November 18, 2012
If I Understand The Seattle Times Correctly

We should elect Senators Murray, Cantwell, and company — but not pay them.

The first part is easy to understand, since the Times endorsed both in their latest runs for the Senate.  (Murray was elected, with the endorsement of the Times in 2010; Cantwell was elected, with the endorsement of the Times, in 2012.)

The second part is, I think, a fair inference from yesterday's editorial.

Partisanship has grabbed a hold of the Beltway and won't let go.  Nowhere is this more obvious than in the U.S. Senate, where lawmakers have failed to agree on a budget for three consecutive years.
. . .
In March, the Senate held a hearing on No Labels' proposed No Budget, No Pay Act, which would require members of Congress to pass a budget and annual spending bills on time or not get paid.

As everyone should know, the people responsible for those three years of Senate failures to pass a budget are Majority Leader Harry Reid, and the Democrats — definitely including Murray and Cantwell — who supported him.

The Times could take this one step farther.  They could ask Murray, Cantwell, and company to refund some portion of their benefits and pay for those three years, say 30 percent for each year.

Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.

Posted by Jim Miller at November 18, 2012 05:04 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Murray has failed as an employee of the Washington public. She has NOT done anything for WA. did the senate pass a budget. did murray vote for any budget. Ask the two VETs who walked across the mountains to beg for money for vets, because the gov won't step up or honor or take care of their employees. but murray says she support vets, another dem lie.

Posted by: PK Megargle on November 18, 2012 06:19 PM
2. Murray has failed as an employee of the Washington public. She has NOT done anything for WA. did the senate pass a budget. did murray vote for any budget. Ask the two VETs who walked across the mountains to beg for money for vets, because the gov won't step up or honor or take care of their employees. but murray says she support vets, another dem lie.

Posted by: PK Megargle on November 18, 2012 06:20 PM
3. So Jim, if Democrats don't cave in to Republican budget demands the lack of a budget is the Democrats' fault? That's what you're saying. I don't buy it. Until Republicans learn the meaning of "compromise," it's their fault. The two parties should get together somewhere in the middle, where everyone gets some of what they want, and nobody gets all of what they want. That's how a democracy is supposed to work.

Posted by: Roger Rabbit on November 18, 2012 06:29 PM
4. Democrats do not know the meaning of compromise and until they show it, the Republicans probably won't go along to get along. Hey Wabbit - this is NOT a democrary, its a democratic republic !

Staking a position is called sticking to your principles, but both sides need to walk their talk and meet in the middle and swallow their pride. Mr. Boehner is showing signs of caving into raising the debt ceiling without a fight or bargain and waving the surrender flag - politically stupid. Compromise is a dirty word by both parties today and therefore both parties are screwing over the electorate in favor of their own self-serving interests. Grover Norquist needs to take a hike along with Karl Rove, Pelosi and Reid and throw in Murray and Cantwell. With all of them, its their way or the highway, which will only take us over the financial cliff. I agree with the Seattle Times editorial.

Posted by: KDS on November 18, 2012 06:47 PM
5. Murray has failed as an employee of the Washington public. She has NOT done anything for WA. did the senate pass a budget. did murray vote for any budget. Ask the two VETs who walked across the mountains to beg for money for vets, because the gov won't step up or honor or take care of their employees. but murray says she support vets, another dem lie.

Posted by: PK Megargle on November 18, 2012 06:48 PM
6. Murray has failed as an employee of the Washington public. She has NOT done anything for WA. did the senate pass a budget. did murray vote for any budget. Ask the two VETs who walked across the mountains to beg for money for vets, because the gov won't step up or honor or take care of their employees. but murray says she support vets, another dem lie.

Posted by: PK Megargle on November 18, 2012 06:48 PM
7. KDS#4 A friend of mine a CPA went to work for the state of Washington, he said if you work there more than six months your brain dead. Reminds me of two people Murray and the guy that has outlived his usefulness, piece of crap Roger Rodent.

Posted by: Gorge Man on November 18, 2012 07:07 PM
8. Roger - You may have been fooled by that "failed to agree" phrase in the editorial. They didn't fail to agree; they didn't get a chance to agree, because Harry Reid and company decided not to present a budget in those years.

Here's a brief article, if you need an example

Note that Harry Reid does not blame Republicans; he simply says that it would be bad for Democrats to pass a budget.

