Senate Democratic budget extends standoff with GOP
WASHINGTON (AP) - An exhausted Senate gave pre-dawn approval Saturday to a Democratic $3.7 trillion budget for next year that embraces nearly $1 trillion in tax increases over the coming decade but shelters domestic programs targeted for cuts by House Republicans.
While their victory was by a razor-thin 50-49, the vote let Democrats tout their priorities. Yet it doesn't resolve the deep differences the two parties have over deficits and the size of government.
Joining all Republicans voting no were four Democrats who face re-election next year in potentially difficult races: Sens. Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Mark Pryor of Arkansas. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., did not vote.
White House spokesman Jay Carney praised the Senate plan, saying in a statement it "will create jobs and cut the deficit in a balanced way."
While calling on both sides to find common ground, Carney did not hold out much hope for compromise with Republicans. The rival budget passed by the GOP-led House cuts social programs too deeply, he said, and fails "to ask for a single dime of deficit reduction from closing tax loopholes for the wealthy and well-connected."
The Senate vote came after lawmakers labored through the night on scores of symbolic amendments, ranging from voicing support for letting states collect taxes on Internet sales to expressing opposition to requiring photo IDs for voters.
The Senate's budget would shrink annual federal shortfalls over the next decade to nearly $400 billion, raise unspecified taxes by $975 billion and cull modest savings from domestic programs.
In contrast, a rival budget approved by the GOP-run House balances the budget within 10 years without boosting taxes.
That blueprint- by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., his party's vice presidential candidate last year - claims $4 trillion more in savings over the period than Senate Democrats by digging deeply into Medicaid, food stamps and other safety net programs for the needy. It would also transform the Medicare health care program for seniors into a voucher-like system for future recipients.
"We have presented very different visions for how our country should work and who it should work for," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who chairs the Senate Budget Committee. "But I am hopeful that we can bridge this divide."
A day that stretched roughly 20 hours featured brittle debate at times. The loudest moment came toward the end, when senators rose as one to cheer a handful of Senate pages - high school students - who lawmakers said had worked in the chamber since the morning's opening gavel. Senators then left town for a two-week spring recess.
Congressional budgets are planning documents that leave actual changes in revenues and spending for later legislation, and this was the first the Democratic-run Senate has approved in four years. That lapse is testament to the political and mathematical contortions needed to write fiscal plans in an era of record-breaking deficits that until this year exceeded an eye-popping $1 trillion annually, and to the parties' profoundly conflicting views.
"I believe we're in denial about the financial condition of our country," Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, top Republican on the Budget panel, said of Democratic efforts to boost spending on some programs. "Trust me, we've got to have some spending reductions."
Though budget shortfalls have shown signs of easing slightly and temporarily, there is no easy path for the two parties to find compromise - which the first months of 2013 have amply illustrated.
Already this year, Congress has raised taxes on the rich after narrowly averting tax boosts on virtually everyone else, tolerated $85 billion in automatic spending cuts, temporarily sidestepped a federal default and prevented a potential government shutdown.
By sometime this summer, the government's borrowing limit will have to be extended again - or a default will be at risk - and it is unclear what Republicans may demand for providing needed votes. It is also uncertain how the two parties will resolve the differences between their two budgets, something many believe simply won't happen.
Both sides have expressed a desire to reduce federal deficits. But President Barack Obama is demanding a combination of tax increases and spending cuts to do so, while GOP leaders say they won't consider higher revenues but want serious reductions in Medicare and other benefit programs that have rocketed deficits skyward.
Obama plans to release his own 2014 budget next month, an unveiling that will be studied for whether it signals a willingness to engage Republicans in negotiations or play political hardball.
The amendments senators considered during their long day of debate were all nonbinding, but some delivered potent political messages.
They voted in favor of giving states more powers to collect sales taxes on online purchases their citizens make from out-of-state Internet companies, and to endorse the proposed Keystone XL pipeline that is to pump oil from Canada to Texas refineries.
They also voiced support for eliminating the $2,500 annual cap on flexible spending account contributions imposed by Obama's health care overhaul and for charging regular postal rates for mailings by political parties, which currently qualify for the lower prices paid by nonprofits.
In a rebuke to one of the Senate's most conservative members, they overwhelmingly rejected a proposal by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., to cut even deeper than the House GOP budget and eliminate deficits in just five years.
The Democratic budget's $975 billion in new taxes would be matched by an equal amount of spending reductions coming chiefly from health programs, defense and reduced interest payments as deficits get smaller than previously anticipated.
This year's projected deficit of nearly $900 billion would fall to around $700 billion next year and bottom out near $400 billion in 2016 before trending upward again.
Shoehorned into the package is $100 billion for public works projects and other programs aimed at creating jobs.
__
Associated Press writer Andrew Taylor contributed to this report.
While their victory was by a razor-thin 50-49, the vote let Democrats tout their priorities. Yet it doesn't resolve the deep differences the two parties have over deficits and the size of government.
Joining all Republicans voting no were four Democrats who face re-election next year in potentially difficult races: Sens. Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Mark Pryor of Arkansas. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., did not vote.
White House spokesman Jay Carney praised the Senate plan, saying in a statement it "will create jobs and cut the deficit in a balanced way."
While calling on both sides to find common ground, Carney did not hold out much hope for compromise with Republicans. The rival budget passed by the GOP-led House cuts social programs too deeply, he said, and fails "to ask for a single dime of deficit reduction from closing tax loopholes for the wealthy and well-connected."
The Senate vote came after lawmakers labored through the night on scores of symbolic amendments, ranging from voicing support for letting states collect taxes on Internet sales to expressing opposition to requiring photo IDs for voters.
The Senate's budget would shrink annual federal shortfalls over the next decade to nearly $400 billion, raise unspecified taxes by $975 billion and cull modest savings from domestic programs.
In contrast, a rival budget approved by the GOP-run House balances the budget within 10 years without boosting taxes.
That blueprint- by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., his party's vice presidential candidate last year - claims $4 trillion more in savings over the period than Senate Democrats by digging deeply into Medicaid, food stamps and other safety net programs for the needy. It would also transform the Medicare health care program for seniors into a voucher-like system for future recipients.
"We have presented very different visions for how our country should work and who it should work for," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who chairs the Senate Budget Committee. "But I am hopeful that we can bridge this divide."
A day that stretched roughly 20 hours featured brittle debate at times. The loudest moment came toward the end, when senators rose as one to cheer a handful of Senate pages - high school students - who lawmakers said had worked in the chamber since the morning's opening gavel. Senators then left town for a two-week spring recess.
Congressional budgets are planning documents that leave actual changes in revenues and spending for later legislation, and this was the first the Democratic-run Senate has approved in four years. That lapse is testament to the political and mathematical contortions needed to write fiscal plans in an era of record-breaking deficits that until this year exceeded an eye-popping $1 trillion annually, and to the parties' profoundly conflicting views.
"I believe we're in denial about the financial condition of our country," Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, top Republican on the Budget panel, said of Democratic efforts to boost spending on some programs. "Trust me, we've got to have some spending reductions."
Though budget shortfalls have shown signs of easing slightly and temporarily, there is no easy path for the two parties to find compromise - which the first months of 2013 have amply illustrated.
Already this year, Congress has raised taxes on the rich after narrowly averting tax boosts on virtually everyone else, tolerated $85 billion in automatic spending cuts, temporarily sidestepped a federal default and prevented a potential government shutdown.
By sometime this summer, the government's borrowing limit will have to be extended again - or a default will be at risk - and it is unclear what Republicans may demand for providing needed votes. It is also uncertain how the two parties will resolve the differences between their two budgets, something many believe simply won't happen.
Both sides have expressed a desire to reduce federal deficits. But President Barack Obama is demanding a combination of tax increases and spending cuts to do so, while GOP leaders say they won't consider higher revenues but want serious reductions in Medicare and other benefit programs that have rocketed deficits skyward.
Obama plans to release his own 2014 budget next month, an unveiling that will be studied for whether it signals a willingness to engage Republicans in negotiations or play political hardball.
The amendments senators considered during their long day of debate were all nonbinding, but some delivered potent political messages.
They voted in favor of giving states more powers to collect sales taxes on online purchases their citizens make from out-of-state Internet companies, and to endorse the proposed Keystone XL pipeline that is to pump oil from Canada to Texas refineries.
They also voiced support for eliminating the $2,500 annual cap on flexible spending account contributions imposed by Obama's health care overhaul and for charging regular postal rates for mailings by political parties, which currently qualify for the lower prices paid by nonprofits.
In a rebuke to one of the Senate's most conservative members, they overwhelmingly rejected a proposal by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., to cut even deeper than the House GOP budget and eliminate deficits in just five years.
The Democratic budget's $975 billion in new taxes would be matched by an equal amount of spending reductions coming chiefly from health programs, defense and reduced interest payments as deficits get smaller than previously anticipated.
This year's projected deficit of nearly $900 billion would fall to around $700 billion next year and bottom out near $400 billion in 2016 before trending upward again.
Shoehorned into the package is $100 billion for public works projects and other programs aimed at creating jobs.
__
Associated Press writer Andrew Taylor contributed to this report.
The Senate non-binding resolution cannot be converted into legislation, it cannot be debated and cannot be passed to the house as a budget resolution. Â It's a figment of Patty Murray's imagination and pork-fat, nothing more nothing less.
