November 15, 2012
If Elected, Senator Murray Will Not Serve

Washington state senior senator Patty Murray wants to be chairman of the Senate Budget Committee.  But she will not promise to pass a budget.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) confirmed Thursday that she will seek the chairmanship of the Senate Budget Committee next year but told The Hill that she cannot commit to doing a budget.

This opens up the possibility that Senate Democrats will avoiding passing a budget resolution for the fourth year in a row.

(Democrats took control of the Senate in the 2006 election, so they were able to pass budgets when Bush was president.)

Her motive is obvious, as Senator Jeff Sessions explains:

"There's a great danger, not just for the Budget Committee but for the whole Senate when we don't follow regular order with open debate," Sessions said.  "It is very distressing to me that Sen. Reid has, for political reasons, not allowed Senate Democrats to be on record for anything."

For purely partisan reason, Reid — and Murray — have refused to do their most important duty, passing a budget.

And though this part is less important to me, we should note that the Senate is required, by law, to pass a budget.  So Murray is threatening, if elected, to refuse to do her most important duty — and to break the law.

Democratic partisans will be pleased to see Murray putting her party before duty and country.  The rest of will wonder about a politician campaigning for an office by threatening not to perform the central duty of that office.

Some of you might find it amusing to think of parallels in job applications, for example, a man who wants to be a fireman — but won't promise to put out fires.

Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.

(If some reporter were, magically, able to get the whole truth from Murray, it would probably be something like this:  She and Reid will refuse to pass a budget unless they see a way to do so without costing them any seats in the Senate.  But that can't be summarized in a brief headline.)

Posted by Jim Miller at November 15, 2012 12:53 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Campaigning and playing political games are easy and fun.

Governing is too hard for some.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on November 15, 2012 01:23 PM
2. Can you provide a link to the law which says:
1. The Senate is required to pass a budget
2. The failure of the Senate Budget Committee Chairperson to report out a budget is a violation (breaking the law)

Thanks,

Posted by: observer on November 15, 2012 01:24 PM
3. Congressional Budget Act of 1974, Title III

Public Law 93-344

Posted by: SouthernRoots on November 15, 2012 01:41 PM
4. Here you go observer, ----Congressional Budget Act of 1974----

Posted by: Moondoggie on November 15, 2012 01:45 PM
5. Like any other Democrat bureaucrat, this is no longer about service to the people, but instead service to Murray's career.

Posted by: Leftover on November 15, 2012 01:46 PM
6. Sen. Patty Murray is a discrace. Anyone with a daughter should make sure not to let them know about the CANT that is our senator. She does not have any values or ethics.

Posted by: Dengle on November 15, 2012 01:52 PM
7. @3 thank-you.

Can the original poster please discuss Title III and the Section 303(c) Waiver in the Senate and how it relates to the poster's position that the law has been "broken"?


Also, Title III Section 303 also contains a subsection titled "exceptions". It would appear that the law that the poster has accused the Senate to have "broken" is a process which quite correctly has exceptions written into the process. Is the poster quite certain that the period in question is not an exception? And if it is not, please specify which of the two exceptional conditions have not been met?

Thank-you


Posted by: observer on November 15, 2012 02:12 PM
8. Maybe this is subject for a different post, but does the poster believe that reassigning Rep Paul Ryan as Chairman of the House Budget Committee in the next Congress to be a violation of the law equal the accusation made in this post?
If so, what should happen?
If not, why?

Posted by: observer on November 15, 2012 02:18 PM
9. I think you're misreading -- the exceptions apply to when a resolution may be considered out of order. The protection being that a motion or resolution or budget bill has to have sufficient time for scrutiny by the body as a whole prior to the funds being disbursed/levied or obligated.

Posted by: Mark on November 15, 2012 03:31 PM
10. For this same reason I think Maria Cantwell did not deserve re-election; there's been no budget from the senate and she has not made any moves or stood up and complained about that body not doing its job. She has apparently wanted the $$ that come with the job but doesn't care if it doesn't get done.

