Democratic Senate Budget Chairman reverses course, will not offer budget for third year in row in violation of federal law

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 18, 2012 1:59 PM GMT
    It's outright bizarre that the Democrats would not attempt to provide leadership. We know that Obama's budget is liked by almost no one (given past votes in Congress), and the Democrat-controlled Senate doesn't like the one passed by Congress - so why wouldn't they even attempt to pass their own if only as a political document to show how their vision differs from that of the Republicans?

    That partisans call the Republicans the party of "no" is ironic.

    http://freebeacon.com/send-out-the-punter/

    Senate Budget Committee chairman Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) will not draft a Democratic budget before the 2012 election, he announced Tuesday.

    Instead of going through the traditional markup process in the committee, Conrad said he would introduce the 2010 report drafted by the Bowles-Simpson fiscal commission, and then indefinitely delay a vote in order to allow time for “negotiations.”

    In all likelihood, Conrad told reporters on Capitol Hill, lawmakers would not come to an agreement until after the November election.

    Conrad said his intention was to offer “a blueprint to build a bipartisan agreement.” A traditional budget, authored and supported by Democrats, he added, was “probably not going to help.”

    Senate Democrats have yet to offer a formal budget resolution in nearly three years, in violation of federal law.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 18, 2012 2:07 PM GMT
    And how is this different from what the Republicans have done through their unprecedented obstructionism?

    Hypocrisy much? icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 18, 2012 2:10 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidIt's outright bizarre that the Democrats would not attempt to provide leadership. We know that Obama's budget is liked by almost no one (given past votes in Congress), and the Democrat-controlled Senate doesn't like the one passed by Congress - so why wouldn't they even attempt to pass their own if only as a political document to show how their vision differs from that of the Republicans?

    That partisans call the Republicans the party of "no" is ironic.

    Not bizarre at all if you understand their tactics. First of all, they don't care about the law at all. They don't think that would be a political issue. They all knew the Obama budget was a joke for the second year in a row. Last year Senate voted it down 97-0. This year, they hoped to avoid a vote in the House, but the Republicans put the outline of the budget in an measure that forced a vote. Again zero votes, but their lame excuse was it was a Republican gimmick. All this both years had to involve Obama. Shows he and the Democrats in Congress considered his budget to be nothing but a joke.

    Neither Obama nor the Democrats in Congress want to put a serious budget on the table because they want to avoid public criticism that a budget can bring. They have calculated it is safer to sit on the sidelines and lob criticisms, much false, against the Ryan proposal.

    Facts are clear - Democrats don't care about the law, care more about politics than fulfilling the requirements of the law, and allowing no budget don't care as much about the economy as they do about their asses. Not just the real party of NO, but the party of scum. I've never felt so strongly against them before, but they are what they are.