Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Five budget proposals were shot down in the senate but no democrat budget was proposed. In this time of devastating deficits at least the republicans are out there trying to find a solution. Where are the democrats on the most important issue of our time? It is now 3 1/2 years without a democrat budget proposal. BTW Obama's political budget was defeated again 99 - 0. Now that's leadership. We need a new president.
It is not called trying to find a solution when you throw up to the senate budgets that you know will never get passed.
Heck, when you control the House, anyone can pass a budget that only your guys vote for.
It actually takes work, and communication, and compromise, to hammer out a budget that can pass in both houses. Most major bills are discussed and the leaders make sure they will have the votes to pass it before they actually submit the bill for voting.
So, don't blame Democratic Senators for not passing what the House Republicans sent up, blame House Republicans for not sending up something that might have a chance of being passed.
For two years, the Democrats had amajority in both the House and the Senate, but they couldn't pass a budget because Republican Senators filibustered, and the only way to break a filibuster is with 60 votes, and no Republicans were going to pass party lines to join the less than 60 Democrats and break the filibuster.
So, don't blame Democratic Senators for not passing what the House Republicans sent up, blame House Republicans for not sending up something that might have a chance of being passed.
Hummmm So the house is ONLY republicans? I bet a lot of people would be interested to know that.....
It is not called trying to find a solution when you throw up to the senate budgets that you know will never get passed.
Heck, when you control the House, anyone can pass a budget that only your guys vote for.
It actually takes work, and communication, and compromise, to hammer out a budget that can pass in both houses. Most major bills are discussed and the leaders make sure they will have the votes to pass it before they actually submit the bill for voting.
So, don't blame Democratic Senators for not passing what the House Republicans sent up, blame House Republicans for not sending up something that might have a chance of being passed.
For two years, the Democrats had amajority in both the House and the Senate, but they couldn't pass a budget because Republican Senators filibustered, and the only way to break a filibuster is with 60 votes, and no Republicans were going to pass party lines to join the less than 60 Democrats and break the filibuster.
You mean like the POS Obummercare that most likely will be ruled unconstitutional in some form?
Hummmm So the house is ONLY republicans? I bet a lot of people would be interested to know that.....
The budgets they sent up had few to no Democratic votes. That is the problem. If they had worked on a budget that a decent number of Representatives from both parties could support, it would have likely passed the Senate as well.
You mean like the POS Obummercare that most likely will be ruled unconstitutional in some form?
Try again.
We are talking about budgets, not the Affordable Care Act. Republicans in the Senate could have filibustered the Affordable Care Act if they had wanted to, but Obama made enough concessions and compromises to satisfy enough Republicans to not filibuster it, even they they chose to vote as a block against it knowing it would pass anyway.
The budgets they sent up had few to no Democratic votes. That is the problem. If they had worked on a budget that a decent number of Representatives from both parties could support, it would have likely passed the Senate as well.
They were partisan budgets.
Three of the budgets were from republican 'senators',they weren't sent up from the house.A fourth budget was from president Obama,and he is a democrat the last time I checked.The democrats in the 'senate' haven't even proposed a budget for years,nothing can ever get passed if senate democrats never even propose anything.Senator Reid wants to complain about all republican proposals without offering anything from the democrats at all.
It is not called trying to find a solution when you throw up to the senate budgets that you know will never get passed.
Heck, when you control the House, anyone can pass a budget that only your guys vote for.
It actually takes work, and communication, and compromise, to hammer out a budget that can pass in both houses. Most major bills are discussed and the leaders make sure they will have the votes to pass it before they actually submit the bill for voting.
So, don't blame Democratic Senators for not passing what the House Republicans sent up, blame House Republicans for not sending up something that might have a chance of being passed.
For two years, the Democrats had amajority in both the House and the Senate, but they couldn't pass a budget because Republican Senators filibustered, and the only way to break a filibuster is with 60 votes, and no Republicans were going to pass party lines to join the less than 60 Democrats and break the filibuster.
Republicans have relentlessly harangued the Senate's Democratic leadership for failing to pass a budget resolution. "1,000 days without a budget," was the title of a typical missive last month. On the weekend Jack Lew, who has just been named Barack Obama's chief of staff after serving as his budget director, defended the Senate by saying it couldn't pass a budget without 60 votes, i.e. without the cooperation of some Republicans. Republicans jumped on Mr Lew, pointing out that under Congress' budget procedure, a budget resolution cannot be filibustered and thus only needs a simple majority vote - typically 51 votes - to pass. Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post's fact checker, awarded Mr Lew four Pinocchios, the top score, for fibbing.