Posted by: Monterey on November 15, 2012 07:50 PM
11. One thing's certain, Sen. Murray won't pass the budget House Republicans (spelled T-E-A P-A-R-T-Y) want. Maybe she'll pass a budget if House and Senate Republicans decide to compromise, but I suspect they'd rather drive us off a fiscal cliff.

Posted by: Roger Rabbit on November 15, 2012 08:09 PM
12. @10 Monterey on November 15, 2012 07:50 PM,

Yet Maria Cantwell did win re-election 60/40 over ...? What is the name of the Republican put forward to defeat this supposed undeserving woman?

Don't worry if you don't know. Most Republicans don't know.
Just remember, you can't beat something with nothing. And you've got piles and piles of nothing.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on November 15, 2012 08:26 PM
13. @10 Monterey on November 15, 2012 07:50 PM,

Yet Maria Cantwell did win re-election 60/40 over ...? What is the name of the Republican put forward to defeat this supposed undeserving woman?

Don't worry if you don't know. Most Republicans don't know.
Just remember, you can't beat something with nothing. And you've got piles and piles of nothing.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on November 15, 2012 08:26 PM
14. Patty Murray isn't even intelligent enough to know the first thing about budget's. That's why she's a democrat in the first place; No thinking required.

Posted by: Rick D. on November 15, 2012 08:46 PM
15. Why don't you run against her, then, Rick D., if you're so f-g smart?

You lot can't beat her, all you can do is whine to each other about her.

Posted by: ivan on November 16, 2012 05:34 AM
16. .


Republicans to Romney: Just go away

Mittenfreude- the pleasure derived from the misfortunes of Mitt Romney and those who believe(d) and/or support(ed) him

You're soaking in it.


Posted by: MikeBoyScout on November 16, 2012 06:04 AM
17. Hey Ivan, if you are so F-ing smart, why can't you see your toes?

Posted by: Smokie on November 16, 2012 06:17 AM
18. .
Our senior Senator from Washington, Patty Murray, WINNING Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee chairwoman and prospective chair of the Senate Budget Committee was interviewed on NPR's Morning Edition Friday


Everyone 'Has To Participate' To Avoid Fiscal Cliff

Everyone 'Has To Participate' To Avoid Fiscal Cliff

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on November 16, 2012 06:17 AM
19. We conservatives are taking a whipping herein and I suppose deservidly so. Although not a fan of Senator Murray I do like the posture she takes constantly in regard to the military and I applaud her efforts in that regard. She is though a bit of a lap-dog for the Democrat 'status-quo' and in budget matters we need fresh, new and bold ideas put forth with conviction and resolve. I don't believe Sen Murray possesses thos attributes. Even President Obama himself is indicating that we need this bold new work-togetherness plan, not the good 'ol boy 'because we've done it that way in the past' approach.
Let's get moving and appoint/elect/position people who can LEAD! :)

Posted by: Duffman on November 16, 2012 06:45 AM
20. Remember Ignoratio Elenchi?

I'm seeing a lot of tacit concessions of defeat here, a lot of people changing the subject because they are unwilling to admit that Murray is wrong on this issue.

Posted by: Jim Miller on November 16, 2012 06:59 AM
21. Haha...if you're possibly including my post in that statement...rest assured there is nothing 'tacit' about my remarks...totally openly epressed. :)

Posted by: Duffman on November 16, 2012 07:15 AM
22. @20 Jim Miller on November 16, 2012 06:59 AM,

Oh for crying out loud! Who are "a lot of people changing the subject"? Some people say you are full of it Jim.

I see above that you were asked to provide details about the 'law breaking', and @20 you changed the subject. HA!

Look, I sincerely hope that the Senate and the Congress get the budget work done for the next fiscal year begins. But the problem is not and never was Senator Murray.

