Will Senate Democrats Finally Write a Budget?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... er+Line%29

"For three years, in stark violation of federal law, the Democratic Senate has refused to write and adopt a budget. Over time, pressure on the Democrats has grown, but Harry Reid still says that he will not permit any budget–even a Democratic one–to come to the floor of the Senate.

But Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad seems to be feeling pangs of conscience, perhaps because he is retiring at the end of this year. Conrad has announced that next week, the committee will mark up a budget. This could set up an interesting conflict between Conrad (and presumably some other Senate Democrats) and Majority Leader Harry Reid, who puts partisan advantage above all else, even when it requires flouting the law. "

Conrad can say he did his part but I doubt we will see a budget passed. You might see a budget drawn up with lots of pork that senators can run on. "I found the money to finally build the light rail from DIA to Vail but those evil do-nothing Republicans killed it."

Article I, Section 7 requires that all bills for raising revenue must originate with the House. The senate can only amend the House bill. It is up to the House GOP to provide a budget that the Senate can agree with.

Good point Dog, Harry Reid should at least let the budget passed by the House be voted on.

If the House budget is not a balanced budget. Should it still be voted on.

Sure. I am not saying it should be passed, but the public should be allowed to see which senators support it.

Congress should be working on the end of year tax policy expirations, as well as budgets, tax reforms, entitlement reforms instead of being cowards waiting until the elections are over.

Instead they are wasting time with Keystone and Buffett rule BS that won't pass. How about fixing the Post office, and Transportation bills too. F**king useless Congress should all be fired.

Something the Dog Said wrote: It is up to the House GOP to provide a budget that the Senate can agree with.

Then why would the Senate need or have the ability to amend the bill to its liking? It is not incumbent upon the House to draft a budget the Senate agrees with Dog - such an outlandish statement is not to be considered seriously by any person with the intelligence God gave a fence post.

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: It is up to the House GOP to provide a budget that the Senate can agree with.

Then why would the Senate need or have the ability to amend the bill to its liking? It is not incumbent upon the House to draft a budget the Senate agrees with Dog - such an outlandish statement is not to be considered seriously by any person with the intelligence God gave a fence post.

If you want to keep slinging your childish insults, have at it. Since nobody SAID that the Senate didn't have the ability to amend it thanks for the usual strawman bullcrap. So the Senate sends it back; they have a joint conference to agree on the changes that the House can live with--and THE HOUSE THEN HAS TO SEND BACK SOMETHING TO THE SENATE THAT THE SENATE HAS AGREED WITH.

But what the Constitution SAYS is what Dog said...It has to ORIGINATE IN THE HOUSE. But you knew that. So take your usual bat-sh*t-crazy Sovereign Citizen crap and shove it.

Yes, all bills seeking to raise revenue must originate in the House of Representatives and the Senate may propose or concur with their own amendments, as with any other bill. The Senate may entirely gut the original bill with its amendments if it so chooses, so there is not any responsibility for the House to "provide a budget that the Senate can agree with", none at all. To suggest otherwise is patently absurd on its face.