Dems may not pass a federal budget this year

Rick Moran
Say you were a Democratic congressmen aware that you had to run for re-election with your constituents mad as hell about how much of their money you've been spending? Wouldn't it make sense to try and hide how much is going down the rabbit hole in order to keep your opponent fro making hay out of your profligacy?

According to the Wall Street Journal , this is what Nancy Pelosi has in mind:

According to Politico.com, Democrats may simply decide not to pass a federal budget this year. Without a budget, an unlimited amount of taxpayer dollars can be flushed down this summer's appropriations process. There wouldn't have to be a floor debate allowing Republicans to highlight the vast expansion of spending under the Obama administration.Since the Budget Act of 1974, the House has never failed to pass a draft budget (even though Congress as a whole four times failed to enact one). While Speaker Pelosi still has time to bring a bill to the floor, the slow pace suggests she's leaning toward making history and avoiding altogether a discussion of federal spending limits. For one thing, that would allow Ms. Pelosi to avoid contending with Ohio GOP Congressman Jim Jordan.

Mr. Jordan, who holds the seat once occupied by Mike Oxley, has made a habit of promoting alternative budgets that seek to align spending with revenues. A year ago, he called for a 1%-per-year decrease in non-defense discretionary spending (aka domestic spending outside of entitlement programs like Social Security). Reducing spending, not just reducing the rate of spending growth, is Beltway heresy, yet Mr. Jordan managed to attract 111 votes last year for a proposal that would have balanced the federal budget by 2019.

Yes, but remember; Republicans have no alternatives to offer and never promote new ideas.

This really is an innovative strategy, although as a matter of governance, it stinks. Not being able to keep track of how much lavish spending the Democrats are promoting will only add to the idea that these people have to be retired very qucikly.


Hat Tip: Ed Lasky




Say you were a Democratic congressmen aware that you had to run for re-election with your constituents mad as hell about how much of their money you've been spending? Wouldn't it make sense to try and hide how much is going down the rabbit hole in order to keep your opponent fro making hay out of your profligacy?

According to the Wall Street Journal , this is what Nancy Pelosi has in mind:

According to Politico.com, Democrats may simply decide not to pass a federal budget this year. Without a budget, an unlimited amount of taxpayer dollars can be flushed down this summer's appropriations process. There wouldn't have to be a floor debate allowing Republicans to highlight the vast expansion of spending under the Obama administration.

Since the Budget Act of 1974, the House has never failed to pass a draft budget (even though Congress as a whole four times failed to enact one). While Speaker Pelosi still has time to bring a bill to the floor, the slow pace suggests she's leaning toward making history and avoiding altogether a discussion of federal spending limits. For one thing, that would allow Ms. Pelosi to avoid contending with Ohio GOP Congressman Jim Jordan.

Mr. Jordan, who holds the seat once occupied by Mike Oxley, has made a habit of promoting alternative budgets that seek to align spending with revenues. A year ago, he called for a 1%-per-year decrease in non-defense discretionary spending (aka domestic spending outside of entitlement programs like Social Security). Reducing spending, not just reducing the rate of spending growth, is Beltway heresy, yet Mr. Jordan managed to attract 111 votes last year for a proposal that would have balanced the federal budget by 2019.

Yes, but remember; Republicans have no alternatives to offer and never promote new ideas.

This really is an innovative strategy, although as a matter of governance, it stinks. Not being able to keep track of how much lavish spending the Democrats are promoting will only add to the idea that these people have to be retired very qucikly.


Hat Tip: Ed Lasky