When it comes to main street’s kitchen table, the American family can’t hide from a need to tighten the belt because of of budget restrictions. When survival is at stake, a hard look at the check book, weighed against the income and higher expenses of daily living, must happen and spending is triaged for only what is absolutely vital. Such responsibilities are, apparently, above the Democrats in Congress.
Continuing their latest playbook antics of politics, Harry Reid isn’t shy about about the Democrat “run and hide” strategy when it comes to spending, and
proclaims to the press it would be “foolish” for the Democrats to propose a budget.
“There’s no need to have a Democratic budget in my opinion,” Reid said in an interview Thursday. “It would be foolish for us to do a budget at this stage.”
If recent history serves me correctly, the Democrats haven’t found a time when it *wasn’t* foolish to present a budget. The Pelosi/Reid monarchy refused to deal with a budget in 2008 until their guy assumed the Oval Office position, instead offering the now familiar convoy of continuing resolutions. In 2010, they simply couldn’t be bothered to get a budget on the table either, because it just may have affected their mid term electability… and we all know how that turned out.
What it really comes down to is a game of hide and seek…. they simply don’t want to commit to anything on paper that citizens can definitively recognize as Democrat fiscal irresponsibly, and “big government” rule, in this era of desired fiscal reform.
This blatant and public refusal to offer “alternatives” becomes more amusing when we look back at the healthcare battles, where both the POTUS and Democrats were on talking circuit, day after day, chastising the GOP for not offering alternative solutions. Talk about the pot, accusing the kettle of being black. The irony of this political strategy is that the GOP had, indeed, offered three alternative plans, and countless amendments… all of which were quelched and hidden from view by the overwhelming numbers of Congressional Dems, with the aid of their pocket media puppets.
But let’s not let facts get in the way of a politically convenient lie.
Partisan divides on budgets have a long standing history, with eleven instances of partial or full shutdowns since 1980. In 1980, Carter found himself at odds with his Congress, both chambers held by Democrats. Reagan’s first veto was from a Democrat majority House who attempted a Continuing Resolution instead of addressing their duty head on. That POTUS had no intention of letting Congress shirk their Constitutional duties.
The longest total shut down (three days) of the government occurred when Bush the elder fought the Democrat controlled Congress over raising taxes on the highest US earners back in 1990. Sound familiar? Some things never change… Dem POTUS, Bill Clinton veto’ed several appropriation budget bills submitted to him by the GOP Congress back in 1996.
What becomes apparent is that the reasons for inaction by both parties seem to remain consistent… a refusal to cut spending, and an attempt to plug the ever expanding fiscal hole by stealing more cash from the taxpayers wallets in whatever way they can do without getting caught with their hands remaining in the cookie jar. But one difference is notable… one party does attempt to offer solutions – even if I consider them still unacceptable – while the other simply refuses to deal with it for political repercussions.
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
Of course! They want the Republicans to get the blame, and the village idiots will blame the Republicans……the gutless Dems won’t offer a budget, as they think it lets them off the hook and are pulling the same stunt they did in Wisconsin…sneaking out of state so they wouldn’t have to vote…jeez…. right next to lawyers and other bottom dwelling scavengers and slimeballs…
There hasn’t been a budget in several years. Democrats don’t like to do budgets because it reveals their complete lack of a moral compass as they piss away your grandchildrens chance for prosperity.
” What it really comes down to is a game of hide and seek…. they simply don’t want to commit to anything on paper that citizens can definitively recognize as Democrat fiscal irresponsibly, and “big government” rule, in this era of desired fiscal reform.” Right so they can tear apart whatever the Republicans come up with as ‘no good’…
It all translates to the same philosophy of crap talk >>> “All Talk and No Action” (unless it’s an action that hurts America) and her (Most Productive ) citizens in the long run… I am tired of the Liberal Government taking my money and basically throwing it away….
And the Same Questions remain…Where are the JOBS?? Why is GAS still so High?? Why is the economy still in the crapper?? What happened to “all the jobs” the Government was suppose to “Create”?? Why is there not more OUTRAGE over these issues…??
By close to a two-to-one margin, Americans want no increase in the debt limit. But you just know damn well that congress is going to increase it regardless of the will of the people. I’m becoming a cynic…
@FAITH7:
This is the ‘real life’ version of Atlas Shrugged, not the movie that came out on April 15th.
We have non-elected government officials issuing edicts and directives, in an effort to control the people, and the economy, partially from a mistaken belief that control is necessary for prosperity, and partially to benefit those who support the central planners.
And when their edicts and directives show failure? Why, more of those must be issued, for in their minds, more control is the answer to ensuring prosperity.
Years ago, when Matthew Lesko was selling his books on how to get “free money” (i.e., grant money) from the federal government, he said neither party is interested in making real cuts. Whenever they (Congress) talked about making cuts, the cuts that were made were on the edges. Lesko continued to say if Congress made a serious effort to reduce spending, end duplicative services, etc., the resulting budget surplus would be an embarrassment of riches. It was a truism then, it’s a truism now.
So actually, Harry is right.
All budgets must originate in the House. Harry Reid is not in the House. So ther is no need for a ‘democratic budget’ from the Senate.
Not that I would piss on Harry Reid were he on fire…
@Bill Johnson, the post is not about the “senate” offering a budget which is supposed to originate in the house, as all appropriations bills – except O’healthcare, of course. It is about the the party offering a budget. They refuse to do so for political fallout, and fear of taking a stand on spending.
Chuckie Schumer admits to the political reasoning even today…