The Democratic controlled Congress has overlooked a small, but rather significant detail in their desire to remake America.
Gee.... they forgot to present a budget this year.
Just a simple oversight, right? No doubt when they discover their lapse in memory, they'll get right on it and work extra hard to make up for lost time.
Um...nope!
LOL... The Democrats won't present a budget because they have to wait for the president's deficit commission to come up with a plan to reduce their monumentally out of control deficits? You buying this? ("Please stop me! I can't help spending a trillion dollars on another stim bill!")
The idea that the Democrats will take anything, any deficit commission recommends to heart is balmy. They will cut defense, no doubt, and find a way to raise taxes (on the "rich" of course). But as far as deep cuts in entitlements.... faggetaboutit. Not going to happen. You would think that a party that needs to go to the American people in November and ask them to keep them in power would take a little initiative and come up with a budget that enacts some real cost savings.
Dream on.
They would rather take the unprecedented step of failing to present a budget resolution than face their own
music:
Skipping a budget resolution this year, a move House Democrats are considering, would be unprecedented. The House has never failed to pass an annual budget resolution since the current budget rules were put into place in 1974, according to a Congressional Research Service report. The budget resolution is a non-binding document whose main purposes are to set discretionary spending caps for the coming fiscal year, lay out the framework of the majority's fiscal policy and create the option of easing legislation through the Senate via fast-track reconciliation procedures.
No doubt Nancy Pelosi has always wanted to go down in history for something. Somehow, I don't think the Democrat's failure to come up with a budget was what she had in mind.
......Warph
For Christs sake we are fighting wars all over the place.......BUSH started to whole STIMULUS thing rollin.....just as many REPUBLICANS as democrats are spendin money like drunken sailors............actually some greedy little f-ers in the back room of a BANK started this whole house of cards thing and GOD only knows what "party" THEY belong to.
Nancy Pelosi makes my skin crawl and so does Reid...but this tarrin the whole bunch with the brush of a few is gettin REAL OLD.
Why dont you all quit beatin this dead horse and come up with somethin constructive BESIDES "vote republican in 2010"????? Like THATS gonna work.................................
Sorry, Pam... Obama's spending has put the repubs spending way, way, back in second place. And you haven't seen the last of his spending if he gets another chance.... cap and trade, immigration reform, more money for Obamacare, another possible stimulus next year, to name a few.
As far as "somethin constructive BESIDES vote republican in 2010".... keep this in mind: Democrats: Big Government, Big Spending, more Taxes as oppossed to Repub's: Less Government, Less Spending, Less Taxes. Now who would you vote for? :laugh:
QuoteAs far as "somethin constructive BESIDES vote republican in 2010".... keep this in mind: Democrats: Big Government, Big Spending, more Taxes as oppossed to Repub's: Less Government, Less Spending, Less Taxes. Now who would you vote for?
Bull.........POLITICIANS:big government, big spending......there IS no less. I'll do like I did last time vote for whomever is runnin on my ballot from ANY OTHER party that I think could do the job......green...independant......constitution. I will NEVER vote republican.....unLESS a miracle happens and an honest one shows up.
I am one of THOSE people....I refuse to vote for somebody I DON"T like just because they are the "lesser or two evils". If you get my vote it's because in MY opinion you are the best person for the job.
Well, anyway..... a failure to budget is a failure to govern. The democrats seem intent on proving their unworthiness to lead Congress in even its most basic tasks. At the same time, their leadership.... if you want to call them that, Obama, Pelosi, Reid... they want voters to trust them to make the most personal of decisions in their health care, as well as believe that they can cool the planet and lower the sea level with punitive taxes on energy production and boondoggles in alternative energy.
Soooooo.... so far, no budget for 2011. Could it be because of Obama's most renowned "best and brightest," Peter "Propeller Head" Orzag, the White House budget director, decided to leave the "chicken coop" (because he collided with the political team, led by Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of graft, over the Obamanator's 2008 election pledge not to raise taxes on any households earning less than $250,000 a year.... a category that covers more than 98 per cent of Americans) and now they haven't any idea how to put a budget together. Maybe we'll finally get one by 2012... or maybe Obama doesn't want one so he wouldn't have to be restricted on spending more taxpayer moola on his silly programs. I guess it is a "wait and see" situation with Obama... as usual.
