In what can now be considered traditional fashion, the Senate will continue to operate for the third straight year without a budget resolution controlling its spending limits. Meanwhile the government is on track to run a $1.2 trillion deficit this year, states are struggling to meet budget gaps due to a stagnate economy, and unemployment remains at 8.1 percent. Hopefully the Senate will soon follow the president and the House’s leads by fulfilling their constitutional duty and passing an annual budget.

The Five Budget Resolutions

President Obama’s Budget Proposal – 0 Yay – 99 Nay – 1 Not Voting

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s Proposal – 41 Yay – 58 Nay – 1 Not Voting

Senator Rand Paul’s Budget Proposal –16 Yay – 83 Yay – 1 Not Voting

Senator Pat Toomey’s Budget Proposal – 42 Yay – 57 Nay – 1 Not Voting

Senator Mike Lee’s Budget Proposal – 17 Yay – 82 Nay – 1 Not VotingBA

Think about it.  It takes a simply majority vote in the Senate to begin the debate on the budget, a process so critical the Senate exempts the budget from its filibuster rule.  Why can’t they at least debate a budget?  Well, it’s an open secret in Washington that the Senate wants to avoid a budget debate because they fear it will lead to tough votes that can be used against them in upcoming elections. Budget debates open the amendment floodgates and force senators to take clear stands on a vast range of contentious fiscal and social issues by casting politically perilous votes. After all, no incumbent, Republican or Democrat, relishes the prospect of seeing his or her voting record used as a weapon in a challenger’s campaign ad. The instinct for self-preservation is understandable, but I wouldn’t exactly call it admirable.

Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who leads the Democratic majority in that chamber, has claimed that the Budget Control Act (BCA) passed in August 2011 to resolve the debt-ceiling standoff, with its enforceable discretionary spending cap of $1.047 trillion, gives him the budget he needs for the upcoming fiscal year.  Sorry, but no. Both houses of Congress and the White House have a responsibility to produce detailed budget proposals, to work through the arduous process of reconciling competing plans and to deliver an annual budget document to guide government spending for the year. That’s not just my opinion. The Senate Parliamentarian, the referee on matters of legislative process, issued a procedural ruling in March that undercuts the claim that the BCA is enough to suffice as a budget blueprint for this year. For Reid and other budget hold-outs, this ruling is a black eye.

A budget is one of the most rudimentary aspects of governing.  In fact, it’s even required by law.  Take a look for yourself:  the law requires Congress to pass a budget.  On page 926 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, it says that on or before April 15 of each year “Congress completes action on concurrent resolution on the budget.”  How can it be that Congress is able to disregard its own deadline?  Well, actually, since the law doesn’t contain any enforcement mechanisms, there are no consequences imposed on Congress if it fails to enact a budget by April 15.  Do you think you could ignore a law simply because it didn’t have any enforcement mechanisms?  Sorry, but no.

The Senate owes the American people a budget.  And the least they could do is allow the legislative body to begin debating one.BA

The proposal was a bipartisan work brought forth by Senators McConnell and Reid in a rare show of transparency and compromise. The two remarked, “We have been working for years on this budget, and now that it’s passed, we are ready to do away with politics and just do the work.”

Next on the agenda for the duo, world peace: “After the work we just put into passing a budget, three years of work, we figure world peace should be a cake walk,” remarked Sen. Reid. But, not to be outdone, others in the Senate began working on plans to end world hunger. Senator Kyl has teamed up with Senator Kerry to bring legislation to the floor that would end hunger worldwide in just two years.

Whether or not the Senate will take on more of the worlds problems remains to be seen. What is clear though, is that this body of straight forward, earnest, and hard working individuals can accomplish quite a lot when they work together.

In case you haven’t figured it out, this blog is total fiction. The Senate still hasn’t done anything. In fact, the Senate will be in recess for the entire week. No budget in three years. Happy Anniversary!

