US Congress: Sixth short term budget in one year

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Melissia**

http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/11/news/economy/budget_cuts/index.htm

By Charles Riley, staff reporter
March 11, 2011: 5:54 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Feuding lawmakers have found another small chunk of the federal budget they agree can be cut.

But don't break out the champagne just yet.

By agreeing to a three-week spending bill that would cut $6 billion, lawmakers are kicking the can down the road while they attempt to negotiate a spending plan for the rest of the fiscal year.

On Friday, House Republicans introduced a bill that would reduce or terminate 2011 funding for 25 government programs, for savings of $3.5 billion; it would eliminate an additional $2.6 billion in earmarks.

The Republicans identified the programs to cut by combing their own budget plan and Obama's 2012 budget proposal for spots where they agreed.

And for that reason, the top Democrat in the Senate was quick to say he supported the measure.

"I am glad that we were able to come to an agreement with Republicans on a three-week continuing resolution made up of cuts already proposed by Democrats that will also be free of any ideological, special-interest legislation," Sen. Harry Reid said in a statement.

On the chopping block are programs within the National Park Service, Environmental Protection Agency and Social Security Administration that both Obama and House Republicans want to cut.

It's the second time Congress has agreed to cut the budget this way, and when enacted, it will be the sixth short-term budget fix of the year. (How Congress is failing to pass a real budget)

For lawmakers, the real difficulty will start when the parties run out of things they both agree should be cut. In one section of the budget, they are already scraping the bottom of the barrel.

In the most recent budget compromise, lawmakers agreed to cut $2.7 billion in earmarks. Friday's bill would cut another $2.6 billion for a total of $5.3 billion.
Government shutdown: What's at stake

After those reductions, pretty much all that's left to cut is defense earmarks, according to Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan spending watchdog group.

And defense spending is a third rail in budget negotiations.

If Republicans get their way, Democrats will make the next move as the parties try to strike a budget deal that would cover the seven remaining months of the fiscal year.

"The short-term funding measure introduced in the House today will give the American people another round of spending cuts as they wait for the Democrats who run Washington -- in the Senate and White House -- to determine a position other than the status quo," House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement.

Great to see moronic hardline stances are helping both sides out so much right now.

**sexiest_hero**

National Park Service, Environmental Protection Agency and Social Security Administration.

FIX our broken infrastructure. Non of this crap will matter without it.

**Fafnir**

So correct me if I'm wrong, but is American politics just two big parties duking it out with each other for the sake of coming out on top, rather than actually governing a country?

**Melissia**

For the most part, yes.

**daedalus-templarius**

Fafnir wrote:So correct me if I'm wrong, but is American politics just two big parties duking it out with each other for the sake of coming out on top, rather than actually governing a country?

It'd be so great if more people realized this!

**Luco**

Fafnir wrote:So correct me if I'm wrong, but is American politics just two big parties duking it out with each other for the sake of coming out on top, rather than actually governing a country?

Pretty much, but dont forget to count out the lobbyists and campaign contributions from major companies! Wanna try an exercise in futility? Try voting indie. I wonder why I stand in the giant line to vote sometimes...

**Kilkrazy**

Fafnir wrote:So correct me if I'm wrong, but is American politics just two big parties duking it out with each other for the sake of coming out on top, rather than actually governing a country?

To listen to a lot of Americans such as the Tea Party, they don't seem actually to want a government.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Fafnir wrote:So correct me if I'm wrong, but is American politics just two big parties duking it out with each other for the sake of coming out on top, rather than actually governing a country?

To listen to a lot of Americans such as the Tea Party, they don't seem actually to want a government.

I have to say, it's pretty interesting how people who claim to be patriots want to dismantle their country completely. At the same time, it's almost scary, no one would gain anything from a complete financial meltdown in the US (and then I mean COMPLETE, not severe, as the current/last one).

**WARBOSS TZOO**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Fafnir wrote:So correct me if I'm wrong, but is American politics just two big parties duking it out with each other for the sake of coming out on top, rather than actually governing a country?

To listen to a lot of Americans such as the Tea Party, they don't seem actually to want a government.

Haven't you heard? Government's the problem, not the solution.

**Ahtman**

It's nice to toss out platitudes about governing instead of political bickering but I don't see anyone here actually defining what they mean by governing or how to implement it even if they have an idea.

**Melissia**

Here's a thought on that Ahtman: The government should actually POST A FETHING BUDGET IN TIME.

Even if it means compromising in some areas. You can't always get what you want. The legislature has failed to do their jobs, having been unable to post a friggin' budget which is directly mandated to them by the constitution. Jackasses in the state capitals are eliminating jobs and creating even MORE unemployment in our nation already rife with it (about half a million state and local public sector jobs have been cut in the past two years). And this is what the public voted for-- the public voted for this financial disaster because they were all too stupid to see just how the tea party was nothing more than a bunch of bumbling idiots with no damned clue about economics or how to handle money.

