« Make me wanna holler... | Main | The Slab Redux »



770 days and counting since the Senate passed a budget

Randy Johnson

well said. However despicable these things are on a personal level, they pale in comparison to more important problems this country suffers. The notion passes through me every know and then that these "revelations" come whenever the powers that be need a distraction from their own inadequacies . Something from the lesser lights already known, just waiting for the right moment to drop into public consciousness. Am I being too cynical?

Jeff Mariotte

It sure got killing Medicare and Newt Gingrich's problems off the front pages (until today when Newt fell back onto them). There is always that question of who benefits when some non-issue is blown up into a huge scandal.

As for the budget, Chris... I'm starting to think that unless one party has a 61-seat majority in the Senate, we'll never have another budget.

Ginger Goff

Even with a 61 seat majority, we won't have a budget that begins to cope with our country's problems. I don't think the politicians at that level are able to get past their self interest and there certainly aren't 61 of them that can. I have gotten pretty cynical and think our country will have to have some major breakdown that actually messes things up so bad the wealthy and powerful feel it. Care to think what that will do to the rest of us?

Jeff Mariotte

You might have a point, Ginger. It's especially tricky since the wealthy and powerful definitely include all those millionaires in the Senate.


2 Points We have to have a set Federal Budget. Then States, Counties and Cities will know what is coming from the Federal Government. Right now the Federal Government is funding at 2010 Rates. That is what a continuing resolution does,
Second point, Why were the Bush tax cuts not taken away when the Democrats were in the Majority in the House Senate and White House? Harry Reid could have set aside the 61 vote rule.


And this was spoken 4 months after President Obama extended those same tax cuts you lament.

“After Democrats and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline during the 1990s, we lost our way in the decade that followed. We increased spending dramatically for two wars and an expensive prescription drug program — but we didn’t pay for any of this new spending. Instead, we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts — tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country.”

— President Obama, April 13, 2011


December 25th, 2010

Last week the House voted 277 to 148 to temporarily extend the tax cuts put in place by the Bush administration as well as approve a series of smaller tax credits, cuts and extensions. The identical measure was recently passed by the Senate paving way for the legislation to make it to President Obama’s desk.

Which Party had a majority in the House in Dec 2010?
Which Party had a majority in the Senate in Dec 2010?

So why are they still called the Bush tax cuts?


Last one, I have come around to the belief that if you cut revenue you have to cut services, bring folks from from the longest war in our history, and not worry about the next election.

In a display of compromise rarely seen during his time in office, President Obama has signed into law a $858 billion tax cut bill despite the misgivings of members of both parties.

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026069-503544.html#ixzz1Ow78HbPJ
The bill, which was largely worked out earlier this month between the White House and Congressional Republicans, extends the Bush-era tax cuts for all Americans for two years, extends unemployment benefits for 13 months and includes a one-year Social Security tax cut, among other measures.

The measure is not paid for, and costs more than Mr. Obama's controversial stimulus package that was harshly criticized by Republicans for exacerbating America's deficit and debt problem.

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026069-503544.html#ixzz1Ow7JtnIT

I am so tired of both sides.

Jeff Mariotte

Harry Reid could not arbitrarily set aside the 60-vote filibuster threshold. To do that would require a major rules change that can only be done at the beginning of a new legislative session, and neither party wants to make that change because it could cost them in the long run, next time they're in the minority. With the filibuster threat from the Republicans and the ending of unemployment benefits, a deal had to be struck, and the deal unfortunately extended the Bush tax cuts. Democrats argued for keeping the tax cuts for middle class taxpayers and below, but the Republicans insisted it had to be all of them, including the most expensive cuts for the very rich, or no deal. In the end, the necessity of reaching some deal won the day, extending those cuts and worsening the deficit for 2 more years.


Okay If Jeff Marriotte was the leader of the Senate and Chris Niels Sieler was the leader of the minority party, for the good of the nation, you would have pulled the trigger, and I would have stood beside you.
But that is only the stuff of fiction now.

The comments to this entry are closed.