In any event, the budget is only a planning tool, and it is quite obvious to anyone with an IQ over 100 that it is not needed to appropriate funds.

Lastly, I'd love to see a reference to a post by you that castigated the Republican Congress for not including 2 wars that cost hundreds of billions of dollars in the "budget". I won't hold my breath.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on November 16, 2012 07:15 AM
23. @19 Duffman on November 16, 2012 06:45 AM,

I'm curious, given that Republicans have "taking a whipping" again and have failed to regain the majority in the Senate and can't select a Republican chairperson of the Senate budget committee,
Which Senate Democrat would you choose as the best Senate Budget Committee chairperson to serve the interests of:
- the USA?
- the State of Washington?

And as an aside, Senator Murray has the best chance of any WA Senator of becoming Majority leader. I'd rate those chances as 50/50 in 2017.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on November 16, 2012 07:44 AM
24. .
And Jim, Senator Murray's leadership on the fiscal issues facing our nation are clearly having an impact on .... Republican Governors.

Some Republican governors soften on taxes

LAS VEGAS -- Some Republican governors are softening on the party's hard-line toward tax increases for the wealthy, suggesting that GOP congressmen at least be open to rate hikes in exchange for a comprehensive fiscal agreement on taxes and entitlements

I fully expect our senior Senator to stiff arm the calls for "cuts" to Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security as the cost for Republican support and to see the collapse to reason by Republicans continue apace.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on November 16, 2012 07:53 AM
25. Wow...don't know MBS, would have to examine the backgrounds and experience of those eligible and see whom I thought was the best fit. I'm sure there must be someone with those credentials...discounting that ever-omni important (NOT) qualification of 'seniority'. :)

Posted by: Duffman on November 16, 2012 07:54 AM
26. @25 Duffman on November 16, 2012 07:54 AM,

I asked because I believe that once you do your examination I suspect you'll find that OUR Senator really is the best person for the job. :-)

Would appreciate it if you post your conclusions when you come to them.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on November 16, 2012 07:56 AM
27. Sorry if my postings to rise to your standards, dude DO feel free to ignore them; I promise I won't feel slighted. :)

Posted by: Duffman on November 16, 2012 08:01 AM
28. Sorry, that should be 'don't rise'...

Posted by: Duffman on November 16, 2012 08:08 AM
29. MBS

In any event, the budget is only a planning tool, and it is quite obvious to anyone with an IQ over 100 that it is not needed to appropriate funds.

Are we really a country run on the rule of law?

The budget and all of its components may be a farce and a way for politicians to play games, but the process to produce the budget is Public Law 93-344.

The law doesn't specify the results, inclusiveness, or veracity of the budget, but it does set a timetable for completion.

Sure, we spent money before the law and we have really spent money since the law, but that isn't the point. Do our politicians believe that we are a country based on the rule of law, or is it just lip-service?

Four years of ignoring the law, and creating rationalizations - why not just repeal it?

Lastly, I'd love to see a reference to a post by you that castigated the Republican Congress for not including 2 wars that cost hundreds of billions of dollars in the "budget".

The old, "Bush did (or didn't) do it so we can do it (or not do it)" defense? The wars might have been "off budget", but that is history. The financials for that time period have been resolved and reported and the deficits (not budget deficit) do include the costs of the war. Get over it.

Finally, Obama has signed only one budget - the FY 2009 budget that Reid and Pelosi would not present to Bush. So, technically speaking, Obama's spending has totally been "off budget" since FY 2010. Just spending money does not a budget make.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on November 16, 2012 08:37 AM
30. 'Follow the law'...what a novel concept. Really, arent our expectations for our politicians too high..I mean, next we'll expect our congress-people to be familar with our Constitution...right Nancy?

Posted by: Duffman on November 16, 2012 08:55 AM
31. @29 SouthernRoots on November 16, 2012 08:37 AM,

Give thanks and praise you did not waste your money failing out of law school!

