Posted on 02/20/2012 1:03:56 PM PST by Starman417
As of today, it has been 1,028 days since the U.S. Senate last passed a budget.
That's about 20 dog years.
Imagine if you were employed in a business where one of your duties was to plan an annual budget for each upcoming year and you just decided you weren't going to do it. And 1,028 days later, you still had not done it. Assuming your employer hadn't already canned, assuredly you would lose your job after such a long failure. If you are a Democratic Senator, however, you not only keep your job because a majority of the people still vote for you, you get greater influence and power.
To give you an idea of how long 1,028 days is, let's look at some historical events. Since the Senate last passed a budget on April 29, 2009, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV campaigned for 20 months, was reelected to the Senate and has served more than a year since his reelection. The entire Lewis and Clark expedition in the Pacific Northwest took 862 days. John F. Kennedy served 1,036 days as president before he was assassinated, only 10 more days than the Senate's current budget failure. The Korean War lasted 1,128 days until the armistice ceased active hostilities.
If ever there was a time for Congress to address the fiscal federal government crisis, this is it. And yet the Senate continues its intransigence even going so far as to say the Budget Control Act passed last year to deal with the debt ceiling is enough. That's like saying it is just as acceptable for you to increase unilaterally and without any analysis your annual household budget expenditures and borrow the extra money to pay for the increase, as it is for you to actually review your income and expenditures and craft a budget based on the numbers. That might work for a year or so, but 1,028 days is far too long especially given our national debt and deficit crises, the increasingly risk to our nation's credit rating and currency valuation, and the stagnant economy.
One big reason why we see this is most senators know their constituents will never vote them out. Do you think of senators like Reid, Kerry, Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer, Durbin, Murray, and Mikulski fear losing their seats? They and their liberal brethren might as well have life-time appointments given their constituencies. Before you point out Senator Scott Brown, R-MA taking over for Ted Kennedy, he is a rare exception who had to wait until Kennedy died--after Kennedy served in the Senate for several decades. And Brown has turned out to be a Massachusetts moderate who will doubtless face a serious election challenge from the left. So the Senate will continue not doing its job and liberals will continue to accuse Republicans of leading a "do nothing Congress."
Now that's chutzpah.
I have little confidence that Reid and his cronies will act with any degree of fiscal responsibility. Given President Obama's sorry excuse for a budget proposal--not to mention his penchant for profligate spending--I have no confidence in him either. Frankly, I also don't have much confidence in Republican House and Senate members either, outside of the few who are truly committed to cutting spending, lowering taxes and reducing the size and scope of the federal government. Meanwhile, our state and local governments are stretched increasingly thinner as the federal government takes more money, mandates more restrictions and curtails people's freedoms. What is largely missing from the federal government's current operating structure is a designated place at the table for the state governments to have their interests considered in the process of national governing and budgeting.
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
Actually, most of the Progessive Erea amendments, except for maybe one...
Read some nasty letters to the editor of the Las vegas Review today concerning how Reids kid got his current gub mint lackey job that others had better qualifications for.
Surprise surprise.
The Vegas Mobs best friend EVER.
Democrats know their limitations, and passing a budget is one of them.
And making Senators LESS accountable to the people, and MORE accountable to the powers that be - will make them....
a) more likely to pass laws the people favor
b) more likely to pass laws entrenched interests favor
??????
April 8th, 1913 was the beginning of the decline of our Republic...
ONLY BECAUSE OF REPUBLICAN FILIBUSTERS!
Oh wait. Budgets can't be filibustered, by law.
Never mind.
"The fiasco continued when the replacement process for the city attorney (of Henderson, Nevada) was rigged so Harry Reid's son would qualify for the job. Josh Reid got the job -- and a big pay raise to boot. "
Las Vegas Review Journal
For a second there I thought you were that Lew guy from the White Hut.
Josh Reid was sworn in Tuesday as Henderson city attorney.
Reid will be paid a salary of $190,000, not including benefits. The pay range for the job is $127,000 to $199,000 a year.
Reid was appointed to the post on Nov. 29 by the City Council. He was chosen over former interim City Attorney Christine Guerci-Nyhus, who was the one other finalist for the position.
Reid thanked the council, as well as Guerci-Nyhus for her work in the city attorney’s office.