Which he could have done in all three years, without a single Republican vote.

Posted by: Jim Miller on November 18, 2012 07:37 PM
9. With no budgets, a new regulatory climate, profligate spending, and "investments" of tax dollars only in green energy companies and unions, one could easily mistake the current administration as deliberately trying to damage the US Economy.

Posted by: Leftover on November 18, 2012 10:45 PM
10. You really want them to write a budget?

Make it: No Budget - Congresscritters go under Obamacare instead of the all-expense-paid Congressional Health Care (for life) plan.

I guarantee they will be running to pass a budget!

Posted by: Greg on November 19, 2012 11:05 AM
11. More bleating about 'failure to pass a budget' from bitter loser Republicans.

Here is an article from that leftist rag, The Economist (probably considered a Trotskyite propaganda mill around here, but still...)

An excerpt:

So yes, the Senate could pass a budget resolution, but without the cooperation of the house or 60 votes, that resolution would not take effect; it would be an empty gesture.

You guys need to stop whining over your substance-free talking points (like this one, or BENNGGHHHHAAAAZZZZIIII!!!!) and start talking about, you know, actual solutions to the nation's actual problems.

That, or 2016, 2020, 2024...are going to be like "Groundhog Day 2012" for you guys, Karl Rove freaking out on FoxNoise over and over and over....

Posted by: Dr. Liberal on November 19, 2012 11:18 AM
12. Basing senators' pay on whether they'd passed a budget would hurt our national interest. It would incent senators to put their personal interest (getting paid) ahead of the national interest (what they believe to be good policy). It would favor independently wealthy senators over those who need to work for a living. And it would probably favor Democrats since the smaller number of Republican senators would feel more pressure to vote against their beliefs in order to get paid.

And as the Economist article points out, given the current House, it wouldn't matter one bit if the Senate passed a budget. If you're going to base senators' pay on performance, there are dozens of more meaningful performance metrics to base it on.

Or how about this idea: let the American people vote on the performance of their senators. Elections! What a great idea! Jim, why don't you trust the voters? Have you given up all pretense of logic in favor of taking silly potshots in faux earnest posts liks this?

Posted by: Bruce on November 19, 2012 11:36 AM
13.
Have you given up all pretense of logic in favor of taking silly potshots in faux earnest posts liks this?

Yes.

Another edition of simple answers to simple questions.

Posted by: Dr. Liberal on November 19, 2012 11:43 AM
14. @13 - What is your point besides the one on the tip of your tinfoil hat ? The post is pretty straightforward and you are the one taking potshots at the messenger !

Posted by: KDS on November 19, 2012 12:15 PM
15. @14
The point is manifest.

The original post was a tired retread of the meaningless-beyond-opportunism right-wing talking point about the Senate not passing a budget and how the Democrats are thereby destroying the country, seasoned with some ludicrous suggestion that we therefore dock Senators' pay over this. With an obvious 'tell' thrown in - the implicit contention that the Blethen rag is anything but a Republican mouthpiece that merely avoids being associated with the wingiest of the right - like Baumgartner.

My post was a link to The Economist, a post totally debunking the author's original contention.

The right wing talking point about the Senate not passing a budget is therefore refuted.

I saw this as an opportunity for all of you rightists to now address a real problem facing the country.

Do with it what you will.

BTW, what do you guys think about Sarah Palin for President in '16?

Posted by: Dr. Liberal on November 19, 2012 01:31 PM
16. So yes, the Senate could pass a budget resolution, but without the cooperation of the house or 60 votes, that resolution would not take effect; it would be an empty gesture.

Let me rewrite that section for the real world:

So yes, the House could pass multiple budget resolutions, but without the cooperation of the Senate or 60 votes, that resolution would not take effect; it would be an empty gesture.

The Senate has never passed their version of a budget to allow the process to go to a conference committee. Without the Senate budget and a conference committee, no negotiations or compromise are enabled. The budget resolution to allow this process to move forward is not subject to the filibuster.

Therefore, it is the Senate's fault for no budget being produced. Since Harry Reid and the Democrats have been in control of the Senate during that time, it is their fault. Additionally, the Democrats had a super majority on the Senate, negating a filibuster, and they still wouldn't produce a budget.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on November 19, 2012 01:46 PM
17. @14 - My post was a link to The Economist, a post totally debunking the author's original contention.

The right wing talking point about the Senate not passing a budget is therefore refuted.

Not buying it.

In order for the process to hit the "deeming" stage, which might bring it into a filibuster window, the Senate still has to pass a budget resolution.

The Democrat Senate under the "leadership" of Harry Reid is apparently quaking in its boots totally terrified at the thought of having to pass a budget and negotiate differences with the House that might eventually end up with one disgruntled Senator filibustering it.

Until they pass a budget resolution, there is no way a budget can be filibustered.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on November 19, 2012 02:06 PM
18. This goes to show you how well thought out the Times recommendations are. If nothing else, their (Murray, Cantvotewell) job is to pass a budget. They have failed miserably at the basics but they are good enough for a recommendation for another term?

With organizations in positions of influence like this, no wonder this country is sliding down the pipe.

Posted by: Oscarphone on November 19, 2012 02:48 PM
19. All of you posters that think that the GOP is the problem with "compromise", don't forget that long before the GOP gave up on compromising, Obama told them "I won, get over it." HE'S the one who can't compromise and the Demorats in the House and Senate take their lead from him. He's the leader of the party.

Posted by: Oscarphone on November 19, 2012 02:52 PM
20. We should elect Senators Murray, Cantwell, and company -- but not pay them.

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 6, first sentence:

"The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States."

The brilliance of the political and legal knowledge constantly displayed here continues to inspire wonder in us liberals.

Specifically, we wonder how you guys actually manage to tie your shoes.

Posted by: tensor on November 19, 2012 03:08 PM
21. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law,

$1 is "a Compensation". If the No Pay Act were passed, it would count for the "to be ascertained by Law".

But you are right, $0 might not work.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on November 19, 2012 03:20 PM
22. Op-Ed Contributor
Paul Ryan's Fairy-Tale Budget Plan
By DAVID A. STOCKMAN
Published: August 13, 2012

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/opinion/paul-ryans-fairy-tale-budget-plan.html

Take a look at this article by Reagan's former budget director. If congress gives the Senate a bogus plan to work with, what do you expect?

Cut the crapola, please.

Posted by: red hiney monkey on November 19, 2012 03:41 PM
23. Roots --

Yes, $1 per annum would be legal, and given that many senators (including Ms. Cantwell) are millionaires, the proposal in this post would have little effect.

It's noteworthy that when confronted with a "problem" which exists only as a Republican talking point, the proposed "solution" does not involve actually getting to the root of the real problem -- the teabagger obstructionists in our House, whom we voters resoundingly rejected in our recent elections -- but instead advocates an idea so obviously bad as to be blatantly un-Constitutional on its face. Instead of using this editorial to show how out-of-touch the Seattle MSM really is, SoundPolitics agrees with it! To paraphrase Ms. Rand, you guys lack even the courage of your own malice.

And I have to admire, both here and in other recent posts, your ability to re-write reality. When The Economist refutes your talking point, you simply re-write their statement to conform with your talking point! Do tell us how well your approach worked in our recent elections, hm?

Posted by: tensor on November 19, 2012 04:06 PM
24. tensor @ 23 -

I read the Economist article. I also read all of the comments. I don't think their article refutes as much as you obviously do.

My rewrite of the paragraph is a reflection of reality. It has happened this way. If you think that is not true, do tell.

The House has passed several budget resolutions. The Senate did not act on those and the Senate did not produce their own budget resolution. What part of those statements are not true?

I do not believe I am rewriting reality, but I do believe that I am confronting you with truths you do not want to acknowledge.

Since you are so proud of your side's election prowess, will you now demand your party leader(s) to take ownership of the economy and the $16 trillion debt, ~8% unemployment, ~$1 trillion deficits, and the escalating unrest in the Middle East? Will you stop blaming others?

Didn't think so.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on November 19, 2012 04:59 PM
25. .
Frankly, there's no hope conservatives.
Obama has deh MIND CONTROL!
AKORN ZOMBIES will rise and deliver the Obamalypse! Nothing can stop it!

ooga booga wingnuts!

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on November 19, 2012 05:16 PM
26. I don't think their article refutes as much as you obviously do.

Then why did you make a failed attempt to re-write it?

If you think that is not true, do tell.

I'm not the one trying to put words in the mouth of The Economist.