**WARBOSS TZOO**

Melissia wrote:You can't always get what you want.

neither the republicans/democrats want a functional government. what would they rail against then?

**Melissia**

Actually the dems do want it, because then they can get the social programs they need. But they're too incompetent to fight the Repugs properly.

**Ahtman**

@Melissa: Again, it easy to just say that but how are you planning on making it happen? It's easy to stand outside and throw rocks, but actually following words with action actually is much more difficult. You have a several thousand page budget and entrenched interests. Just saying "pass the budget" doesn't pass a budget.

**WARBOSS TZOO**

Melissia wrote:Actually the dems do want it, because then they can get the social programs they need. But they're too incompetent to fight the Repugs properly.

And what happens when they have the social programs they want?

They have nothing to be elected on.

They don't want to win because they don't want to be unemployed.

**Melissia**

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:They have nothing to be elected on.

Keeping said programs instead of cutting htem.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:@Melissa: Again, it easy to just say that but how are you planning on making it happen?

The only thing I legally can do, I already have done-- I've written my representative and senators to urge them to actually get the damned budget going.

I'm not a congresswoman Ahtman, I don't have any other power aside from that. They do. It's their job to do this gak, and they're FAILING. Don't try to push the blame on me just because the elected representatives, who I voted against in the first place, are screwing up and not doing their damned jobs.

**WARBOSS TZOO**

Melissia wrote:
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:They have nothing to be elected on.
Keeping said programs instead of cutting htem.

And yet you're urging them to voluntarily cut them.

**Melissia**

I am?

**WARBOSS TZOO**

Melissia wrote:
Ahtman wrote:@Melissa: Again, it easy to just say that but how are you planning on making it happen?
The only thing I legally can do, I already have done-- I've written my representative and senators to urge them to actually get the damned budget going.

Or should I assume that you're not writing to democrats?

**Melissia**

There are democrats in Texas? I thought there was just republicans and independents.

**Ahtman**

Melissia wrote:
Ahtman wrote:@Melissa: Again, it easy to just say that but how are you planning on making it happen?
The only thing I legally can do, I already have done-- I've written my representative and senators to urge them to actually get the damned budget going.

I'm not a congresswoman Ahtman, I don't have any other power aside from that. They do. It's their job to do this gak, and they're FAILING. Don't try to push the blame on me just because the elected representatives, who I voted against in the first place, are screwing up and not doing their damned jobs.

It doesn't work like that; the system isn't a vote and forget system. You keep tossing out generic statements but seem to have no real idea what it means to actually see any of it through. You haven't explained why it is their job to just pass it just becuase they are in office; they are doing their job as they see fit. If they feel the budget is not the way it should be, then they aren't going to vote for it. They were elected to make decisions like that.

"Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards." -Max Weber

**Melissia**

So "as they see fit" is equivalent to "not doing it at all"? I don't buy that sad excuse for a second.

What exactly do you expect me to do that I legally can, Ahtman? Oh wait, nothing? Because that at the moment is pretty much exactly says what I can do. Quit trying to defend incompetent morons.

**WARBOSS TZOO**

Melissia wrote:So "as they see fit" is equivalent to "not doing it at all"?

Please define the role of a legislator.

**Ahtman**

Melissia wrote:So "as they see fit" is equivalent to "not doing it at all"? I don't buy that sad excuse for a second.

One, it isn't an excuse, and two, they are doing something. It isn't as if they are in stasis and just woke up to press yay or nay on a console then put back to sleep. Phone calls are being made, mmos being prepared, counsel being consulted, lunch meetings in all their glory are being scheduled. This isn't a fast food job where there is a handy flowchart. This is politics in the lawyer capitol of the world; the bloodsport of the vicious. As long as they are within the law they are within their rights. There is no law that says that they have to make a budget on your imaginary schedule.

Melissia wrote:What exactly do you expect me to do that I legally can, Ahtman?

Make a better argument than "That is the way it should be becuase that is the way I want to pretend it is". If you think something is wrong but can't convince anyone that there is it won't change.

Melissia wrote:Oh wait, nothing? Because that at the moment is pretty much exactly says what I can do. Quit trying to defend incompetent morons.

Well, if they are incompetent morons and they are doing more than you are, and there are others out there doing more than you, what does that make you? You seem to be painting a poor picture of yourself.

**Melissia**

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Melissia wrote:So "as they see fit" is equivalent to "not doing it at all"?

Please define the role of a legislator.

