina lbehavior.

    Thumb up 0

  4. CM

    I’ve never known an election when the current government/administration didn’t blame the last for a whole lot of shit.

    Thumb up 0

  5. CM

    I switched on Fox News briefly last night and Biden was saying they’d found $1 trillion in savings so far. Apparently the Republicans were holding firm on on $2 trillion in savings, so negoatiations are continuing. That doesn’t sound consistent with the theory that the Democrats aren’t prepared to look for savings.

    (BTW, why does the loading of the Amazon advert on this page lock up my whole PC for 30 secs to 1 min all the time? Not even just when each page loads – it did it halfway through writing this. Any ideas?)

    Thumb up 0

  6. Rann

    I’m just curious when the current administration is going to do something else, such as touting its own accomplishments. 2016? Because as of yet all they’ve got that isn’t almost 100% guaranteed to bite them in the ass is killing bin Laden, and that could blow up on them like a mine covered with eggshells.

    Seriously, are we going to see anything from Democrats this election year other than “Vote for us because Republicans want to hurt you”? After four years in office generally most would have at least a little something to hang their hat on and stand on their own. “President Obama did ______ for you and it worked out great” rather than “President Obama would have done ________ for you except the Republicans wouldn’t let him” or “President Obama tried to do ______ and it’s going to start working any day now, probably”. And “Blahbittyblahbitty jobs created or saved” isn’t exactly going to go over well with the still fairly large part of the electorate still sitting at home on their ass wondering “Why wasn’t mine one of those?”

    So yes, they’re going to blame the other guy. That’s part of our politics. What else are they going to do, though, that a first year political science student wouldn’t tell them is a terrible idea?

    Thumb up 0

  7. Rann

    Oh, as well, one of the reasons I pointed it out in the first place is that in the last few elections, it has generally been the Democrats who were the first to chide anyone against them for “going negative”. This didn’t stop the same Democrats from doing anything from going negative about a Republican’s private life up to and including just making shit up about them… often at the same time they were complaining about their opponent’s “mudslinging”. (Particularly amusing here in Texas, as the vast majority of Rick Perry’s ads stuck solely to his record and his opponent’s, it was the other guy who not only got negative but got personal, and the Dem still whined this the entire time.)

    It’s not an issue that the Democrats get negative… it’s an issue how offensive and dishonest they often are in the process, but the mere act of snapping at the other guy during an election isn’t in itself the bone of contention. It’s that Democrats are generally both the first to complain about “attack ads” as well as the first to start airing them. I’m sure Republicans do the same damn thing, the Democrats usually just start first and get louder about it.

    Thumb up 0

  8. CM

    What else are they going to do, though, that a first year political science student wouldn’t tell them is a terrible idea?

    The right-wing ‘American Thinker’ sees a whole lot of things that the Democrats could go ‘positive’ on:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/the_article_liberals_are_too_s.html

    Personally, I think a lot will depend on who the Republican nomination is. But the Dems don’t have to start campaigning at all now. Why would they? They’d be wasting their time and money. They should be letting the Republican candidates dig the dirt on each other and hurt each other before going negative OR positive. Save it all for the real race next year.

    Thumb up 0

  9. Hal_10000 *

    Obama called out the Dems on their lack of a medicare plan. Meanwhile four different budgets were voted down in the Senate. Obama’s went down 97-0.

    Thumb up 0

  10. HARLEY

    Here’s a question for the floor: why do we even have a Congress anymore? They won’t vote a war up or down; they’ve punted much of their law-making ability to the bureaucracies; they won’t pass a budget; they want to repass the Patriot Act with zero changes. As far as I can tell, their primary duties are appearing on TV and collecting campaign contributions.

    What are we paying them for? Why do we even have these clowns around? They have made themselves irrelevant and immaterial.

    HAL, Have you ever read up on the decent of the Roman Republic to the Empire that It became?
    There are some disturbing similarities, between our congress and their senate, abdicating power to the executive.

    Thumb up 0

  11. HARLEY

    Personally, I think a lot will depend on who the Republican nomination is. But the Dems don’t have to start campaigning at all now. Why would they? They’d be wasting their time and money. They should be letting the Republican candidates dig the dirt on each other and hurt each other before going negative OR positive. Save it all for the real race next year.

    A very astute observation, and i do concur.not that i approve, but this is something that i would expect from them.

    Thumb up 0