Political Roundtable Pulsar of Annihilation part IV

[hands11]

That's exactly right, Popper. The President's budget proposal is the first step of a multi-step negotiation. Congress ALWAYS prefers the CURRENT version of the budget that they are negotiating over. Everybody inside the beltway knows that, and to claim that the POTUS' original proposal has any relevance after talks in Congress have already moved on to something else is deliberately misleading, if not outright deceitful.

What if the Republicans had demanded a vote on Obama's budget and they (the Dems) had overwhelmingly approved it? Republicans would have screamed bloody murder that Dems were negotiating in bad faith, because they had already agreed to something else.

Slimy and deceitful. And the reason they get away with it is because people like you go around repeating it like it makes sense, like it wasn't a slimy and deceitful, backstabbing dirty political trick.

Just stop. Ok?

That was kind of harsh Zonk. I think Pops is a good dude. You added some insight into the process. That stands on its own. I think he is the type to listen.

[montestewart]

I just saw an ad for Atlas Shrugged II. It looks totally shrugadelic.

[popper]

That's exactly right, Popper. The President's budget proposal is the first step of a multi-step negotiation. Congress ALWAYS prefers the CURRENT version of the budget that they are negotiating over. Everybody inside the beltway knows that, and to claim that the POTUS' original proposal has any relevance after talks in Congress have already moved on to something else is deliberately misleading, if not outright deceitful.

What if the Republicans had demanded a vote on Obama's budget and they (the Dems) had overwhelmingly approved it? Republicans would have screamed bloody murder that Dems were negotiating in bad faith, because they had already agreed to something else.

Slimy and deceitful. And the reason they get away with it is because people like you go around repeating it like it makes sense, like it wasn't a slimy and deceitful, backstabbing dirty political trick.

Just stop. Ok?

That was kind of harsh Zonk. I think Pops is a good dude. You added some insight into the process. That stands on its own. I think he is the type to listen.

Thanks for your calming effect Hands. The point I would have clarified had Zonk not gone zonkers on me with assorted accusations of deceit, backstabbing, etc.was this:

There was no current version of a budget (that Zonk conjured up out of thin air) except for the one the House passed. The Senate, unwilling to fulfill their constitutional duty to propose and vote on a budget had nothing other than the House budget and the Presidents budget to choose from. Instead of introducing the budget of their party's leader and President, the Senate decided to punt and not introduce it. Subsequently they negotiated the sequestration and then were forced to vote on Obama's budget. They could have introduced Obama's budget well before sequestration talks but decided it was not credible.

[montestewart]

The Senate, unwilling to fulfill their constitutional duty to propose and vote on a budget had nothing other than the House budget and the Presidents budget to choose from.

Okay Popper, you lost me. I don't think the word "budget" is in the Constitution. There is, however, this minor throwaway line:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution of the United States seems to contradict your assertion, and kind of undermines my confidence in the rest of your narrative.

[popper]

The Senate, unwilling to fulfill their constitutional duty to propose and vote on a budget had nothing other than the House budget and the Presidents budget to choose from.

Okay Popper, you lost me. I don't think the word "budget" is in the Constitution. There is, however, this minor throwaway line:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution of the United States seems to contradict your assertion, and kind of undermines my confidence in the rest of your narrative.

You make an interesting point Monte.

Wikipedia has the following information - The process of creating the budget for the United States government is known as the budget process. The framework used by Congress to formulate the budget was established by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921,[1] the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974,[2] and by other budget legislation.

Without delving into the details of the above acts I do know that bills to fund the govt. (what are now called budgets) must be passed by both houses of congress before they are sent to the President for final approval. Therefore the Senate, if it wants to fund the govt., must consider and approve a bill. Assuming they want to fund the govt. they have a Constitutional obligation to consider and approve a bill. They can adopt the House's bill, or the Presidents proposed budget in the form of a bill, or their own bill. This is what the Senate was refusing to do. So technically, according to the Constitutional text that you provided, I guess they do have the option of not doing anything and let the government collapse. In the end, with the threat of govt. collapse fast approaching, the Senate and House negotiated a bill to fund the govt. (with sequestration provisions).

Edit - My original point was that they would not introduce the President's budget in the form of a bill. Instead they waited to the last minute and used a behind the curtain negotiation with the house to pass a bill. Subsequently the Senate R's forced D's to vote on the Presidents bill in order to reveal its lack of support and credibility.