...Warph
WARPH<why do you think there is no 2011 fiscal budget? I had no trouble finding it. If that wasn't it,what was I looking at?
Quote from: Diane Amberg on June 28, 2010, 08:28:14 AM
WARPH<why do you think there is no 2011 fiscal budget? I had no trouble finding it. If that wasn't it,what was I looking at?
Diane, you were looking at a budget that has not been passed and put into law. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's (D-MD) has said there will be no budget this year. Until the budget is approved by Congress, it is nothing but a pile of numbers on paper and in this case, will probably go to in the Oval Office bathroom for Obama to get some use out of it.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/104635-dems-wont-pass-budget
In light of House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's (D-MD) announcement that House Democrats will not pass a budget this year.... failing to fulfill what he has called "the most basic responsibility" of governing.... the following important fiscal health warning has been issued:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Cancelled: There Will Be No Congressional Budget This Year
Washington D.C. June 22, 2010
***The Following Is An Important Fiscal Health Announcement*** :: THE BUDGET HAS BEEN CANCELLED ::WE REGRET TO INFORM YOU THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET PLANNED FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 HAS BEEN CANCELLED DUE TO WASHINGTON DEMOCRATS' OUT-OF-CONTROL SPENDING SPREE.
AN APOLOGY FOR THIS BETRAYAL OF AMERICAN TAXPAYERS DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE FORTHCOMING AT THIS TIME.
BE ADVISED THAT THE FOLLOWING SERVICES WILL BE INTERRUPTED: *Imposing the fiscal discipline economists say is needed to create jobs and boost our economy
*Reining in the out-of-control spending spree that is killing American jobs
*Carrying out the "most basic responsibility of governing"
*Stopping middle-class tax hikes that will sock family budgets at the worst possible time
*Providing the leadership on jobs and the economy that Americans say is sorely lacking
*Protecting our kids and grandkids from the enormous debt burden Washington has placed on themWe reserve the right to notify you of additional consequences that may arise in light of this budget failure, which is unprecedented in the modern era. In the interim, please brace for more spending, more debt, more tax hikes, more broken promises.
For families and small businesses looking for a government that listens to the people it serves and respects their hard-earned money, House Republicans are offering better solutions to cut spending now and help small businesses put people back to work.
http://gopleader.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=191653
.....Warph
How many times during the 80's was the federal government put on hold because a budget had not been passed by Oct. 1? I can remember being sent home from work and told to not come in because the budget hadn't been passed and there wasn't any money to pay us. This happened several times during the 80's and who was our president at that time? Now, 3 months before the end of the fiscal year and someone is already ranting about not having a budget for 2011? NONSENSE and a few four lettered words that I can't spell.
Wilma....shhhhhhhh LOL nobody is supposed to remember that! Good one :D
That was my point too. What I saw is the one that will be probably be passed after everyone gets done dancing around and shaking their tail fathers for while. I thought WARPH meant one hadn't been written. It's not like this hasn't happened many, many times before. Why is anybody surprised? It's nothing new.
Quote from: Wilma on June 28, 2010, 03:32:52 PM
How many times during the 80's was the federal government put on hold because a budget had not been passed by Oct. 1? I can remember being sent home from work and told to not come in because the budget hadn't been passed and there wasn't any money to pay us. This happened several times during the 80's and who was our president at that time? Now, 3 months before the end of the fiscal year and someone is already ranting about not having a budget for 2011? NONSENSE and a few four lettered words that I can't spell.
Wilma..... there has always been a budget since 1974 passed by congress. There were budgets in the '80's. You were probably sent home because Ronald Reagan didn't like you. If that wasn't the case... then the federal job you held, that department had exceeded their budget. And if that wasn't the case, also, blame it on the democratic congress for holding up your hard earned money. Simple as that. Now that your president Obama is saying he isn't submitting a budget to congress nor a budget resolution is because he doesn't want to be held down by one and not be able to spend tax payers money on the asinine things he has in mind. By not having a budget to control spending, means he can keep spending America into bankruptcy, which he is doing a great job at! Wouldn't you agree? So, you can say hello to much higher taxes on the middle class, which will effect you, your neighbors, small businesses and any thing else that gets in his way. Going to the supermarket and seeing higher prices for less volume of food is bad right now, wait until 2011. btw.... you might want to use your spell checker on those words you can't spell.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on June 28, 2010, 09:13:18 PM
That was my point too. What I saw is the one that will be probably be passed after everyone gets done dancing around and shaking their tail fathers for while. I thought WARPH meant one hadn't been written. It's not like this hasn't happened many, many times before. Why is anybody surprised? It's nothing new.
