Free Markets, Free People

House Dems: No time for budget but plenty of time for campaign finance reform

The House of Representatives has a constitutional obligation to pass a yearly budget, through which it then appropriates money (taxes) for the business of government. Supposedly no budget, no spending.

But Congress has, over the years, hit upon a legislative convenience called a “continuing resolution” where it simply picks a figure from the sky, passes it and continues funding government sans budget. The only possible hope for stopping such a practice is a president who insists on a budget and promises to veto continuing resolutions.

That, of course, isn’t going to happen with this White House. No budget is going to be passed by Congress either – at least not until after November. And there’s a reason they’re engaging in this classic bit of nonfeasance. If they pass the budget they must before the November election, they’ll have to explain the trillion dollar deficit that is anticipated in the plan to their constituents. Can’t have that, can we?

On the other hand, they have plenty of time to try to pass campaign finance reform again. In fact, the House plans on taking it up on Thursday. When it comes to curtailing freedom the Democrats have an uncanny ability to rush things through – and especially if the legislation is likely to help them come November.

Congress – again ignoring the people’s business for the party’s business.

Last but not least, Democrats, knowing they have to either find a new revenue source in lieu of cutting spending have decided they’re not bound by President Obama’s tax vow.

I know, I know – you’re shocked, right?



Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

9 Responses to House Dems: No time for budget but plenty of time for campaign finance reform

  • HotAir had a great line about this…

    The Democrats have a 77-seat majority in the House and an 18-seat majority in the Senate, where filibusters won’t apply anyway on budgetary matters.  Barack Obama’s presidency gives them a clear path to passing whatever budget Democrats desire for FY2011.  And so, obviously, all of this has proven too much of a hurdle for Democrats to overcome, as Steny Hoyer admitted today:

  • This is one of the fundamental…ESSENTIAL…functions of the Congress.  What does it tell us that they obstinately refuse to perform that function out of pure political expediency?  Any notion of a nation governed by citizen-statesmen is just dead as a door-nail.  A little revolution is mandatory…

    • RagspierreWhat does it tell us that they obstinately refuse to perform that function out of pure political expediency?

      That they’ve learned they can get away with it.

  • This is one of those strategies that probably works much better than it ever should.  After all, if the idea is that they’re going to wait to pass the budget so that the actual numbers don’t anger voters going into the mid-term elections, shouldn’t that fact convince voters that they intend to drop one whopper of a budget on us?  Wouldn’t it give you the impression that they’re not going to give us the bad news until they know they’re secure in their congressional seats?  You would think that holding off on a budget like this would doom them, but I bet that passing a budget would be much worse for them.
    I fully expect voters to reach the wrong conclusion over this, and it will not hurt current members of congress as much as it would if they went ahead and passed a budget.  Even though that’s a completely irrational way to look at it.

  • “You could go lower, too — why not $200,000?” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). “With the debt and deficit we have, you can’t make promises to people. This is a very serious situation.”

    Promises like cheap, efficient health care for all?  Or that the stimulus was going to fix the economy?  Or federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries would stop?  Or that cap and trade isn’t just a huge tax and will save the world from ourselves?  Or that the Iraq war will be done in two months?  Like those promises?
    I’ve got to give it to her though, she’s right.  Re-election <i>is</i> serious business.

  • We’re screwed.

    And let me say that it’s not due to having a self-absorbed, ignorant, malicious bungler in the White House, nor having a pack of lying, cheating, pompous thieves in the Congress, nor even having a half-assed Ministry of Truth instead of a free press.

    The fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves.  We VOTED for these clowns.  And if we didn’t vote for these particular clowns, we voted for people who laid the foundations for what they are doing.  We voted for Congressman Twiddle even though (or, perhaps, BECAUSE) he put in earmarks for our district.  We voted for Senator Foghorn even though (or, perhaps, BECAUSE) he voted for a “modest” social program even though it increased the deficit.  We voted for President Dogood even though (or, perhaps, BECAUSE) he signed executive orders that went around the Congress, or appointed judges who see the Constitution as a “living document” that (by golly!) means just what they think it does on any given day, or added a few more bricks to the edifice of the federal bureaucracy.

    We are paying for our folly, and I think we’re going to pay much, much more heavily before it’s all done.