 BA

4. Political Cartoon: The Buffett Rule

3. ”Today is 4/20. This is like national pot day. And people celebrate all over the world. Although, I must say, the Senate did not celebrate this by smoking joints, for two reasons. One, it would be against protocol. And two, it would mean passing something.” –Bill Maher

2. Political Cartoon: Student Loan Debt

1. Political Cartoon: The GSA Party FundBA

In the past few weeks we have seen multiple budget proposals from different groups in Congress have been presented, considered and dismissed. In the Senate, most recently we have seen Sen. Kent Conrad propose a budget based up on the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Commission. But, because of politics and an election year, the budget will never see a vote in committee, much less the Senate floor. Instead the Senate contends that the Budget Control Act passed last summer serves as a budget, giving the appropriators limits on which to craft spending legislation.

Only one budget proposal this year, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s, has been voted on and passed – or in a literal sense “deemed passed” – so far. But, as a result of its passage, a new battle over the country’s spending has been scheduled for the end of the year. When the budget proposal passed the House, it included spending numbers below that of the Budget Control Act passed this summer. Meaning that while the House and Senate begin the process of allocating money to different sections of government – the appropriations process – the House will allocate less than the Senate. Why is this an issue? Because both the House and Senate must agree and pass appropriation bills to be sent to the White House for money to be let out the door.

To add to the pressure, the White House Acting Budget Director, Jeffery Zients, issued a statement saying, “Until the House of Representatives indicates that it will abide by last summer’s agreement, the President will not be able to sign any appropriations bills.” In other words, no more cutting next year’s spending. With this added threat of a veto, the political pressure builds between the House and Senate while they attempt to bring appropriation bills together.

Meanwhile the nation continues to struggle against mounting deficits, against a national debt that is more than $15 trillion dollars, against a weak economy and a Congress who can’t seem to get motivated to pass a budget to actually cut spending. Washington has long entertained those who put on a show and play politics, but in a time when the country needs results, Congress seemingly cannot deliver. Jennifer Hing, spokesman for Chairman of the Appropriations Committee Chair Hal Rogers of Kentucky, had this to say whentalking about the appropriation process, “This year, when the Appropriations bills pass both the House and the Senate, the President can choose to sign them, or else he can choose to shut down the federal government, put our people at risk, and imperil our economic recovery.”

Motivation can push people to exceed, or motivation can push people to do nothing. But, when the only motivation left is to avoid shutting down the country, something has gone very wrong.  Neither the House nor the Senate nor the White House can run the country without the others. And the sooner they realize this and work together to cut spending and reduce deficits, the better.BA

The Parliamentarian, individuals who provide advice on the best practices of the chambers, ruled that that the Senate could consider budget proposals for fiscal year 2013, regardless of the Budget Control Act passed last August. This new ruling opens up the possibility for any Senator to add a budget proposal before the Senate, to the Senate calendar for consideration and possible votes. Currently the Senate has numerous proposals waiting action; the President’s budget proposal, the House Republican budget proposal and more.

With the possibility to bring these proposals to a vote if the Senate Budget Committee is unable to report one, we hope that those in the Senate will seek to end their 3-year streak and pass a budget that addresses the growing federal deficits and national debt. There are no reasons not to anymore.BA

Designed to act as a broad overview of spending for the fiscal year 2013, a budget passed this year will set the tone for spending and what actions will be taken later on to fix our fiscal crisis. In today’s proposed budget, Congressman Ryan attempts to point out real problems in the skyrocketing costs of healthcare and reform a complicated tax code that ensnares more and more middle class Americans every year. The budget proposal would reduce the number of income tax brackets from six to two and reduce the rates to 25% and 10%, proposed cutting the corporate tax rate and doing away with the alternative minimum tax all together.

With no plans to debate a budget anytime soon, the Senate is poised to quickly dismiss the House plan and continue to spending without any budget. By not passing a budget this year, Congress will have operated without a budget resolution since the Senate passed one in April of 2009.