The duties of congress are to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States, to regulate commerce, regulate naturalization and bankruptcy, coin and regulate money, establish and maintain a post office and roads, promote the progress of science and useful arts, to run the courts, to punish piracy and offenses against the law of nations, to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, make rules concerning captured ships, to raise and support the army (specifically appropriating funds every two years for this purpose), to maintain the navy, to regulate the army and navy, to ensure suppression of insurrection and the repelling of invasions, and to make all laws that are necessary and proper for carrying into execution the previously mentioned powers.

None of these things can be accomplished without a budget. That's why they included the ability to collect taxes and, duties, imposts, and excises in the first line of the duties of congress.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:Well, if they are incompetent morons and they are doing more than you are

No, they aren't. And that's the problem.

Unlike them, I'm doing everything within my limited power-- that is to say, I wrote to my congressmen to urge them (far more politely than on this forum of course) to get the damned budget passed already, even if they have to compromise to do so.

It's been over 400 days since Obama proposed his initial budget for this year. More than a full year has passed and STILL nothing has been decided on the subject.

**WARBOSS TZOO**

Melissia wrote:
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Melissia wrote:So "as they see fit" is equivalent to "not doing it at all"?

Please define the role of a legislator.
The duties of congress are to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States, to regulate commerce, regulate naturalization and bankruptcy, coin and regulate money, establish and maintain a post office and roads, promote the progress of science and useful arts, to run the courts, to punish piracy and offenses against the law of nations, to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, make rules concerning captured ships, to raise and support the army (specifically appropriating funds every two years for this purpose), to maintain the navy, to regulate the army and navy, to ensure suppression of insurrection and the repelling of invasions, and to make all laws that are necessary and proper for carrying into execution the previously mentioned powers.

None of these things can be accomplished without a budget. That's why they included the ability to collect taxes and, duties, imposts, and excises in the first line of the duties of congress.

And if a congresscritter was elected on the premise that he would vote nay on every bill that he had the opportunity to?

Is he still not doing his job?

**Melissia**

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Is he still not doing his job?

Yes, he is failing to do his job as prescribed by the constitution.

**Ahtman**

Melissia wrote:
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Melissia wrote:So "as they see fit" is equivalent to "not doing it at all"?

Please define the role of a legislator.
The duties of congress are to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States, to regulate commerce, regulate naturalization and bankruptcy, coin and regulate money, establish and maintain a post office and roads, promote the progress of science and useful arts, to run the courts, to punish piracy and offenses against the law of nations, to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, make rules concerning captured ships, to raise and support the army (specifically appropriating funds every two years for this purpose), to maintain the navy, to regulate the army and navy, to ensure suppression of insurrection and the repelling of invasions, and to make all laws that are necessary and proper for carrying into execution the previously mentioned powers.

That doesn't describe a legislator, it broadly defines the duties of congress but makes no mention of what exactly each means or a specific process for seeing it through.

Melissia wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:Well, if they are incompetent morons and they are doing more than you are
No, they aren't. And that's the problem.

Unlike them, I'm doing everything within my limited power

Saying things like that just makes it seem even more likely you have no idea what actually goes in politics in general or Washington in particular. You have a Utopian idea in your head you can't seem to explain and since the representatives of over 300 million people don't live up to this fantasy-land where everything works just the way you want it to, you call them morons.

Melissia wrote:
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Is he still not doing his job?
Yes, he is failing to do his job as prescribed by the constitution.

Guessing you learned that in Third Year at Georgetown Law, amiright?

**Melissia**

Ahtman wrote:That doesn't describe a legislator

You can say that all you want, but you are wrong.

Ahtman wrote:Saying things like that just makes it seem even more likely you have no idea what actually goes in politics in general or Washington in particular.

As good of an idea of what goes on as anyone who doesn't themselves participate.

You toss around terms like utopian to try and claim that I am hopelessly naieve, yet for all your jumping at the bit attempting to defend our congressmen the fact remains that it's been over a year and they still haven't posted a fething budget, which threatens to shut down the government and plays all sorts of hell with government organizations as they are unable to even figure out what kinds of funds they currently have, nevermind what they'll have the rest of the year.

**Ahtman**

Melissia wrote:
Ahtman wrote:That doesn't describe a legislator
You can say that all you want, but you are wrong.

No, I'm not.

Melissia wrote:
Ahtman wrote:Saying things like that just makes it seem even more likely you have no idea what actually goes in politics in general or Washington in particular.
As good of an idea of what goes on as anyone who doesn't themselves participate.

You toss around terms like utopian to try and claim that I am hopelessly naieve, yet for all your jumping at the bit attempting to defend our congressmen the fact remains that it's been over a year and they still haven't posted a fething budget, which threatens to shut down the government and plays all sorts of hell with government organizations as they are unable to even figure out what kinds of funds they currently have, nevermind what they'll have the rest of the year.