.. .I am confronting you with truths you do not want to acknowledge.

Then you could start with getting your facts right:

... will you now demand your party leader(s)...

I've never been a member of any political party.

However, in the same vein, we've seen very few statements of the form, "I voted for W., and I'm here to lecture you on good policy." Wonder why that is? Didn't think so.

Posted by: tensor on November 19, 2012 05:21 PM
27. .
Jim Miller -
"The Times could take this one step farther. They could ask Murray, Cantwell, and company to refund some portion of their benefits and pay for those three years, say 30 percent for each year."

Heck, why stop there? The ST should go all out and place adverts in their paper for their opponents when the next election comes round ... if they're still in business.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on November 19, 2012 05:33 PM
28. Tensor, you used a lot of words to say nothing.

You say I am wrong or that I make something up, but you refuse to prove it.

What is not correct about the paragraph I re-wrote? Is it not true that the Senate and House must cooperate to pass a budget bill, the Senate can't do it without the help of the House and vice-versa? Is it not true that the House has passed several budget bills that have been DOA in the Senate?

Geez, Democrats act as if they have been hypnotized so that if someone whispers the word filibuster, they refuse to do anything.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on November 19, 2012 05:46 PM
29. After endless caterwauling about how "the liberal media" promotes so many bad ideas and candidates, how does SP react to A Really Bad Idea from the local MSM? By doubling down on teh stoopid:

They could ask Murray, Cantwell, and company to refund some portion of their benefits...

Complete with a number Jim just pulled straight from his bum:

...say 30 percent for each year.

Using such "logic", and, of course, completely ignoring that silly little piece of paper, quoted above, which we once revered as The Constitution of The United States, how much money should we recover from the House Republicans, for their cutting funding that protected, among other places, our consulate in Benghazi:

"Republicans have sought to cut hundreds of millions of dollars slated for security at U.S. embassies and consulates since gaining control of the House in 2011."

Go ahead, Roots, re-write it. Make the teabaggers the champions of Benghazi fortifications. Once you re-write it, your miserable hack-job magically becomes true, correct?

Posted by: tensor on November 19, 2012 06:00 PM
30. Re-write:

I, Tensor, have lost the argument about the Senate's refusal to produce a budget resolution in the last three years, so I am now going to create a straw man argument and move the discussion into a direction where I can presume show my superiority over the unwashed conservative masses.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on November 19, 2012 06:08 PM
31. @29 - You doth protest too much and make far too many ASS-umptions. I took this post as a spoof on the leftist media, but you have no sense of humor. Instead you try to obfuscating and name call (I could refer to your ilk as Occu-poopers). Do you like to teabag (you must since you talk about it a lot) ?

Since you make no real salient points. Why don't you just post ?

"Frankly, there's no hope conservatives.
Obama has deh MIND CONTROL!
AKORN ZOMBIES will rise and deliver the Obamalypse! Nothing can stop it!"

and be done with it. Of course, Mike BS has nothing of substance to back his verbal vomit up with.

Using such "logic", and, of course, completely ignoring that silly little piece of paper, quoted above, which we once revered as The Constitution of The United States, how much money should we recover from the House Republicans, for their cutting funding that protected, among other places, our consulate in Benghazi:

"Republicans have sought to cut hundreds of millions of dollars slated for security at U.S. embassies and consulates since gaining control of the House in 2011."

Logic you say ? Another red herring. Where has this actually come to pass ? Why don't conclude your demagogic rant with Neener-neener ?

You and Mikey bore me...

Posted by: KDS on November 19, 2012 06:19 PM
32. Dude, your argument is not with me. It's with your constant, groundless claims that your re-writes of reality are somehow better than reality itself. FAIL.

Why are you bothering with liberal trolls in the basement of a no-influence local blog, when you are completely qualified to write for The Economist? Submit an application there, already, and stop denying our world the benefits of your magnificent wisdom.

Posted by: tensor on November 19, 2012 06:22 PM
33. @30 SouthernRoots on November 19, 2012 06:08 PM,

I don't know if conservatives wash or not, but you are not anything close to being "masses" in this state and until your thinking stops smelling like unwashed socks your crazy opinions shall neither be taken seriously nor be given any credence out of sympathy.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on November 19, 2012 06:25 PM
34. I have not checked in here for some time because I thought it was getting boring, but the last few posts are great quality so I guess I will add you back to my daily bloglist. You deserve it my friend :)
chanel purse prices http://chanelpurseprices.v5s7.com

Posted by: chanel purse prices on November 19, 2012 06:28 PM
35. To paraphrase Tensor, "whatever you say is false because I have already declared it so. My news sites and columnists have refuted everything you have ever said, or will ever say.

