So really, PapaG must be upset with the Republicans, since they prevented Reid from passing a budget. He should write his congressman.
Here I thought it was going to be about Sean Hannity saying he'd be water boarded for charity fundraiser.
Obama's budgets have been voted on in the senate and voted down 100-0 each time. When you have every democrat voting against the budget, it's hard to make the claim with a straight face that it's republicans obstructing things.
I'm sure this is as simple as you say it is. 100-0, and there sre 100 senators. What an incompetent. Harry Reid votes against his own propossals. What a dumbo.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/227857-senate-rejects-obama-budget-in-99-0-vote/ Senate rejects Obama budget in 99-0 vote (2012) http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/163347-senate-votes-unanimously-against-obama-budget President's budget sinks, 97-0 (2011) (Obama's budgets got no votes in the House as well) http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...-clobbers-obama-budget-proposal-in-0-414-vote 0-414 vote: House clobbers budget proposal based on Obama's 2013 plan
Before Newt Gingrich, there was this weird thing called compromise. There were preliminary votes on negotiating positions. You hopped among islands before finding the mainland. Now that the Republicans have sunk Atlantis, a temporary island position is easily ridiculed by extremist conservatives who hate the processes of negotiation and compromise.
Republicans can't block it. Budget matters are passed in reconciliation in the Senate, and filibusters can't be used on reconciliations. Ed O.
I dont think this is right. EDIT http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q125.html Q125. "On the Checks and Balances Page, it says that a legislative check on the legislature is that only the House can originate revenue bills. I've been told that only the House can originate spending bills, too — is this true?" A. In my opinion, the Constitution is unambiguous on the point: "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives" (Article 1, Section 7). Thus, I've listed the House's "original jurisdiction" over revenue bills (laws that affect taxes) as a check. The House, however, views this clause a little differently, taking it to mean not only taxation bills but also spending bills. The plain language of the clause would seem to contradict the House's opinion, but the House relies on historical precedent and contemporaneous writings to support its position. In Federalist 66, for example, Alexander Hamilton writes, "The exclusive privilege of originating money bills will belong to the House of Representatives." This phrase could easily be construed to include taxing and spending. The Supreme Court has ruled, however, that the Senate can initiate bills that create revenue, if the revenue is incidental and not directly a tax. Most recently, in US v Munoz-Flores (495 US 385 [1990]), the Court said, "Because the bill at issue here was not one for raising revenue, it could not have been passed in violation of the Origination Clause." The case cites Twin City v Nebeker (176 US 196 [1897]), where the court said that "revenue bills are those that levy taxes, in the strict sense of the word." However, the House, it is explained, will return a spending bill originated in the Senate with a note reminding the Senate of the House's prerogative on these matters. The color of the paper allows this to be called "blue-slipping." Because the House sees this as a matter of some pride, the Senate is almost guaranteed not to have concurrence on any spending bill which originates in the Senate. This has created a de facto standard, despite my own contention (and that of the Senate) that it is not supported by the Constitution.
Whichever of you is right, you've convinced me. The cause was not Republicans making the process of democracy impossible. Harry Reid simply forgot.
