Skip to comments.Mark Your Calendars: 3 Years Without a Senate Budget!
Posted on 04/27/2012 9:01:39 AM PDT by smoothsailing
April 27, 2012
Sunday marks the third anniversary since the last time Senate Democrats proposed and passed a budget.
Senate Republicans arent exactly celebrating, but want to make sure the milestone doesnt go unnoticed.
The last time Senate Democrats passed a budget, a gallon of gas cost about half what it does now, the debt was $4.5 trillion dollars less than it is today, and ObamaCare was just a twinkle in the presidents eye, said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).
Their lack of leadership has led to a national debt that is not only larger than the economy but also surpasses the combined debt of the Eurozone and the UK, he added. The road out of a fiscal crisis starts with a responsible budget, and Republicans are ready to sit down and make the hard choices that entails.
Working without a budget is no way to run a business and its certainly no way to run the worlds biggest government, said Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio).
A very merry unbirthday to the nonexistent Senate budget!
Champagne and Caviar!!!
The course of Congressional events is that the House is the body that constructs, votes on and passes a budget to the Senate. The Senate has no authority to initiate a budget, money actions, etc. That is the responsibility of the House.
The Senate has the opportunity to review, amend and resubmit a House Budget for consideration, but they cannot initiate. If you follow the passage of budget bill, it originates in the House, is voted on and/or amended by the Senate and then dealt with in conference with the House. In the end it is the House’s decision to decide whether they accept the Senate’s amendments in conference.
Three years! A staggering dereliction of duty! Senate’s blockbuster failure under the leadership of Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).
These men and women sought elective office, won a seat in the Senate and now have the power to take action to confront Americas problems. Under the leadership of Majority Leader Reid, theyre making the choice not to do so.
Last week, in fact, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND), whose primary responsibility is to marshal bipartisan support of a budget resolution, declined to take on the task, remarking that it would be too difficult in an election year. Last year was not an election year, and they didnt bother to do it then, either.
From article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/04/25/morning-bell-whats-the-senate-thinking/
Since the passage of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Senate and the House are supposed to pass budget resolutions in the spring. These budget resolutions set a framework for spending, taxation and other fiscal items in the coming fiscal year. They also lay out general plans for the next four years. If these budget resolutions differ, the chambers are supposed to hammer out a compromise.
Mar 29, 2012 House Republicans have passed the Paul Ryan budget resolution for FY2013
Apr 15, 2011 The Republican-led House on Friday passed the fiscal 2012 budget resolution
July 2nd, 2010 - House passes budget resolution for FY2011 and begins appropriations process
Apr 30, 2009 The House and Senate on Wednesday both passed a concurrent budget resolution for FY 2010
They don’t want a budget. It would stifle their spending.
I realize the process has stalled, but the final action on any budget is whether the Republican Conference Committee recommends aproval of Senate edits/agreements on any budget....House Legislators ultimately control the money.
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 ), 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 ), 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.
You’ve nailed it. A continuing resolution is all Harry Reid needs to keep the good times rolling.
FWIW, smooth, there is no constitutional requirement that there even be a budget....not from President, House, or Senate.
My sense is that, since all spending measures must originate in the House, that we need a Constitutional amendment requiring a budget, and that a balanced one, but that it also must originate with the House of Representatives.
All the “chief executive” should be doing is “executing” a budget.
Art I, Sect 9 says: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
So, there’s a treasury, and appropriations, and an expenditure and account report, but no budget.
See post #8.
You are right about the budget, none is constitutionally mandated, although it's necessity is implied. The Founders were a hoot, weren't they? :)
Art 1 Sect 9 would make it easy for the Congress to ASSUME a true zero-base budget. IOW, we file a report on what we took in last year and spent last year. We use that as the basis of planning for this year.
We took in 2 trillion and we spent 5 trillion. Zero base says are on are way to hell in a bullet train.
For 2 of those 3 years, the demonrats had control of all 3 branches . . .
So, there is NO excuse.
Guess you miss the point...the House has done their job every year...the Senate has failed to do theirs. Sure the House controls the money, but without the Senate doing their part nothing happens and they are pushed to the point of shutting down...and feel they must do something and just do a continuing resolution.
There is nothing for the RCC to do because the Senate won’t participate.
It is wrong and Harry Reid and his crew know it.
Not sure the point you are making...are you defending the Senate and saying this is somehow the House fault?
I didn’t miss any point. I merely explained the rules. The Senate, of course, has not participated as they should. The media and everyone else explains this as partisan politics usually the fault of Republicans.
My problem with this whole mess is that the politicians, media and Democrats discuss the budget process, and the Senate’s participation as a budget implementor when it is clearly the House who should decide how much to spend, because it is supposedly more close to the constituency, rather than 100 Senators should be thinking about National priorities rather than managing their own powerocracies they’ve created. It’s just one big damn mess, and Barack Obama wants it that way. No controls - no responsibility.