You want change? To laws? To politicians? The fact that you can't work for it shows you've got no hope.

And sir, any "failure" you perceive in Senator Murray rebounds to yourself and those who believe like you do. The Republicans in this state have not put forward a candidate who has a snowball's chance of defeating her - ever!

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on November 16, 2012 09:20 AM
32. In any event, the budget is only a planning tool, and it is quite obvious to anyone with an IQ over 100 that it is not needed to appropriate funds. ~ Mike Chub Scout

Sadly, Sen. Murray missses that mark by approximately 40 points.

Posted by: Rick D. on November 16, 2012 09:29 AM
33. @32 Rick D. on November 16, 2012 09:29 AM,

Love that you are so stupid.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on November 16, 2012 10:18 AM
34. @ 33~ Project much, Mike?

Posted by: Rick D. on November 16, 2012 10:34 AM
35. If spelling and punctuation were requirements for running for office, the Cons on this board would be disqualified. I would love to see Duffman sign a bill in Congress and add a :) to it. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Posted by: Jenny on November 16, 2012 12:22 PM
36. Everyone must participate....so Mike you believe that the 48% of folks not paying federal income tax should? Aren't people already paying taxes....a lot of taxes...paying "their fair share"?

Why doesn't the government, thus the people, cut spending? That would mean everyone is partcipating. Spending is the problem...not revenue.

MBS and others.....do you keep spending money you don't have? Do you budget? If you do spend money every month you don't have and you don't budget, then you are correct in your thoughts on this. It's sad, but I see where you come from.

If you don't, then why do you think the Gov should?

As for Sen. Murray....if she put an R next to her name she'd get 5% of the vote. She has a D, so she wins. simple.

MBS, why do you think the government should run your life? Why should they not do what they are required to do?

Posted by: Dengle on November 16, 2012 01:44 PM
37. #35 Why, did I mis-spell :), sorry, here you go
:>)
Nope...spelling and puncuation don't count...it's how well you know the Constitution. Just ask Nancy. :)

Posted by: Duffman on November 16, 2012 01:57 PM
38. If Mike Chub Scout, Dr. demented Liberal, Roger Pellet-maker, Observer, et al lived their lives by using the governments model of efficiency of budgeting, they'd be living under a bridge somewhere, a stolen Safeway cart full of their lifes belongings resting beside them.

The difference between liberals and conservatives is simple. Conservatives use logic and pragmatism in their day to day lives and expect their representative government to do the same.

Posted by: Rick D. on November 16, 2012 03:44 PM
39. @36 Dengle on November 16, 2012 01:44 PM

"do you keep spending money you don't have?"
It depends, but currently yes. Monthly. It is called cash flow management. You should read about it. There are books you can check-out for free in your public library.

"Do you budget?"
Yes.

" If you do spend money every month you don't have and you don't budget, then you are correct in your thoughts on this."
And I am correct even though I do budget and spend money I don't have. A budget is a plan by which I measure actuals against the plan. My budget, or plan, is rarely spot on. I then make adjustments taking advantage of opportunities and managing risks.

"If you don't, then why do you think the Gov should?"
See, here is where you get really confused. What you or I can do on our own is easy. If you ever have the chance to be part of budgeting with 50 or more stakeholders you'll discover the difference between the two. When I've had people of good faith to negotiate budgets with it is difficult, but we can get through it. When I've had people who did not negotiate in good faith no workable, manageable budget was possible.

"why do you think the government should run your life?"
This ain't the Wizard of Oz pal, so your straw man without a brain doesn't interest me.

"Why should they not do what they are required to do?"
You and your crowd can keep saying that til the cows come home. It doesn't make it so. Congress is empowered to tax and spend. Seems that is able to happen despite the dysfunctional make-up of the body Congress. The Founding dudes were pretty damn smart.

"if she put an R next to her name she'd get 5% of the vote. She has a D, so she wins. simple."

And if pigs had wings bars would serve buffalo pig wings at half price during football games.
A fiction writer worth reading, you're not.


Posted by: MikeBoyScout on November 16, 2012 03:52 PM
40. This ain't the Wizard of Oz pal~ Mike Chub Scout

Hilarious coming from a believer in "hope and change" and "yes, we can" sloganeering rather that established and concrete credentials. How's that Stock market working out for the country in the 2nd term of Obama so far, Mikey?

Posted by: Rick D. on November 16, 2012 10:14 PM
41. #12: Nice job avoiding the whole point of my post. Just don't think it wasn't noticed.

Posted by: Monterey on November 17, 2012 01:10 AM
42. Hey, Monterey -- I got your point @10. You're unhappy that folks disagreed with your choice for US Senator, by a margin of over 20%! Too bad.

But at least you can come here to whine about it and hang out with the other 40 per centers. For some reason, this makes you feel smart.

Meanwhile, RickD can't think of anything smarter to say than just repeating that Patty Murray's dumb. He's been doing that for years. She's smart enough to beat the best the GOP had to offer four times straight, so what does that say about the GOP and folks like Rick?

Yep, you guys are geniuses. Keep up the good work!

Posted by: scottd on November 17, 2012 08:48 AM
43. ...just repeating that Patty Murray's dumb~ scottd

Well, at least we agree on one thing, Scottd. King county voters apppear to be even dumber than the senator they keep sending back to D.C to represent this state. I would prefer a representative that has a brain of their own rather than a party robot like Murray, but that's just one man's opinion.

Posted by: Rick D. on November 17, 2012 12:51 PM
44. Patty Murray is not the sharpest knife in the drawer when comes to intelligence.

Posted by: Libertarian on November 17, 2012 01:50 PM
45. @44 Libertarian on November 17, 2012 01:50 PM ,
"Patty Murray is not the sharpest knife in the drawer when comes to intelligence."

And you know this because?????????????????

And when it comes to knives in the drawer where the analogy is to intelligence, do you consider yourself, Libertarian, sharper or duller than the senior Senator from WA, 4 time state wide election winner, Chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Chair of the winning 2012 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and prospective Chairwoman of the Senate Budget Committee, Patty Murray??

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on November 17, 2012 04:28 PM
46. It's absolutely true what @45 says - she is of below average intelligence. Patty Murray is smart when it comes to campaigning though and the GOP needs to pay attention to her tactics - otherwise how would she have won 5 terms - she is great argument for term limits, BTW. Obamanomics is a failure, so it is no surprise she is the head of the budget committee - strictly a bunch of amateurs who don't know shit or care about improving the economy but happen to be in power thanks to a dumbed down electorate - who get the government they deserve. Sour grapes ? Yep !

When Murray's demagoguery goes unchallenged, it is believed by the dumbed down masses even though it is BS (not to be confused with Mike BS). The GOP needs to effectively challenge her's and the claptrap from other Democrats if they are to have hope and get a backbone. They need to learn how to effectively manipulate the corrupted and bigoted media that dislikes the R beside their names. Chris Christie and Marco Rubio are the best examples.

There is no excuse why Mike Baumgartner did not debate Cantwell. Why did he give up before the election ?

Posted by: KDS on November 17, 2012 06:29 PM
47. It's absolutely true what @44 says - Libertarian and NOT Mikey. Murray is of below average intelligence. Patty Murray is effective (rather than smart) politically when it comes to campaigning though and the GOP needs to pay attention to her tactics - otherwise how would she have won 5 terms - she is a great argument for term limits, BTW.

Christie and Rubio are the best examples of how to manipulate the corrupted and bigoted media effectively. It can be done, if the GOP decides to step up to the plate.

Posted by: KDS on November 17, 2012 06:35 PM
48. Shorter Any SP Comment Thread Concerning Patty Murray: "How can this stupid woman keep beating all of us self-described political geniuses?!?!?!!1!"