[montestewart]

So Popper, you're saying that, under the Constitution, the Senate may embrace and vote on the President's budget proposal, the two bypassing the House completely? I'd have to see the language that authorizes that. I sure don't see it in the Constitution anywhere. If the president has a budget proposal, it's just that. It could be introduced by a member of the House and voted on unaltered, or it could be heavily amended, or it could be rejected in favor of another bill, perhaps one that could overcome the opposition of the other party. Once the House introduces, debates, amends, and approves a version of this bill, whether the President's version or some other (with input from the Senate permitted, and input from special interests not specifically excluded), only then does the Senate consider and vote on a bill. It's all a constitutionally permissible negotiation, since each level (House, Senate, President) has some sort of veto power, the preceding level has an interest in overcoming objections. The closest I can see to "unconstitutional" is refusal to negotiate in good faith, but even that's a subjective interpretation.

Anyway, as far as I can see, that's what's in the Constitution. The rest sounds like judge made law.

[popper]

Perhaps this is why the Senate wouldn’t adopt Obama’s budget proposal.

Excerpted from Washington Post – Glenn Kessler – Fact Checker

The repeated claim that Obama’s budget reduces the deficit by $4 trillion is simply not accurate.

By the administration’s math, you have nearly $3.8 trillion in spending cuts, compared to $1.5 trillion in tax increases (letting the Bush tax cuts expire for high-income Americans). Presto, $1 of tax increases for every $2.50 of spending cuts.

But virtually no serious budget analyst agreed with this accounting. The $4 trillion figure, for instance, includes counting some $1 trillion in cuts reached a year ago in budget negotiations with Congress. So no matter who is the president, the savings are already in the bank.

Moreover, the administration is also counting $848 billion in phantom savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though the administration had long made clear those wars would end.
In other words, by projecting war spending far in the future, the administration is able to claim credit for saving money it never intended to spend. (Imagine taking credit for saving money on buying a new car every year, even though you intended to keep your car for 10 years.)

Rather than good arithmetic, independent budget analysts called the maneuver “a major budget gimmick.”

The administration also counts $800 billion in savings in debt payments (from lower deficits) as a “spending cut,” which is a dubious claim. We didn’t realize that debt payments were now considered a government program.

There are a number of other games being played, so fake money is being used to pay for real spending projects. In effect, most of Obama’s claimed deficit reduction comes from his proposed tax increases.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html

[popper]

So Popper, you're saying that, under the Constitution, the Senate may embrace and vote on the President's budget proposal, the two bypassing the House completely? I'd have to see the language that authorizes that. I sure don't see it in the Constitution anywhere. If the president has a budget proposal, it's just that. It could be introduced by a member of the House and voted on unaltered, or it could be heavily amended, or it could be rejected in favor of another bill, perhaps one that could overcome the opposition of the other party. Once the House introduces, debates, amends, and approves a version of this bill, whether the President's version or some other (with input from the Senate permitted, and input from special interests not specifically excluded), only then does the Senate consider and vote on a bill. It's all a constitutionally permissible negotiation, since each level (House, Senate, President) has some sort of veto power, the preceding level has an interest in overcoming objections. The closest I can see to "unconstitutional" is refusal to negotiate in good faith, but even that's a subjective interpretation.

Anyway, as far as I can see, that's what's in the Constitution. The rest sounds like judge made law.

Monte - The Senate and House must agree on a bill to send to the President. The House cannot be bypassed. To clarify - If the Senate wants to fund our govt. and avoid a collapse, they have a Constitutional obligation to pass a budget bill (which they finally did at the last possible moment).

[montestewart]

I think this is just semantics Popper. If the House sends a bill to the Senate, knowing the Senate will not pass the bill, which body has violated its duty under the Constitution? I find the characterizations of these budget negotiations to be grounded much more in politics than in law.

[popper]

I think this is just semantics Popper. If the House sends a bill to the Senate, knowing the Senate will not pass the bill, which body has violated its duty under the Constitution? I find the characterizations of these budget negotiations to be grounded much more in politics than in law.

Agreed

[montestewart]

I think this is just semantics Popper. If the House sends a bill to the Senate, knowing the Senate will not pass the bill, which body has violated its duty under the Constitution? I find the characterizations of these budget negotiations to be grounded much more in politics than in law.

Agreed

Well, that wasn't so hard.

Miller time?

[hands11]

I just watched the Bill O and Stewart debate.

