Tomorrow will mark a sad milestone in the history of the United States Senate: the 1,000th day since Senate Democrats last offered a budget plan to the American people. Senate Democrats abandoned their official duty to prioritize Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars and tackle our nation’s most pressing economic challenges — dealing a painful blow to fiscal progress that may be felt for some time.
This contrasts sharply with the record of the House Republicans. Last spring, the new House Majority publicly produced a budget plan before the nation, brought it forward in committee, and passed it on the floor. The budget’s principled solutions honestly confront our nation’s most difficult challenges, putting the budget on a path to balance and the country on a path to prosperity.
The president and his party’s leaders have yet to detail a credible budget plan to prevent the fiscal crisis that awaits us should we continue down the current path to debt, doubt, and decline. Such a crisis would threaten the economic security, health security, and retirement security of every American. If the president wishes to begin a genuine dialogue with the American people in tomorrow’s State of the Union address, then he must hold his own party accountable for its dogged refusal to produce a plan to prevent this crisis and lift this cloud of uncertainty from the economy. The president must also deliver what he has so far refused: serious reforms to change our debt course and prevent fiscal disaster.
We remain disappointed in the Senate Democrats’ decision to give up on an essential responsibility of governing, and we sincerely hope 2012 will not mark the third consecutive year that Senate Democrats skip the budget process altogether. Nor will it be credible or acceptable for them to present a phony budget plan that pretends to make changes but in reality merely keeps spending on its current trajectory. Real reforms, real spending control, and a real change in the status quo are the minimum obligations of elected leaders in these times of uncertainty and distress. Where the president and his party have failed to confront the greatest challenges of our time, Republicans in the House and Senate will continue to work for solutions to ensure that government can keep its promises, take less from hardworking families and businesses, and create the conditions for economic growth and prosperity.
— U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama serves as the ranking Republican of the Senate Budget Committee. U.S. Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin serves as chairman of the House Budget Committee.
Actually, the House hasn't passed a real budget either.
The Ryan plan, which actually increases the debt to finance lowered tax rates among other things, doesn't count as a serious budget. It is a political statement masquerading as a budget. Such an extreme one-sided plan never had a chance.
I am sure that Senate Democrats would pass a similar political statement if they had the votes. But as it is, they would have to pass a real budget. This is impossible in the current environment, considering that for Senate Republicans their pledge to Grover Norquist comes before their pledge to uphold the Constitution.
The House should go back to the drawing board and pass a real budget. But, instead, demagogues like Ryan would prefer to be able to come back next year and say it has been over 1300 days since the Senate passed a budget.
Paul Ryan's "budget" was so extreme, he could not even get a single Blue Dog Democrat in the House to vote for it. Given how conservative the Blue Dogs are, that is rather pathetic.
Paul Ryan wants to claim moral superiority over the Senate based on a fake budget that is pure partisanship and which always amounted to a political statement rather than a serious proposal made in good faith.
The American people are getting a little tired of Republican politicians sabotaging the country for political advantage. If House Republicans were serious about the budget, they would go back to the drawing board and propose something that can get significant bipartisan support. But they aren't serious, nor have any of their actions been consistent with good faith negotiating.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I am sure that Senate Democrats would pass a similar political statement if they had the votes. "
David Welker fails again.
Budget and monetary matters require not a filibuster proof margin, only a simple majority. Something the Democrats have had the entire time.
Senate Democrats refuse to propose and vote on a budge because (a) none of them have the stones to propose any substantial spending cuts or freezes outside the Department of Defense and (b) swing state Democrats don't want to be on record as voting for massive spending increases.
I'd say "better luck next time" but David never changes his tactics anyway.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThank you for the DNC talking points David.
You admit that the House has done what the Senate is required to do but has failed to do so. You then attempt to deny this truth by not declaring it a 'real' budget. Declaring it so doesn't make it so.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's his way.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Senate isn't required to do anything.
It is perfectly possible to finance the government via continuing resolutions. That is what is happening now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah David, they are, by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, as codified in Title 31 of the United States Code.
See, there's this new thing called the internet, where you can look things like that up.
Which is why the lies you spread for the Democrats don't work well anymore.
I hope they pay you well, as if you're this pathetic by choice, well, it speaks poorly on your character to say the least.
Capta was "willy nilly", how apt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo Congress can bind a future Congress.
Any law past by a previous Congress saying that the Senate must pass a budget is nothing more than an advisory opinion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDave W: "No Congress can bind a future Congress"
Really?
And you base this on what? You never seem to have any facts in these posts.
Any Congress CAN indeed change any law passed by a previous Congress. But until they DO change the law, they are bound by it. In this case, to pass a budget.
Do you actually like to get owned here by folks who quote chapter and verse, when your only response is to say "Nah, nah, no it isn't"?
Because you do it an awful lot, until you flee a thread, and start all over again on another one.
Do you get paid for this service, or is your life really this pathetic?
Enquiring minds want to know!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn David's world, nothing counts unless it's approved by Obama first.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree, the House Budget wasn't serious, They can't even spell serious..no one has heard about the Ryan plan since..if you align with extreme legislation that put a puppet out front to push the agenda, yo wont be around long. Thus Ryans new "lonely boy status.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
Funny, since there's no budget how they're doing this.
Of course given the Administration's ignoring of this:
"Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting."
We shouldn't be surprised.
Still, nice to know you've abandoned your lie that the House hasn't passed a budget.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGee, wasn't it the Donkeys that wrote the current budget laws back when Nixon was president. Imagine the Media Screams if the Republicans had not passed a budget.
It really goes to competence where the party in majority cannot do the deliberations and make the choices on how the Government spends our money. I may not like how the D's want to spend my money but the big offense is to just ignore this responsibility.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is diffcult for any business larger than a one man shop to successfully run without a budget. How can the Federal Government?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes the D's are deplorable. But I'm not crazy about what the R's have accomplished either. Sometimes they say the right things, but if all spending has to originate in the House, which they control, then why are we spending $4 trillion per year? Talk is cheap - I want to see some results.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow unbelievably ironic - and fitting - that the 1,000 day mark should come on the occasion of Obama's SOTU address.
Someone should make "1,000 DAYS" t-shirts and get the Republicans - including Boehner sitting behind the president - to wear them to the speech. Now THAT would be a choice, not an echo.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf you're looking at Republicans vs. Democrats on Uncle Sam's finances, think of: Bush tax cuts, Medicare part D, credit downgrade. I think that McCain aid's advice still holds (as edited): "If we talk about the budget, we're going to lose."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse