Kate O'Beirne reports that spending bills are unlikely to be approved until after the Christmas break:
I spoke to OMB Director Jim Nussle this morning about everything that is not happening with respect to next year's appropriations. He reminded me that Congress has only five legislative days before its Thanksgiving break and then only six legislative days before the scheduled Christmas break. Not a single appropriations bill has been sent to the President and not a one in its current form would be signed if it did make its way to him. The president has veto strength in the House - and maybe in the Senate given yesterday's vote on the Labor/HHS bill. It's hard to see how these bills get signed before the end of the year. And Director Nussle, a savvy veteran of budget battles as former chairman of the House Budget Committee, explains that the Democratic leadership is "not reaching out at all" to work with the administration. It is even impossible to figure out who speaks for the majority. Reid and Pelosi appear to be at odds on policy and strategy and its unclear if Steny Hoyer and David Obey agree with the speaker or with each other. A budget train wreck seems to be on the horizon, but at the moment the decoupled cars aren't even on the track.I've always felt that basic competence, or even a demonstration of labor, is a minimum requirement that Americans ask from their elected officials. Shutting down the government crippled Newt Gingrich's Congress and I'll insist to the end that John Kerry was sunk not by his personality or "swiftboating" but the fact that he has had no notable accomplishments since Vietnam. People want action, not a line of roll-call votes, so it's little wonder that this Congress is plumbing the new depths of unpopularity.
9 comments:
While we're twittering about the new wave of incompetent, lazy Democratic "leadership," let's forget how the Republican-led 109th Congress never passed its appropriations bills AT ALL.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/14/AR2007021401574.html
The fiscal year began on Oct. 1, a deadline that Congress almost always misses, but both Democrats and Republicans acknowledge that mid-February is a particularly late time to pass the remaining spending bills.
Can the Dems possibly better their predecessors' record of action and achievement? STAY TUNED!
I'm tempted to say (without looking it up) that a majority party suddenly turned into a minority party loses interest in passing legislation.
But things were gonna be different with THIS Congress and their "New Direction!" Now watch carefully as they edge away from Charles Rangel's tax reform plan because it punishes their political donors.
The more things change.
So the Dems stink for talking up a tax bill in the first place, and then the Dems stink again for not supporting it to the max?
Next, the Dems keep on stinking for not passing a budget on time? Even though their alleged lateness is only a procedural formality? Meanwhile, the GOP got, and gets no grief for missing 9 of its 2006 deadlines? Didn't anyone tell the GOP that "the people want action"?
I'd call that begging the question, except we know the Republicans oppose handouts.
So you're fine with the GOP blowing off "basic competence" in a post-wipeout sulk? Because your best guess is, these things happen? Did the 109th GOP Congress also "suddenly lose interest" in collecting its last ten weeks of pay?
You'll forgive me for noting that the intellectual rigor of that mishmosh shows a certain... lassitude.
I'm sorry, let me clarify: the Democrats talk a big game but throw their principles out the window when the next poll comes around and/or their donors balk.
A year ago, the Democrats took control and promised a whole "New Direction" on Iraq, tax policy, domestic policy, etc.. So energized were they after a decade out of power they...passed a minimum wage hike. Bold!
When you call the Democratic agenda spongy, or their 2007 accomplishments meager, or observe that their greatest priority is to their corporate overseers, you'll get no disagreement from me.
Now, what that has to do with the 110th's pending appropriations legislation-- which after all, is only the ENTIRE PREMISE of this here thread-- is clear only to you.
First, the bills will be passed. They are always passed. They will be passed faster than the '06 Republicans passed their budget... especially considering that they didn't.
Second, is automatic annual legislation really your baseline for an effective Congress? The next time the country is defunded will be its first. How does one get to be "a savvy veteran of budget battles" (Kate O'Beirne on Nussle), if partisan delays and posturing don't repeat themselves EVERY YEAR?
That O'Beirne describes this annual non-issue as a threatening "train wreck" only shows what a losing hand she's stuck playing these days. A Google search fails to pick up an equivalent O'Beirne think piece on the critical 2006 budget abandoned by the GOP. Ah, well. Some train wrecks must be less scary than others.
That you think this non-issue is well worth dittoing (but only when the GOP is in the back seat), shows that your rightist biases need feeding. Seriously, now. Do you delude yourself, even for a moment, about Congress's basement-level poll numbers? Do you think that Energy & Water's check being "in the mail" has even a tangential impact upon the public's opinion? Feeling optimistic about the 2008 landscape for this terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad, one term and out Democratic Congress?
Go on insisting that the blame for delayed budgets belongs either to the minority Democrats, or to the majority Democrats. Your "The more things change" remark applies well to your own rhetoric.
I'll quote the Dark Lord:
The new fiscal year started Oct. 1--five weeks ago--but Democrats have yet to send the president a single annual appropriations bill. It's been at least 20 years since Congress has gone this late in passing any appropriation bills, an indication of the mess the Pelosi-Reid Congress is now in.
And this:
The Democratic victory in 2006 was narrow. They won the House by 85,961 votes out of over 80 million cast and the Senate by a mere 3,562 out of over 62 million cast. A party that wins control by that narrow margin can quickly see its fortunes reversed when it fails to act responsibly, fails to fulfill its promises, and fails to lead.
I'll go with Occam's Razor and guess that unpopular Congresses don't get re-elected. But that's just me.
It's just you, all right. I suggest you treat your optimistic 2008 prediction the same way that your latest impartial source handled his e-mail.
I don't think that principle applies when two-thirds of the country hates Occam.
Karl Rove's column says the Democratic Party:
*"had a moment" but squandered it,
*act like they have a huge voter mandate when they don't,
*won't reach across the aisle to include their opponents,
*deliberately try to score political points,
*aren't showing fiscal discipline,
*attach pork to important legislation,
*support policies which would lead to a propaganda victory for Bin Laden and chaos in Iraq,
*aren't providing troops with body armor and plated vehicles,
*can't deliver immigration reform,
*and "reflexively look for short-term partisan advantage---to appease the party's most strident fringe."
Was this "Karl Rove" column really in the Wall Street Journal? Because it sure reads like the Onion.
You got me there. Touche
Post a Comment