Watch it if you can. It was good. Funny, serious, balanced. Both men obviously respect each other and accounted for themselves well. I like that these two get together. Maybe it will help bridge a false gap that has been created.

There were differences. There was common ground. Much like it is with most people.

[Zonkerbl]

It's weird that when Romney acts like a jackass in a debate, it's ok because he won.

When Biden does the same thing to Ryan (kicks his butt up and down the floor while laughing) the Republicans scream bloody murder.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ele ... den-smile/

Wonder what approach Obama will take into the next Pres debate. Being a pushy jerk is just not his style. But that's apparently what wins debates these days.

[nate33]

It's weird that when Romney acts like a jackass in a debate, it's ok because he won.

When Biden does the same thing to Ryan (kicks his butt up and down the floor while laughing) the Republicans scream bloody murder.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ele ... den-smile/

Wonder what approach Obama will take into the next Pres debate. Being a pushy jerk is just not his style. But that's apparently what wins debates these days.

Romney didn't roll his eyes and laugh at everything Obama said. He was aggressive while still being appropriately serious and respectful.

Clearly, Biden's his goal was to try and belittle everything Ryan said to make Ryan seem too young and inexperienced to handle the VP role. While the strategy may have appealed to the base, I think it backfired among independents. The constant eye rolling, interruptions and smiles was distracting and rude. I think Biden appeared unserious.

The polls pretty much rank the debate a draw. Democrats think Biden won. Republicans think Ryan won.

None of this really matters though. The only important thing the VP debate tells us is whether or not Ryan has the chops to step in and be president if something were to happen to Romney. Ryan clearly passed that test. He's no Sarah Palin.

[DCZards]

Romney didn't roll his eyes and laugh at everything Obama said. He was aggressive while still being appropriately serious and respectful.

Clearly, Biden's his goal was to try and belittle everything Ryan said to make Ryan seem too young and inexperienced to handle the VP role. While the strategy may have appealed to the base, I think it backfired among independents. The constant eye rolling, interruptions and smiles was distracting and rude. I think Biden appeared unserious.

The polls pretty much rank the debate a draw. Democrats think Biden won. Republicans think Ryan won.

None of this really matters though. The only important thing the VP debate tells us is whether or not Ryan has the chops to step in and be president if something were to happen to Romney. Ryan clearly passed that test. He's no Sarah Palin.

Popper, I agree with you about Biden's grinning and eyerolling. As a Obama-Biden supporter, I think it was a mistake for him to do that. Well see how it plays with undecided/independent voters.

As far as Ryan being no Sarah Palin, that's a pretty low bar you're setting there.

[montestewart]

^
Don't worry nate33, I know that you and Popper are completely different people.

[Nivek]

I didn't watch the entire debate (I was at Don Giovanni last night, which was waaaaay more entertaining), but as an "independent" lemme just say that I didn't find Biden's "belittling" distracting or unserious. Rude, maybe. I saw a poll earlier today saying that 50% of uncommitted voters thought Biden won vs. 31% for Ryan.

I think Ryan is likable, and honestly...I'd rather see him defending his own ideas than Romney's. I sorta felt bad for him when he was trying to defend that turd of a tax "plan" he's been saddled with.

If I had to choose between the two to be president, I'd probably go with Ryan. But nothing Ryan did last night convinced me that I should vote for Romney.

[hands11]

It's weird that when Romney acts like a jackass in a debate, it's ok because he won.

When Biden does the same thing to Ryan (kicks his butt up and down the floor while laughing) the Republicans scream bloody murder.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ele ... den-smile/

Wonder what approach Obama will take into the next Pres debate. Being a pushy jerk is just not his style. But that's apparently what wins debates these days.

Well when you are debating people who take the easy way like GWB did by telling the American people that he was here do demand a refund on their behalf because the government was taking in a surplus..as it needed to do in order to pay down the accumulated debt, you have to expose the BS as a fairy tail.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUZGkNAUSvY[/youtube]

[popper]

^
Don't worry nate33, I know that you and Popper are completely different people.

You always seem to find the humor in life monte. I appreciate it and I know others do as well. No offense taken for the mix-up DCZ, nate is probably a better advocate for the conservative cause than I will ever be.

[nate33]

I saw a poll earlier today saying that 50% of uncommitted voters thought Biden won vs. 31% for Ryan.

The poll I saw, a CNN poll of undecideds, said that Ryan won 48% to 44%.