“I’d like to thank the City Council for this opportunity to serve in the city of Henderson,” Reid said. “We have a really dedicated group of individuals.”
Reid replaces former City Attorney Elizabeth Quillin, who resigned in August after a DUI arrest.
Las Vegas Sun, January 3, 2012
And another Freeper who thinks he’s smarter than the Founding Fathers opens his yap.
Another reason to insist on TERM LIMITS! Make 'em have to keep digging up more candidates who now know that there is a dead end, that they won't be enriched and treated like royalty forever.
If you don’t have a formal budget, you can’t be punished for not sticking to the budget. Not passing a budget is the Senate’s way of getting unlimited spending, government elite approved.
Why not go all the way and just get 38 states together to tell the President, Congress and the Supreme Court to just go jump into a lake?
That group supercedes anything else, period.
We the return of states rights and have the feds work for them, not the other way around.
Ensconced in Washington is untouchable. Repealing the 17th would make them more accountable to locals not less IMO. By appointment of the State would make elections of local officials all the more important. It’s how the Representative Republic form of government differs from the current form of Democracy. The US House was intended to be elected by the population, with shorter terms, thus ensuring that body would represent the current whims of the country. Hence the reason it is empowered to be the body that generates appropriation bills. The Senate was designed to house the elder statesmen of a State that had proven their wisdom and leadership, so as to act as the State’s voice in the Federal legislature. Plus general election of Federal Senators ensures that special interest money trumps political positions. That is one of the reasons why the status quo seems to be the goal of either parties “candidates” I believe.
Special interest monies will certainly trump political positions when Senators are appointed rather than elected - without even the clarifying tonic of electoral input.
The reason money for campaigns is how campaigns are won or lost and how politicians are bought and sold is because the majority of American voters are highly influenced by 30 second advertisements.
The same sort of scumbags will get elected using the same scummy tactics playing the same scummy game - except now those scum will directly appoint Senators (in “smokey back rooms”) rather than having the issue decided by the electorate.
There is, as you allude to, little support either among the political class, or among the citizenry - for repeal of the 17th Amendment.
Based upon the recent conviction of Blagojevich - I don't think it is going to be gathering much steam either.
Recall if you will how Governor Blagojevich took his important duty to appoint a Senator for the people of his State..... I paraphrase.... “This F*cking Plum falls in my F*cking lap - and I am supposed to GIVE IT AWAY? NO F*cking way!”.
A Senatorial seat is a “plum” and very very few currently in government are going to give it away when they can charge as much as the market will bear.
Bought and paid for Senators right out the gate instead of those compromised due to the necessity of money for advertisements in campaigns is not exactly an improvement, IMHO.
The big problem with this budget issue....a real joke I know, is Americans can’t wrap their minds around the concept of a budget for the federal gubmint.
Most Americans don’t even know the federal gubmint operates with no budget and hasn’t for a couple of years.
The media doesn’t cover it and the Blue Blood elected GOP don’t really want to go there either. Might muss head hairs and cause rifts with friends across the aisle.
It all makes me ill.
Prior to the 17th amendment, the Senators were not appointed, they were elected by the state legislators.
Theoretically it would be more difficult for special interest money to be effective in all the state legislative races than in the one statewide election of a U.S. Senator.
The reason money for campaigns is how campaigns are won or lost and how politicians are bought and sold is because the majority of American voters are highly influenced by 30 second advertisements.
Although each state is different, in NH (a very large house of representatives) it is very easy for each citizen to personally meet their state representative. The Town of Brentwood has 1 rep and 3000 voters. I know the last two reps that served personally. That makes the 30 second sound bite much less effective.
The same sort of scumbags will get elected using the same scummy tactics playing the same scummy game - except now those scum will directly appoint Senators (in “smokey back rooms”) rather than having the issue decided by the electorate.
Granted both systems have had scumbags elected.
The venerable James Wilson was the only member of the Constitutional Convention that advocated for the direct election of Senators. He lost the argument by a vote of 10-1 at the convention.
The main reasoning for the election by the legislature was to appease the anti-federalists who feared that the federal government would overstep its authority if the state legislators were not represented in Congress. This has obviously occurred since 1913, but that doesn't however prove causation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.