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.
Omnibus bills are in effect several Continuing Resolutions/Appropriations combined into one appropriation bill.
Right.
Quote:
They are not any of the thirteen appropriation bills,
But they are the contents of the thirteen appropriations bills, and are usually folded in at whatever language/form they had at the point where they stopped moving through the process.
Quote:
or they would have passed them separately.
This is nothing to do with it.
Quote:
You will also note that the overwhelming majority over Omnibus bills that have passed Congress since 1998 have been with a veto-proof majority, leaving the President no choice but to accept whatever Congress chooses to spend.
Yes. We are in agreement about your basic point, which is that the President has little role in the budget process aside from proposing one in February, and signing or vetoing the final bill(/s).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
If Congress does not pass all thirteen appropriation bills, then they have failed to enact a budget. It does not matter what else they have to pass in order to keep government functioning, they still failed to pass a budget.
I think I have found the source of your confusion and our disagreement.
You still seem to think 13 approps bills = the budget.
The failure of Congress to pass a budget resolution is what is meant when it is said that they "failed to pass a budget." It has nothing to do with the 13 spending bills.
Budget resolutions are not the same thing as appropriations bills. I recommend you try reading the Senate page I linked upthread (and the associated CRS reports).
When you fail to pass a budget, people accuse you of failing to pass a budget.
When you fail to pass appropriations bills (or a CR), the government shuts down.
Congress can pass all thirteen approps bills by Sep 30, but it still doesn't mean they passed a budget.
One point you are sort of close on is that when Congress has to resort to a CR and/or omnibus bills, it means that they probably didn't stick closely to what passed in the budget resolution, if one had indeed passed.
Obviously, you know how to use Thomas' appropriations bill tracker page. Go to FY 2013. See the fourth line down, the one labeled "Budget Resolution HConRes112" (which the president did not sign)? THAT is the budget resolution.
This is not how laws become unconstitutional. It's when they contradict the Constitution. Otherwise, there could be no law in the country that wasn't specifically addressed by the Constitution. In case you hadn't noticed, there are thousands and thousands.
Neither the 1921 nor the 1974 budget acts are unconstitutional.
Yes (no one is disagreeing with this). And it's the president's legal obligation to propose one.
Actually, it is. According to the Supreme Court in Myers v. United States, 272 US 52 (1926) they stated that the Supreme Court "has never held, and could not reasonably hold, that the excepting clause enables Congress to draw to itself, or to either branch of it, the power to remove or the right to participate in the exercise of that power. To do this would be to go beyond the words and implications of that clause and to infringe the constitutional principle of the separation of govern mental powers."
Moreover, four sitting Justices of the Supreme Court have joined in the opinion that the President may resist laws that encroach upon his powers by "disregard[ing] them when they are unconstitutional." Freytag v. C.I.R., 111 S. Ct. 2631, 2653 (1991) (Scalia, J., joined by O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter, JJ., concurring in part and concurring in judgment)
But they are the contents of the thirteen appropriations bills, and are usually folded in at whatever language/form they had at the point where they stopped moving through the process.
This is nothing to do with it.
Yes. We are in agreement about your basic point, which is that the President has little role in the budget process aside from proposing one in February, and signing or vetoing the final bill(/s).
I think I have found the source of your confusion and our disagreement.
You still seem to think 13 approps bills = the budget.
The failure of Congress to pass a budget resolution is what is meant when it is said that they "failed to pass a budget." It has nothing to do with the 13 spending bills.
Budget resolutions are not the same thing as appropriations bills. I recommend you try reading the Senate page I linked upthread (and the associated CRS reports).
When you fail to pass a budget, people accuse you of failing to pass a budget.
When you fail to pass appropriations bills (or a CR), the government shuts down.
Congress can pass all thirteen approps bills by Sep 30, but it still doesn't mean they passed a budget.
One point you are sort of close on is that when Congress has to resort to a CR and/or omnibus bills, it means that they probably didn't stick closely to what passed in the budget resolution, if one had indeed passed.
Obviously, you know how to use Thomas' appropriations bill tracker page. Go to FY 2013. See the fourth line down, the one labeled "Budget Resolution HConRes112" (which the president did not sign)? THAT is the budget resolution.
Budget Resolutions are meaningless. It is only what Congress proposes to spend in the future. What Congress actually budgets is within those thirteen appropriation bills, that is reality. That is what is actually spent (excluding the other disaster relief appropriation bills naturally, you cannot account for that kind of occurrence). I could care less about proposed future spending, or how Congress is going to "save trillions over the next ten years" because that is not reality. Budget resolutions are nothing but pure fiction. I want to see precisely what Congress is spending, and on what, and that is only contained within those thirteen appropriation bills.
Think of a Budget Resolution as sort of a summary of what the current Congress would like to see future Congress' budget. As we both know, one session of Congress cannot bind future sessions of Congress, so that makes Budget Resolutions less than meaningless, it makes them completely pointless.
I agree for the most part. The only caveat that I would offer is that the Tea Party mostly embraces smaller government and balanced budgets. The proof in the pudding is yesterday's vote on keeping Boehner as Speaker of the House. It wasn't an exactly a resounding win due to Tea Party concerns over his leadership on fiscal issues.
How many Tea Party members are in Congress? If they're all about smaller government, lower taxes and balanced budgets why didn't they all vote from someone else?
It is not the Republican Party that is the problem. Tip O'Neill was a rational Democrat. He understood that running up massive and excessive deficits were not good for the nation, so his habitual deficit spending was kept at a not so massive or excessive range. The current Democrats under Pelosi and Reid, including the President, do not give a damn about deficit spending, the National Debt, or fiscal solvency. In short, today's Democrats are more interested in destroying the nation than saving it.
It is the Democratic Party that has fully embraced Marxism and gone over the deep-end in an extremely destructive manner, not the GOP.
Yep. This is the GOP base. They can't just lose with honor. The set about to delegitimize the winner. It's always some criminality by the other side that is the reason for their loss. It's never about them. More voters voted for Democratic House members, but the GOP held control due to gerrymandering. But here he is acting as if the other side's views don't count.
Gerrymandering - that is a DNC-patented political tool.
You are correct, the House is responsible for originating all appropriation bills. Boehner should do precisely what you suggest and submit a balanced budget (based upon projected revenues of course). There still may be a deficit, but it would cut at least a trillion dollars off last year's "budget." I quoted budget because no budget actually existed last year.
The three largest single budgetary items are
[LIST][*]Social Security (34%);[*]MediCare/MedicAid (23%); and[*]Defense (20%).[/LIST]The Interest Payment on the National Debt is the fourth largest single budgetary item, but that can only be reduced by the paying off the National Debt. Also keep in mind that the US is still currently in a state of war until Congress repeals Public Law 107-40.
Where would you cut a trillion dollars?
End all welfare programs. Phase them out over a reasonable period - say 3 days!!!!
The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires that the President of the United States submit to Congress, on or before the first Monday in February of each year, a detailed budget request for the coming federal fiscal year, which begins on October 1. Prepared by the president and the president's Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the president's annual budget request performs three key functions in the annual federal budget process...
It is Congress that spends, not Presidents. This is basic grade-school civics, I thought you would have learned that by now. .
Not exactly true.
Congress appropriate, but the money is in the hands of the Executive Dept and they could spend as they please if they wanted to, and who would stop them. Boehner?
The gang of thugs in the White House isn't above this sort of end-run, IMHO. After all, they ignore a provision that says "shall not be infringed" as if it says "may be infringed at will any time, or any excuse or not excuse whatsoever"
The Constituion has not proven to be much of a guard-rail to Democrats.
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.