The budget director, Peter Orzag, did write the budget but was told it wouldn't be submitted to congress so with that and the broken promise of not taxing the middle class, he quit. I Don't blame him. So, Sorry.... It is NEW. No budget or budget resolution to congress for appoval..... Its never happened before, Diane.
Sure there were budgets but until they were signed into law, they didn't exist. I was a federal employee during the 80's and my branch wasn't the only one that was sent home. If the budget wasn't signed at the beginning of the new fiscal year, there was no budget and no money to pay employees. Other branches of federal government were given a furlough, also. Maybe this situation is different now, but we still have three months of this fiscal year. Anything can change. Maybe Obama will be presented with a budget that he can send to Congress. Just because someone got his Hanes twisted because his version of the budget wasn't acceptable and quit doesn't mean that there won't be one. I can't see getting upset over something that might not happen. There will be a budget. Without one, the president and none of the Congress will get paid either. How long do you think our greedy Congressmen will let that go on? Does the budget really have to be submitted by the president? Tell me how this really works. Who prepares the budget? Where does it go from there? What does the president have to do with it until he is asked to sign it? Seems to me that this is something that should be done by our representatives that are elected to serve us.
Under the Constitution, Congress has absolute power of the purse.
Under the provisions of a law called the Antideficiency Act, no agency will spend any money unless Congress has provided the authority to spend that money.
The Executive branch prepares the annual federal budget and the President submits it to Congress for approval. He recommends the amount of the federal budget be the amount as set by his budget. This budget is required to be submitted to Congress in February of each year. Congress thus has about eight months to pass the new budget.
The federal budget process is complicated and involves 13 major appropriations in the President's budget. Congress separately approves each of the 13 appropriations rather than approving the budget as a whole. Until a budget is passed by Congress for any of these 13 appropriations, there is no new fiscal year funding available for that appropriation. To confuse the situation, Congress can approve some of the 13, leaving the balance not approved.
Congress looks at each program in each appropriation budget and agrees, or changes the scope and dollar figure of the program to suit its own concept of what the spending should be in that area. Through a political wheeling and dealing process, Congress members also tack on many earmark extras, such as the bridge to nowhere, more aircraft production for jobs purposes, more money for Senator Byrd's state, etc., etc., etc. In rare instances, Congress will slash entire programs from the budget.
The first time I was involved in one of these budget crises was in the late 70s. One party or the other in Congress refused to approve an appropriation budget that happened to also fund military and civilian pay. On September 30, word was sent down through Executive branch finance channels that no funding would be available to pay salaries for the new fiscal year beginning October 1 and, therefore, no payrolls would be processed until such time as Congress approved the funding. Civilian personnel were to be furloughed. (Military personnel could be retained on duty without pay under an old law affecting the military called the "food and forage act.")
The nonpayment action brought much derision against the Executive branch for refusing to pay military personnel and civilian employees when it was only doing what it had to do in the face of no budget.
I received a call from a local Wichita Congressman's office asking by what authority the McConnell Finance Office would refuse to pay salaries for the new fiscal year. This Congressional aid had no clue as to what the law required of Congress, or his boss. When advised that Congress would have to approve the budget first, he said he would look into it.
Up until about 1976, the federal fiscal year ran from July 1 to June 30. Congress was taking so much time to pass a budget that it was pushing the end of June each year. The Congressional solution was to change the fiscal year to run from October 1 to September 30, theoretically providing an "extra" three months to pass a budget. In the 35 or so years since that time, the "extra" three months has essentially provided little help with the budget process.
All is not lost though if an appropriation budget has not been approved by Congress come September 30. Congress now temporarily solves the problem by providing emergency makeshift Continuing Resolution Authorities in limited dollar amounts to the Executive Branch that fund salaries and essential operations until Congress gets its act together and approves a budget.
Thanks, I knew I wasn't wrong entirely. I'm sure if I stated the sun set in the west WARPH would try to prove me wrong.
Thank you, Waldo. This more facts than has been presented any where else in this thread.