Posted on 05/16/2012 3:46:02 PM PDT by Kaslin
For the second consecutive year, the Democrat-controlled United States Senate has unanimously rejected President Obama's 2013 budget. The final vote was 99-0, making the the running two-year tally 196-0. This move follows the House of Representatives' 414-0 rebuke of the same fiscal blueprint earlier this year. Astonishingly, not a single Senate Democrat has voted in favor of any budget for three years, even as they refuse to offer a plan of their own. Democrats have claimed that three fig leaves mitigate this embarrassing spectacle:
(1) "The Senate has already passed a budget!" False. The Senate has not passed a budget. It "deemed" itself a budget as part of a separate piece of legislation over the summer. That law did not address tax policy, entitlement programs, and a slew of other items that a real budget entails. Harry Reid's hand-picked Senate Parliamentarian has confirmed Republicans' contention that the Senate has not fulfilled its basic budgetary obligations. This is the 1,113th day in a row that this has been the case.
(2) "Republican obstructionism!" False. Budgets explicitly cannot be filibustered. If Democrats introduced a budget, whipped their members, and called a vote, it would pass. Simple as that. Republicans couldn't do a thing to stop it. But that would require Democrats to put their long-term plans on paper, which they've been avoiding like the plague for entirely political reasons.
(3) "This vote is a gimmick!" If Democrats want to label an up-or-down vote on a Democratic president's budget a "gimmick," they're welcome to do so. In some ways, it's an appropriate description, given the pitiful gimmicks upon which Obama's budget relies -- even to achieve the fraudulent "savings" it claims. Had it not been defeated by Congress 513-0, Obama's budget would have added $11 Trillion to the gross national debt. It would literally never balance.
The Senate will now move on to vote on four separate Republican-proposed budgets, including the House-passed version. They will all receive more votes than President Obama's brainchild, but none is expected to pass. Stay tuned for updates...
---
UPDATE - The Senate has defeated the House-passed Ryan budget, 41-58. I counted five Republicans joining Democrats in voting it down, at least one of whom voted no because it doesn't go far enough. Democrats voted in lockstep against this budget, as they have on every proposed budget for the last three years. Head-to-head tally: Paul Ryan 41 - Barack Obama 0
UPDATE II - The Senate has defeated Senator Pat Toomey's (R-PA) budget resolution, 42-57. This is the seventh consecutive proposed Senate budget that has failed to attract even one Democrat vote.
UPDATE III - The Senate has rejected the two remaining GOP budget alternatives, authored by Senators Lee (17-82) and Paul (16-83). Harry Reid's Senate once again goes oh-fer on budgets, in an age of $16 Trillion debt, a national credit downgrade, and a struggling economy. Disgraceful.
I keep on seeing this 99-0, but there are 100 Senators. Who’s missing?
It increases about $4.22 billion per day (each citizen's share stands at roughly $45K). Thus, Democrats will soon demand that the debt ceiling be raised, lest the sky fall. When they do, they will be asking for a significant boost in a ceiling that is already 60 percent higher than the one Barack Obama said was "a sign of leadership failure" five years ago.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/256288/senator-barack-obama-explaining-his-2006-vote-against-raising-debt-limit-andrew-c-mcca
Hairy Reid on raising the debt ceiling on 2006:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELkbDdPeL7I
"If my Republican friends believe that increasing our debt by almost $800 billion today and more than $3 trillion over the last five years is the right thing to do, they should be upfront about it. They should explain why they think more debt is good for the economy. How can the Republican majority in this Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars in new debt is good for our economy? How can they explain that they think it's fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes. That’s what it will have to be. Why is it right to increase our nation’s dependence on foreign creditors?"
Biden?
Senator Kirk from Illinois. He is recovering from a stroke he had last year, but hopes to make it back by Autumn
No plug hair is the VP
Without a budget, he can spend all he wants without having to answer to anyone. That’s the whole reason why we don’t have a budget. In two days, he’ll have another Friday afternoon check writing session to our enemies.
Section 8. 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;
But then we know he doesn't give a hoot about the Constitution
The Dems need only 51 votes to pass a budget. They are MIA.
He’s still the tie breaker in the Senate
Yeah, but he can only break the tie if the vote is 50-50
Fair enough.
Correct. 2009 was the last budget the rats have passed
Kirk. He’s in the hospital, I think, he was run over by a RINO and suffered a stroke.
Those darn obstructionist teabaggers!
Wait ... what?
Oh. Nevermind.
Nothing astonishing about it. This statement explains itself, if you read it carefully.
Clearly the republicans fault, doing the bidding of the Koch brothers, and Halliburton.
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.