My only job is to keep reminding you of this, without actually engaging in a true discussion."

See? It's easy to say nothing.

I bother because I care. I don't need to share my wisdom with the world, my job is to share it with one lefty at a time. Might take longer, but that's my prerogative.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on November 19, 2012 06:32 PM
36. MBS - one form of lefty I don't have time for is the resident pedophile.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on November 19, 2012 06:33 PM
37. Logic you say ? Another red herring. Where has this actually come to pass ?

I provided the link. Here's some more from it:

"Democrats enacted $1.803 billion for embassy security, construction and maintenance for fiscal 2010, when they still controlled the Senate and House. After Republicans took control of the House and picked up six Senate seats, Congress reduced the enacted budget to $1.616 billion in fiscal 2011, and to $1.537 billion for 2012.

"The administration requested $1.801 billion for security, construction and maintenance for fiscal 2012; House Republicans countered with a proposal to cut spending to $1.425 billion. The House agreed to increase it to $1.537 billion after negotiations with the Senate. "

So, the teabaggers in the House had to compromise (gasp!) with President Obama and the Senate, but still succeeded in reducing our overseas security funds. For some reason, they were not touting this victory, even as Jim (and others) were tirelessly flogging BENGHAZI! before election day. Go figure.

Posted by: tensor on November 19, 2012 06:33 PM
38. Might take longer, but that's my prerogative.

"I could so totally kick your butt, but I'm doing you a huge favor by not doing so."

Didn't work on the elementary-school playground, and does not work here. Gawd, you people are slow learners.

My news sites and columnists have refuted everything you have ever said, or will ever say.

Then why did you take it seriously enough to attempt a groundless re-write? Again, your argument is not with me.

Posted by: tensor on November 19, 2012 06:39 PM
39. Tensor - I'll play.

Did the legislation detail where the money would go, or was the disbursement left up to the Executive branch? Does the peace dividend that Obama's foreign policy been generating extend to embassies or is that only count for the military?

Posted by: SouthernRoots on November 19, 2012 06:40 PM
40. Mike the BSer @33: Soon your "masses" will be the stoner crowd who come for the legal weed and stay for the state freebies. As soon as my daughter graduates from high school in a few years, I can't wait to shake off the dirt from this Occu-pooper state of know-nothings like you and your ilk. Soon enough this state will be bankrupt like Cali, just without the sunshine.

Posted by: It Takes a Village to Convene a Grand Jury on November 19, 2012 06:41 PM
41. Look, you really don't care how much is spent or cut - cut the faux outrage and BS !

Tea Party in the House & Occupoopers in the Senate - if that's how you want to frame it. What is wrong with negotiations ? You and your ilk just like to whine away...

What about the fiscal cliff ? That matters much more. As far as I am concerned, let them raise taxes - on those making over $1M and cut at least 4 times the amount of revenue increases, but don't be surprised if less revenue is increased by higher taxes. Economics is not the Democrats strong suite - its more about bragging about not compromising, which the GOP now likes. In weak or fragile economies higher taxes often does not increase revenues and is more likely to do so when the economy is strong as when Clinton was President.

Posted by: KDS on November 19, 2012 06:45 PM
42. Tensor - you really are dense. You fail to see the logic of my re-write, that the Economists paragraph could be reversed and still be true. Congress can pass no laws without the Senate and House cooperating with each other.

Though revenue bills must originate in the House, all other bills (including budget bills) can originate in either chamber. Failure of one chamber to act upon a bill will necessarily bring the bill to a halt.

The House has produced budget bills and sent them to the Senate. The Senate has not produced their own budget bills and they have not rewritten the House bills and sent them back for committee work.

Heck, if I were in the Senate, you can bet I would have rewritten them.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on November 19, 2012 06:49 PM
43. More about the fiscal cliff - I agree with this take;

By Marc A. Thiessen,

Here's an idea for how to start the New Year in a bipartisan fashion: Let's go over the fiscal cliff!

