Obama's Conservative Opponents Cave-in on Debt Ceiling -- Again

[Procrustes Stretched]

/\ here is where the cons console themselves with an echo chamber

 

[jgarden]

The Republicans/Tea Party didn't duck a "showdown" with the president out of the goodness of their heart - they are in internal disarray after the 2012 Election, the fiscal cliff crisis and the fact that Obama remains high in the popularity ratings.

Conversely, the GOP is well aware that the nation is suffering from "confrontation fatigue" and that they are receiving most of the blame for the Congressional "gridlock" that currently exists.

The Republicans are putting on a brave front but unless they can attract substantial numbers of women, visible minorities and young voters between now and 2014, they'll suffer yet another "bad hair day."

 

[ilia25]

Lets see if Reid and the Senate can go another four years without doing their job and presenting a budget?

It's so funny to watch all the right-wing drones receiving new talking points This time it's about Dems alleged inability to come up with a budget.

Why in the word do you think Dems would have any trouble proposing a budget? There is a very obvious reason why they have not done so -- because anything they could come up with would be voted down by Republican majority the House. So it would be a waste of time.

Now Republicans make an issue out of it, which is totally ridiculous. The outcome would be that Senate would actually make a proposal, something similar to the Obama initial offer during the fiscal cliff negotiations -- 1.6 trillion in new revenues over the next 10 years and maybe some defence spending cuts. The Republicans would vote it down -- and then what? Who are they going to blame then?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Lets see if Reid and the Senate can go another four years without doing their job and presenting a budget?

It's so funny to watch all the right-wing drones receiving new talking points This time it's about Dems alleged inability to come up with a budget.

Why in the word do you think Dems would have any trouble proposing a budget? There is a very obvious reason why they have not done so -- because anything they could come up with would be voted down by Republican majority the House. So it would be a waste of time.

Now Republicans make an issue out of it, which is totally ridiculous. The outcome would be that Senate would actually make a proposal, something similar to the Obama initial offer during the fiscal cliff negotiations -- 1.6 trillion in new revenues over the next 10 years and maybe some defence spending cuts. The Republicans would vote it down -- and then what? Who are they going to blame then?

You mean GOP has been misleading the alarmist fringe base with misinformation?

Noooooooooooooooo, say it ain't so!!!

How stupid are the conservative members here who spout the misleading talking points?

Republicans have relentlessly harangued the Senate's Democratic leadership for failing to pass a budget resolution. "1,000 days without a budget," was the title of a typical missive last month.

On the weekend Jack Lew, who has just been named Barack Obama's chief of staff after serving as his budget director, defended the Senate by saying it couldn't pass a budget without 60 votes, i.e. without the cooperation of some Republicans.

Republicans jumped on Mr Lew, pointing out that under Congress' budget procedure, a budget resolution cannot be filibustered and thus only needs a simple majority vote - typically 51 votes - to pass. Glenn Kessler,

The Washington Post's fact checker, awarded Mr Lew four Pinocchios, the top score, for fibbing.

----

In fact, Mr Lew, while wrong on the narrow wording, is right on the substance.

It is true that the Senate can pass a budget resolution with a simple majority vote. But for that budget resolution to take effect, it must have either the cooperation of the house, or at least 60 votes in the Senate.

Only someone intimately familiar with Parliamentary procedure can explain this. Jim Horney of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is such a person. The following are his edited remarks from our email conversation:

It's true that you cannot filibuster a budget resolution in the Senate, because the Budget Act provides special rules for consideration of a budget resolution, including a time limit on debate.

So the Senate can pass a resolution with only a majority vote.

However, the resolution does not take effect when the Senate passes it. It takes effect in one of two ways: if the House and Senate pass an identical resolution, usually in the form of a conference report; or if the Senate passes a separate Senate Resolution (as opposed to a concurrent resolution, which is what a budget resolution is) that says the House is “deemed” to have agreed to the budget resolution passed by the Senate.

But there are no special procedures for the simple Senate Resolution required by this second, “deeming” process, so it is subject to the unlimited debate allowed on almost everything in the Senate.

If you do not have the support of 60 Senators to invoke cloture and end a filibuster, or prevent a filibuster from even starting (because everyone knows 60 Senators support cloture), you cannot pass such a deeming resolution in the Senate.

Because its rules are different, the House with a simple majority can pass a resolution deeming that the House and Senate have agreed to the House resolution so that it can take effect. This means the allocations in the resolution, such as for appropriations, are in effect in the House and anybody can raise a point-of-order against legislation that would cause a committee to exceed its allocation.

But this is for purposes of enforcement in the House only. What the House does has no effect whatsoever on the Senate or its budget enforcement. And vice versa, if the Senate deems that its budget resolution has been agreed to.

Parliamentary procedure: Why the Senate hasn't passed a budget | The Economist

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Yes, they caved and I wouldn't be surprised if they caved more. The current repub make-up couldn't stand up to a gnat.