A Senate budget must meet the requirements of Democratic and President Obama's laws, PL 111-139 and PL 112-25. which must be scored by OMB and CBO and not increase the deficit spending above the $1.2 trillion in cuts. Â The budget must also pass with a super majority vote of 60-40 without filibuster. Â The 60-40 requirement was written into the Democratic and President Obama's Sequestration Laws, Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 and Budget Control Act of 2011. Â This non-binding resolution fail any regular order for a budget, fail the scoring requirement, circumvented and fail the debate requirement, THIS IS A NON-BINDING RESOLUTION - A DEMOCRATIC SENATE GIMMICK - A STATEMENT OF PORK-FAT! Nothing more nothing less. Â It's not worth the paper it was printed on!
You do not have a budget from the Senate. Â The gimmick that was passed was a non-binding resolution which cannot be debated or converted into legislation. Â It's a statement of Democratic Pork-Fat, not a budget. Â Please learn to read and stop calling it a budget because it is not. Â This is a statement of Democratic Pork-Fat, a NON-Binding Resolution which cannot be debated or converted into legislation. Â Therefore this entire pile of paper is nothing but useless statements which belongs in the garbage can!
OK, now we have 2 budget bills...one from the Senate, one from the House.
Now do what Congresses have done over the past 223 years, and negotiate to find a middle ground...not a perfect compromise, but at least a compromise that can be passed by both houses, and signed by the President.
Sit down with each other and try talking - you may be surprised how well that works when both side want it to.
Gee, what will the Grandma and Grandpa fiscal terrorists think, when they find out President Obama cut their Medicare, Medicaid and pensions by 2% to 4% every year until 2021. Â Please learn to read. Â 168 Democrats co-sponsored the Sequestration law PL 111-139. Â 45 out of 51 Democrats voted for Sequestration law PL 112-25. Â Democratic Senate have not done a budget in 4 year which triggered the sequestration cuts. Â Written into these democratic laws, which passed by super majority votes, are the requirements that all budgets pass with super majority 60-40.
It's so stupid to parrot the claim that the Ryan scheme will balance the budget in ten years, it wont. It depends on unspecified savings from sources that simply can not add up no mater what, basically it's a complete fraud, just like his previous proposals.
Fortunately the public is mostly aware that the Republicans are the bad guys here. I hope that in spite of all the Gerrymandering and voter suppression they get trounced so badly in 2014 that they lose power completely. All we can do is hope that they fail to push us into a double dip recession in the mean while, which is obviously what they hope to accomplish.
@auntiejim It seems Democrats are practicing Hitlers Mien Kampf, Chapter 6, here are some of Hitlers quotes used by modern politicians, "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently, it will be believed.", "What luck for rulers that men do not think.", "By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or extremely wretched life as paradise.", "What good fortune for government that the people do not think.", "It's not truth that matters, but victory."  Please learn to read the government reports rather than propaganda and decide.  Please learn to think.
@auntiejim That will not remove the Democratic and Obama sequestration laws PL 111-139 or PL 112-25.  Any budget and spending that increase the debt by more than the $1.2 trillion in cuts goes into sequestration cuts until 2021.  Propaganda vs reading the law
The Republicans do not have to filibuster the budget.  The Democratic and President Obama Sequestration laws PL 111-139 and PL 112-25 require super majority passage during voting. No one have to do the 24-7 talk show for budget until year 2021 because it's written into Democrats and President Obama's Sequestration Laws, 60-40 vote needed in Senate!
@lakeview @NWDemocrat You want to bet me on this one.  You are the only one who knew this was a non-binding dump list of pork spending only.  This is Democratic Senators way of saying here is our cronies pork spending,  dare you to cut it, based on PL 111-139 and PL 112-25.  This bill is nothing but pure pork spending amendments attached to nothing.  The House should just send it to the president and let Obama deal with this non-binding pure pork fat!  Under Budget Control Act of 2011 Title 1 and Title 4 this pork list send to the president will trigger another round of sequestration cuts.  Pure pork fat spending would also trigger another round of Sequestration Trigger under Statutory PayGo.  The House should just send it to the president with no vote and let it trigger the 2014 Sequestration cuts, the minute the president gets the bill, it must be scored by OMB and CBO, since it's pure spending with no revenue source it's an automatic Sequestration Cut trigger.
Congress (House and Senate) need to pass a budget, go back to regular order for appropriations where each line item can be debated. Â
Washington State house members Co-sponsoring the Sequestration law PL 111-139, Â Rep. Brian Baird WA-3 (6-17-2009) , Rep. Jay Inslee WA-1 (6-17-2009), Rep. Rick Larsen WA-2 (6-19-2009), Rep. Adam Smith WA-9 (6-17-2009). Â Senate Roll call on PL 112-25. Senator Murray (D-Wa) Yea, Â Senator Cantwell (D-Wa) Yea. Â with those votes, Sequestration became the law of the land! Be proud of your votes.