Today, the only ones in Washington who advocate fiscal cliff-diving are liberal Democrats. It's time for conservatives to join them. Letting the Bush tax cuts expire will strengthen the GOP's hand in tax negotiations next year, and it may be the only way Republicans can force President Obama and Senate Democrats to agree to fundamental tax reform.

Loading...
Comments
Weigh InCorrections?
Personal Post
Marc A. Thiessen

A fellow with the American Enterprise Institute, Thiessen writes a weekly column for The Post.
Archive
Follow on TwitterFacebookRSS
Gallery

Tom Toles gallery for November: A gallery of his latest cartoons.
You may also like...

Charles Krauthammer
The way forward

George F. Will
Regulators above the law
Right now, Democrats believe they have the upper hand in the fiscal standoff. Patty Murray (Wash.) -- the fourth-ranking Senate Democrat and the leading champion on Capitol Hill for going over the fiscal cliff -- says that Republicans are "in a real box" because "if they do nothing, those increased taxes [they oppose] will take place." If Republicans dig in, says Murray, all Democrats need to do is "go past the December 31st deadline" and let the tax increases happen automatically.

There's one problem with her scenario: While the Bush tax cuts expire on Dec. 31, so do a lot of tax policies the Democrats support. For example:

●The 10 percent income tax bracket would disappear, so the lowest tax rate would be 15 percent.

●The employee share of the Social Security payroll tax would rise from 4.2 percent to 6.2 percent.

●An estimated 33 million taxpayers -- many in high-tax blue states -- would be required to pay the alternative minimum tax, up from 4 million who owed it in 2011.

●The child tax credit would be cut in half, from $1,000 today to $500, and would no longer be refundable for most.

●Tax preferences for alternative fuels, community development and other Democratic priorities would go away.

●And the expansions of the earned income tax credit and the dependent care credit would disappear as well.

Letting these tax policies expire would level the playing field for Republicans in tax negotiations next year. Instead of being in a "box," Republican leaders would have leverage again -- something the Democrats want and would have to make concessions to get.

Going over the fiscal cliff would help the GOP in another way: It would save Republicans from having to break their pledge not to raise taxes. If GOP leaders hold the line on taxes this fall, and the Bush tax cuts expire despite their best efforts, it would not harm their reputation as the party of low taxes. But if Republicans vote proactively to raise taxes as part of a "grand bargain," the GOP brand would be irreparably damaged. Raising taxes and losing a fight to stop automatic tax increases are two different things.

Moreover, if the Bush tax cuts expire, the baseline for future negotiations would be reset. A bipartisan agreement would be within reach that reforms and simplifies the tax code, with a top rate lower than the Clinton rate but higher than the Bush one. Instead of Republicans being under pressure to raise taxes, Obama and the Democrats would be under pressure to reduce the top rate from the Clinton level as part of an eventual deal.

For the GOP, this would be far preferable to the current scenario. Right now, Democrats are demanding that Republicans raise taxes while Republicans are demanding that Democrats agree to cut Social Security and Medicare spending. A grand bargain this fall, then, would mean that Republicans get to raise revenue from their own supporters (small-business job creators) in exchange for cutting spending for their own supporters (seniors). Genius! Much better to wipe the slate clean, and start over with more leverage for fundamental tax reform and structural entitlement reform.

What if we go off the fiscal cliff and Democrats still won't negotiate? Then Republicans should make clear that they are willing to live with the higher, Clinton-era rates. It will be hard for the Democrats to paint such a scenario as an economic disaster, because letting the Bush tax cuts expire simply restores the status quo during the Clinton administration. During the campaign, President Obama repeatedly told us how he wants to "go back to the income tax rates we were paying under Bill Clinton -- back when our economy created nearly 23 million new jobs, the biggest budget surplus in history, and plenty of millionaires to boot." Well if the Clinton tax rates were so great, let's go back to all of the Clinton rates and relive the booming '90s.

At least going back to the Clinton rates would put more people on the tax rolls, and give more Americans a stake in constraining government spending. It would also force all Americans -- including the middle class -- to pay for growing government services, instead of borrowing the money from China and passing the costs on to the next generation.

Americans had a choice this November, and they voted for bigger government. Rather shielding voters from the consequences of their decisions, let them pay for it.