Dunning, meet Kruger. Priceless.

Posted by: tensor on November 17, 2012 06:55 PM
49. tensor - because Puget Sound voters are brainwashed liberals. That a wet bag like Murray can keep winning over and over again is proof enough.

Posted by: SmoledMan on November 18, 2012 10:53 AM
50. Three-Phase Plan to Defeat Senator Murray;

1. Repeatedly insult the very voters you yourselves claim to need on your side.
2. ???
3. Victory!

Dunning and Kruger are optimists.

Posted by: tensor on November 18, 2012 01:05 PM
51. @49 SmoledMan on November 18, 2012 10:53 AM,

Yes! It is Obama Mind Control! Quick! Put on your tinfoil hat!

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on November 18, 2012 01:48 PM
52. @51 - Another low intelligence comment. Pure flatulence !!

Posted by: KDS on November 18, 2012 02:07 PM
53. Obama could make life easier for a plurality of Americans if he would compromise with the House GOP and make real spending cuts and combine flattening the tax code with higher taxes for the wealthy (over $1/year) and increasing revenue by closing loopholes.

However, I seen no evidence of his willingness to compromise of being in his DNA, unless it means dire political consequences and he is now a lame duck and doesn't have to worry about it. Sadly, the conservative narrative of his narrative is playing out. His walk does not match his talk and he is in total denial about his economic ignorance and demonstrated incompetence and his rigid leftist ideology, something shared by Patty Murray - intellectual lightweight. The GOP are trying to work with him on avoiding the fiscal cliff, but they are dealing with a narcissistic man-child.

Posted by: KDS on November 18, 2012 02:27 PM
54. ..to combine flattening the tax code with higher taxes for the wealthy (over $1M/year) and increasing revenue by closing loopholes.

(Not to confuse the 49% who pay NO Federal Income taxes). Thanks for fubar of the tax code, Congress !

Posted by: KDS on November 18, 2012 03:51 PM
55. It may well be more than a coincidence that none of the Swing States had Voter ID laws required, nor was it the case in WA either. Only 330,000 votes that switched from Obama to Romney in the swing states of Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Colorado and Iowa would have changed the presidency and military ballots were not counted in a number of these states either. Something is rotten in this republic. Just sayin.




Don't believe the leftist claims of this being a non-existent problem. If they had lost, you can bet they would have screamed about it with their spurious claims - because of Voter ID -which is a joke. I won't be satisfied until there is some kind of investigation done on this - fat chance of occurring under the current regime.




How can anyone in their right mind have any respect for voting in its current state ? As long as Holder and Obama stonewall against voter ID laws, elections have lost integrity. A sad but true commentary.

Posted by: KDS on November 18, 2012 06:01 PM
56. Absolutely written content material , regards for information .
[url=http://www.bagmulberryuk.co.uk/mulberry-handbags-c-9.html]mulberry handbags[/url]
mulberry handbags

Posted by: mulberry handbags on November 18, 2012 09:08 PM
57. Very interesting subject, thanks for posting.
ugg bailey button

Posted by: ugg bailey button on November 19, 2012 06:01 PM
58. Anything to get that moron off Veteran's Affairs would be fine by me.

Posted by: Hinton on November 19, 2012 09:09 PM
59. I truly enjoy looking through on this web site, it has good content. "A short saying oft contains much wisdom." by Sophocles.
How To Lose Stomach Fat

Posted by: How To Lose Stomach Fat on November 20, 2012 07:13 AM
60. Thanks for sharing excellent informations. Your site is very cool. I am impressed by the details that you've on this blog. It reveals how nicely you understand this subject. Bookmarked this web page, will come back for extra articles. You, my friend, ROCK! I found simply the info I already searched everywhere and simply could not come across. What an ideal site.
mulberry outlet

Posted by: mulberry outlet on November 20, 2012 11:50 AM