The order for Sequestration Cuts comes from the Oval Office with President Obama's signature to his administrations director of OMB Office of Management and Budget. Â The automatic sequestration cuts are currently triggered by Democratic Senate not passing a budget in 4 years (requirement is every two years) and every projected Democratic and Presidential spending exceeds the $1.2 Trillion cuts in the two laws therefore triggering the automatic sequestration cuts.
@NWDemocrat  False. The sequestration has nothing to do with passing non-binding budgets. The sequestration was a result of the debt ceiling compromise in 2011. Â
@lakeview @NWDemocrat Why don't you sight the laws which make up the current sequestration cut requirements. Please don't sight propaganda garbage, please go look up the laws which enforce sequestration cuts.  If you need help, please go to Congressional Research Services, Sequestration.
These are Democratic and President Obama's laws.  Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 had 168 Democratic House Co-Sponsors and pass the Democratic Senate with a Super Majority vote and signed into law by President Obama. Budget Control Act of 2011 had Democrats voting 45 yea, 6 nay and passed the Democratic Senate with a super majority and signed into law by President Obama.  If there is not budget passed then sequestration cuts triggered, if the spending exceeds the $1.2 trillion in cuts the sequestration cuts are triggered, if the senate cannot pass a budget by 60-40 sequestration is triggered, and these requirements cannot be changed until 2021. Â
Any attempt to spend without passage by super majority and any spending even passed by super majority which exceeds the $1.2 trillion in cuts will trigger sequestration cuts from now until 2021. Â Please learn to read.Â
The Democrats want to fund more enabling programs that feed off of the working middle class. We cannot continue this. When the unemployment check competes with a real job paycheck, that is enabling a person to sit and ride the unemployment check. They lose job skills and life skills. There is a chance of depression to set in because one will lose their self worth.
We need to go old school and stop the funding of the programs for people who choose to be lazy. If we don't, soon we will have more takers than people who pay into the system. This will be the tipping point and we will become another Greece.
@ObsidianOne No they cannot, the two laws mentions require only super majority passage of budget or waiver can prevent sequestration cuts to meet the $1.2 trillion in cuts outlined in the laws.
@NWDemocrat -  I'm not sure what your comment means when you say "no, they cannot". My comment was about the Democrats spending patterns being excessive and using unmployment benefits as an example. All of this on the backs of the taxpayers. We have to stop all of the freebies and encourage the freeriders to get off of their duffs to earn a paycheck and feel good about it.
The Democratic Senate have not passed a budget in 4 years. Â The Democratic Senate have not met the requirements of PL 111-139 or Pl 112-25. Â It is Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid by not passing a Senate budget that is triggering the sequestration cuts. Â Read the law not the propaganda. Â Heck just wikipedia the two laws and google Congressional Research Services, Sequestration.
Like Roe v Wade, PL 111-139  Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (168 Democratic Co-Sponsors) Passed with Super Majority in Senate, signed into law by Obama and PL 112-25 Budget Control Act of 2011 (Democrats Voted 45 Yea, 6 Nay) Passed with a Super Majority and signed into law by Obama.  These laws require congress to pass a budget with super majority or 60-40 in the senate.  The earliest time frame the definitions can be redefined are in 2021, three presidents from today, 16 house election cycles, two senate election cycles.  No budget no spending, any spending over the $1.2 trillion in cut will trigger the sequestration automatic cuts from today until 2021.  Read the laws and Congressional Research Services report on sequestration,  it's the Democrats and the President triggering the sequestration cuts.  The sequestration cuts are ordered by the President Obama from his Oval Office to his directors at the OMB Office of Management and Budget, it's Obama's signature on the sequestration cuts and will be for the next 4 years every year!
Another budget, another impasse. How long has it been now since the US Legislature last passed a budget that both parties had agreed on and both Houses approved? The Legislature has a lot to answer for, but so have we, the American voter. Since the 1980's our Legislators have been at odds with how revenues must be spent to run the country. I can accept a plan that favors fiscal responsibility, there is a time and a place where being conservative with the people's money is the wiser of the two choices, but as we emerge from the worst recession ever this is not the time to be fiscally conservative. Cutting off funds meant to help those most impacted by the recession sends a clear message that your Legislators do not care about you.
@left-center It's all about hanging you upside down and shaking the change out of your pockets... nothing more, nothing less...
@Funky-Munky How true, unless you make at least a half million a year, the hanging, shaking and the taking of the change will always be their modus operendi.
Lights, camera and action.... Oh the drama as Congress turns on "we the people" in all things... Over-taxation, increased inflation, etc.
Hasn't anyone called the 3.4% annual budget increases in the proposed Ryan Budget, "draconian," yet?
@Getov Mylon Neither budget matters in the slightest, something I have argued each time people bring up the Dems not passing one in 4 years.