Posted by: KDS on November 19, 2012 06:50 PM
44. @40 It Takes a Village to Convene a Grand Jury on November 19, 2012 06:41 PM,

Freebies? You mean like that secondary education you're acquiring for your daughter funded by the makers?

You wingnuts are too funny. Be sure to drop us a line from ??? Where you going to "in a few YEARS"? LOL

OBAMA MIND CONTROL, there's no hiding from it!

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on November 19, 2012 06:54 PM
45. Though revenue bills must originate in the House,

Exactly. And if the teabaggers there pass a reality-averse budget bill, the Senate is not required to take it seriously. You've hit upon the dishonesty lurking behind this post: that the Senate, which is -- by our Constitution -- reactive to the actions of the House, is here being faulted for not being active enough to pass a stand-alone bill. Even if the Senate did pass a realistic bill, it would not mean anything, due to the reality-averse teabaggers who controlled the House until the voters tired of such nonsense.

Did the legislation detail where the money would go[?]

Yes. From the link:

"But House Republicans did not meet the president's request for the department's worldwide security protection program,"

You're welcome. Thanks for playing. Better luck next reality. Get me re-write!

Posted by: tensor on November 19, 2012 06:58 PM
46. tensor - Obama has written a couple of "reality-averse budget bill[s]" that did not gain a single vote in the whole Congress. Per you, the House has done the same.

The Senate has not produced any budget - reality-averse or otherwise. That was the whole point of this post and the reference Public Law 93-344.

Your response to the security funding was non-responsive. I asked if the bill that the Democrats agreed to and that Obama signed actually contained a specific list detailed exactly where the money was to be spent.

I'm curious over whether the bill was that specific, or if the actual specifics of the distribution were left to the discretion of the Executive branch. I was just asking if you knew.

Apparently, you don't.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on November 19, 2012 07:12 PM
47. OBAMA MIND CONTROL, there's no hiding from it!

Posted by MikeBoyScout at November 19, 2012 06:54 PM

It's obviously affecting you and you're also a wingnut and proud of it - as you bray loudly. (Wingnuts can either be left or right)

Posted by: KDS on November 19, 2012 07:41 PM
48. I asked if the bill that the Democrats agreed to and that Obama signed actually contained a specific list detailed exactly where the money was to be spent.

That's nice. Why don't you do some actual research, instead of making numerous failed attempts to re-write reality to match your claims?

The teabaggers in the House rated the security of our citizens overseas as less of a priority than Donald Trump's tax cuts. No amount of yelling BENGHAZI!!1! will change that.

Posted by: tensor on November 19, 2012 07:42 PM
49. @48 Donald Trump's tax cuts - that's rich. You gravitate toward the government moochers. Why don't you stop chasing your tail ?

Don't worry, The Occu-poopers in the Senate will make sure that we barrel over the fiscal cliff, like the leftist jackasses that they are... Obama - one hell of a leader from the brownnosing rear.

Posted by: KDS on November 19, 2012 07:53 PM
50. OK, would "the Koch Bros. tax cuts" work better for you?

You gravitate toward the government moochers.

Yes, we need to clean the teabaggers out of our House. Good to read you agree with the recent election results.

Posted by: tensor on November 19, 2012 08:00 PM
51. H.R.2055 "cutting" the funds the president requested - Democrats, 149 aye; Republicans, 147 aye. Democrats, 23 Nay; Republicans 86 Nay.

Republicans voted against this bill almost 4-1 over Democrats.

No Embassy specific allocations made by Congress.

Passed as part of Public Law 112-74.

No Embassy specific allocations made by Congress.

non-tensor approved source

Dept of State 2013 Budget request

No consulate or embassy specific funding appears in the bill, just lump sum funds turned over to the Executive branch for disbursement.

Was that what you weren't looking for?

Posted by: SouthernRoots on November 19, 2012 08:16 PM
52. "OK, would "the Koch Bros. tax cuts" work better for you?"

Meaningless drivel from idiots. There would be no tax cuts - no tax increases for lower and middle incomes. Your talking points need refining.

You gravitate toward the government moochers.

"Yes, we need to clean the teabaggers out of our House. Good to read you agree with the recent election results."

Posted by tensor at November 19, 2012 08:00 PM

Yes, you side with the moochers with the Occu-poopers. With all due respect, your head is up your orifice, wingnut !

Posted by: KDS on November 19, 2012 09:46 PM