In fact, Mr Lew, while wrong on the narrow wording, is right on the substance. It is true that the Senate can pass a budget resolution with a simple majority vote. But for that budget resolution to take effect, it must have either the cooperation of the house, or at least 60 votes in the Senate. Only someone intimately familiar with Parliamentary procedure can explain this. Jim Horney of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is such a person. The following are his edited remarks from our email conversation:
It’s true that you cannot filibuster a budget resolution in the Senate, because the Budget Act provides special rules for consideration of a budget resolution, including a time limit on debate. So the Senate can pass a resolution with only a majority vote. However, the resolution does not take effect when the Senate passes it. It takes effect in one of two ways: if the House and Senate pass an identical resolution, usually in the form of a conference report; or if the Senate passes a separate Senate Resolution (as opposed to a concurrent resolution, which is what a budget resolution is) that says the House is “deemed” to have agreed to the budget resolution passed by the Senate.
But there are no special procedures for the simple Senate Resolution required by this second, “deeming” process, so it is subject to the unlimited debate allowed on almost everything in the Senate. If you do not have the support of 60 Senators to invoke cloture and end a filibuster, or prevent a filibuster from even starting (because everyone knows 60 Senators support cloture), you cannot pass such a deeming resolution in the Senate.
Because its rules are different, the House with a simple majority can pass a resolution deeming that the House and Senate have agreed to the House resolution so that it can take effect. This means the allocations in the resolution, such as for appropriations, are in effect in the House and anybody can raise a point-of-order against legislation that would cause a committee to exceed its allocation.
But this is for purposes of enforcement in the House only. What the House does has no effect whatsoever on the Senate or its budget enforcement. And vice versa, if the Senate deems that its budget resolution has been agreed to.
Does the lack of a budget resolution matter? Jim notes that budget resolutions are supposed to set limits on discretionary spending in appropriations bills and facilitate changes in taxes and entitlements via reconciliation instructions or via allocations to authorizing committees. But nowadays, discretionary spending caps have already been set by the Budget Control Act (which ended the debt ceiling standoff) and there is little or no prospect of cross-party agreement on tax or entitlement policies. Moreover:
With the exception of reconciliation legislation, it effectively takes 60 votes to consider any legislation in the Senate so it really does not matter whether the resolution has been adopted; if you have 60, you can consider the legislation, if you don't, you can't.
The bottom line is the budget process set out in the Budget Act works pretty well when the Congress can agree on budget policies. When they cannot, no process in the world can make things work smoothly, but Congress muddles through and does what absolutely has to be done (like keeping the government from shutting down or defaulting on the debt). Not having a budget resolution in place is a symptom of the inability to reach agreement – not the cause of Congress not being able to accomplish things.
So yes, the Senate could pass a budget resolution, but without the cooperation of the house or 60 votes, that resolution would not take effect; it would be an empty gesture. The fact that the House managed to pass a budget last year, including a major overhaul of Medicare, reflects its different rules that allow it to deem the budget resolution to have taken effect. But it didn't ultimately matter: the provisions in its budget, including the Medicare changes, were not binding on the Senate.
Aren't you glad you asked?
It is not called trying to find a solution when you throw up to the senate budgets that you know will never get passed.
Heck, when you control the House, anyone can pass a budget that only your guys vote for.
It actually takes work, and communication, and compromise, to hammer out a budget that can pass in both houses. Most major bills are discussed and the leaders make sure they will have the votes to pass it before they actually submit the bill for voting.
So, don't blame Democratic Senators for not passing what the House Republicans sent up, blame House Republicans for not sending up something that might have a chance of being passed.
For two years, the Democrats had amajority in both the House and the Senate, but they couldn't pass a budget because Republican Senators filibustered, and the only way to break a filibuster is with 60 votes, and no Republicans were going to pass party lines to join the less than 60 Democrats and break the filibuster.
Budgets sent from the house never pass in the senate. The senate works on the house bill and makes adjustments. Then it goes to a conference committee where the house and senate members work out the details so it will pass both houses. The problem is that the democrats in the senate will not make any cuts in spending, even thought their constituents want cuts. They are afraid to even propose a budget with no cuts because they will get thrown out on their butts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We are talking about budgets, not the Affordable Care Act. Republicans in the Senate could have filibustered the Affordable Care Act if they had wanted to, but Obama made enough concessions and compromises to satisfy enough Republicans to not filibuster it, even they they chose to vote as a block against it knowing it would pass anyway.
