Senate to (finally) work on a budget
January 25, 2013 at 10:32 am in News by Dustin Siggins 12 Comments
It’s been over 1,365 days, but the Senate is finally on its way to do its legal duty:
Three weeks ago, incoming Senate Budget Chairman Patty Murray, D-Wash., directed her staff to explore the pros and cons of actually crafting a budget resolution.
Ultimately, Murray judged that a budget was worth doing — a choice other Democratic leaders supported her on. So when House Republicans decided last week to try to force the Senate to pass a spending blueprint for the first time in three years, Democrats were ready to say yes. And on Wednesday, Murray made it official, announcing she would seek to devise a budget and saying the committee is “ready to get to work.”
The timing of Murray’s announcement was also hastened in part by Democratic Conference Vice Chairman Charles E. Schumer of New York, who spilled the beans about Democrats’ plans on TV on Jan. 20. Murray had hesitated, sources say, because the Budget Committee has not officially organized for the new Congress and she is not yet the chairwoman.
Why didn’t a budget get considered before now? According to Roll Call, it’s all about the elections:
Senate Democratic leaders’ highest priority through 2012 was maintaining their majority as they faced what they and others believed was going to be a bruising election cycle. A budget resolution is a nonbinding measure, and leaders did not want their vulnerable members to unnecessarily cast politically risky votes in the budget “vote-a-rama” that typically accompanies the Senate debate. Plus, they argued, the August 2011 debt limit deal served as an effective budget and had the force of law.
Before the debt deal was sealed in 2011, Schumer led the opposition to crafting a budget and quietly lobbied disgruntled rank-and-file members to oppose then-Chairman Kent Conrad’s push to do one.
Apparently, Chairwoman Murray’s political skills played some part in the decision, as did her party loyalty:
In addition to Democrats’ willingness to take the political risks that a budget represents, sources said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., trusts Murray to keep the party’s best political interests in mind. He did not feel the same way about Conrad, a chart-loving budget wonk who seemed uninterested in the political implications of budget policy.
“Kent Conrad sucked at managing bills,” said the senior Democratic aide — unaffiliated with Murray’s office — who noted that the North Dakota Democrat was “bad at political calculations” and “a true budget policy wonk.”
“Murray is not that person,” the aide said.
So let’s get all this rigmarole straight:
- Senate Democrats didn’t pass a budget resolution for almost as long as it takes to graduate college for reasons of electoral vulnerability. The rule of law, which says the Senate must pass a budget resolution by April 15 of each calendar year, was meaningless.
- They changed their collective minds because the political risks are fewer, and the oncoming financial crisis “might” require changes to Democrats beloved – if unaffordable – entitlement programs.
- Former Senator Kent Conrad was pushed to not follow the law because he put the nation’s interests ahead of his party’s interests.
- Senator Murray is willing to put party interests ahead of the nation’s, so she gets the thumbs-up for doing a budget. To quote Ed Morrissey:
So Murray is not a budget wonk who really knows her stuff. She’s also not an independent voice on budget matters, but a reliable political hack who will front for Reid rather than produce an honest budget by working with Republicans. It’s nice to have that openly admitted, but still rather discouraging for those of us who hope for a rational approach to eliminating deficits and putting safety-net programs on a responsible, fully-funded path.
Neither party has shown a willingness to deal with the coming fiscal crisis in a responsible fashion, but at least Republicans in the House and Senate appear willing able to blunt its impact. As this article spells out, Senate Democrats leadership couldn’t care less about the nation.
For the benefit of truthfulness and object fairness, it is inaccurate to say the Senate has not passed a budget in 1365 days. I know that it is a popular refrain, but, despite the popularity, it remains inaccurate.
On August 2, 2011, Congress passed the Budget Control Act of 2011. Sec. 106 of that act amends the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to provide a 2 year Senate Budget covering Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013.
Based upon that reference, the Senate isn’t due a budget covering FY 2014 which is due sometime between spring and summer of 2013.
I wonder If I didn’t file taxes for over 1300 Days if they would all be ok with that?
you’re like a broken record with this budget thing, get over it, I bet if Republicans controlled the Senate and didn’t pass a budget you wouldn’t give a hoot
Hey you dummies. The Constitution gives the purse strings to the House of Representatives and the House of Representatives will then present a “reasonable” budget to the Senate for COMPROMISE!…..
bubba / The house has passed budgets within their own house,however, henchmen harry chooses not to put forward a budget.
henchmen Schumer, when asked why there is no alternative to the House-passed budget, answers, “To put other budgets out there is not the point.”
House henchwoman Minority Leader Pelosi claims that Democrats didn’t pass a budget when they controlled both chambers of Congress because “Republicans would have filibustered it,” but as she should know, budget resolutions can’t be filibustered.
Remember this one: The Senate rejects President Obama’s FY 2012 budget by a vote of 0-97
Go back and Huff your post Bubba to someone who cares about you. We will take your crap here.
It’s about time!
Hey “Bubba”, hopefully you aren’t referring to the “Tea Party” as the dummies. When .40 cents on every dollar we spend is borrowed from my daughter’s future now is not the time for “COMPROMISE” it is the time for FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE! The time is for sacrifice, and responsibility to our Children’s future. Our Congress cannot supply aid to the Sandy Victims without sending money to Guam? That’s not “COMPROMISE”. We cannot “COMPROMISE” with this Senate, or this Administration. We must take a stand.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/187144431.html Read! Wake Up! Help.
Chris – I agree there is much waste in gov’t but $1.5 billion is nothing compared to money spent on entitlements and military spending. We need to slash Social Security, Medicare and military if we are serious about reducing the deficit.
Also, I’ve been to Guam which is a forward operating base for our Navy in the Pacific, and is in serious need of renovation.
What people don’t understand is in 1960 the Government was spending 1/3 of its budget on entitlements. Now it’s 2/3. That’s more than military and everything else combined!!!! What’s wrong with you people the think Government is the answer. When you pass a bill to help Sandy victims,you really think that those victims will get ANY of that money??? Has New Orleans victims recovered yet. As I once heard,the Government couldn’t put a bean on a plate!!!!! STAND up and do it yourself!!!!! Individuals made this country not Government!!!!!
Government salaries were just increased, why? Obamacare costs hasn’t even been brought into the discussion and will only add to need for tax money to be paid. Before any of the big three are reduced, everything else should be. Obama has just signed that he wants forever guards for him and his family. I think he should have less. Stop government traveling. Everything can be done live by video. They could cut one trillion dollars in one day and never touch the big three. I am sick of the threats to the people, it is time government take the cuts to them personally.
The House has sent budget proposals to the Senate Bubba. The problem is Harry Reid. He refuses to allow a vote on any budget proposals. Get rid of him, and that fixes part of the problem.