Congress has a fundamental flaw when it comes to spending and the lack of real budgets to outline where your tax dollars will go is at the heart of that problem. While today’s proposed budget is a step in the right direction, it is not a complete solution. Without real reforms to spending, and a Senate that will at least consider them, lawmakers continue to push the country further into debt and closer to the fiscal cliff.BA

The bailout is a result of the Senate barbershop going deep into red ink. Without the bailout the shop, which has been open for the last 110 years, would have been forced into bankruptcy. Many businesses, such as the House of Representatives’ barbershop, would cut wages, benefits, or hours for employees to make up for their shortfalls. Because the Senate barbershop is a subsidized group and its employees are members of public unions, those cuts weren’t made, running the shop in debt. Meanwhile, on the south side of the hill, Joe Quattrone has made House Cuts profitable.

How does a barbershop run $300,000 into debt though? Lets look at the differences between the two operations;

• Senate: 11 full time employees
• House: 3 employees, 1 of whom is part time

• Senate: Pays no rent for their space.
• House: Pays $2,000-$3,000 dollars per year for space.

• Senate: Employees are unionized and federal employees with benefits matching those of employees at similar GS levels. Salaries of the top 4 barbers are, $54,761; $70,349; $73,658; and $81,641.
• House: The top two barbers made $22,000 and $30,000 dollars last year with no benefits as they are self-employed.

The main difference between the two shops is privatization. In 1994 the House side barbershop was privatized and operation was handed over to Mr. Quattrone. Now instead of running into red ink, Quattrone is turningprofits, despite extra expenses in rent and lower prices. While the salaries and benefits for the House side’s shop are not as lavish, Mr. Quattrone reasons, “Money’s not everything. I love coming to work every day. Would you rather go to a job you hated for $50,000 or one you liked for $40,000?”

Fortunately, Terrance Gainer, Senate Sergeant at Arms, has decided to privatize Senate Hair Care Services, the official name of the barbershop. He says, “If you put aside [the employees’] livelihoods, it’s costing the government money, and that includes taxpayers like you and me. That’s the way it is,” he said. “I just have not pulled the trigger. That’s on me.”

With nearly 27,000 customers last year the Senate side barbershop isn’t going anywhere, but hopefully its bailouts are long gone. After all, all they need to do is look just across the hill for a business model that works.BA

Skirting the Earmark Ban

Let’s Take Another Look at the Line Item VetoBA

In the article the article the Post details numerous accounts of nearly direct benefit to Members or their family members. Some of the top cases include;

Spanning 2008-2010 Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY) helped to secure $250 million in earmarks. Two of which went to the renovation of Roger’s own street and another for downtown Somerset, Kentucky, Roger’s hometown.

In 2005 Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett (R-MD) secured $4.5 million in earmarks to renovate a Frederick County interchange on Interstate 270. The interchange then leads to Bartlett’s home, his 104 acre farm, and rental properties that bring Rep. Bartlett approximately $150,000 a year in revenue.

During 2009 Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) sought an earmark for an outdated overpass. The planning, and the earmark, would cost$750,000 dollars for updating the bridge, which happened to be located only 3 blocks from the Columbia Basin Paper & Supply Co. The same company thatRep. Hasting’s had ran until election and his brother now manages.

Rep. C.A. Ruppersberger (D-MD) supported a 2008 earmark totaling $187,000 for replenishment of Ocean City Beach in Maryland. Rep. Ruppersberger owns 2 rental properties on Ocean City Beach.

The fact is that both the House and the Senate set the rules. While direct benefit from the earmark is strictly prohibited, it only applies to the Member and their spouse, leaving children and parents to be direct beneficiaries of allocated funds.

While the moratorium on earmarks may have slowed down the process, members are still using “special funds” added to spending bills, to direct funds. Americans would be much better off if lawmakers spent less time looking out for their personal interests and started putting the country’s economy first.BA