Consistency: Obama budget fails to get a single Democratic vote … again

posted at 9:15 am on March 29, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

In early 2011, Barack Obama received a report from the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission he himself launched that outlined a series of significant cuts and new taxes that would have at least lowered the rate at which the country added to its debt.  Obama ignored the report completely and instead proposed a budget with nearly $1.5 trillion in deficit spending, with no serious attempts to cut spending.  It was so embarrassing that Republicans had to force the Democrat-controlled Senate in May 2011 to bring it up for a vote, where it failed unanimously, 0-97.

The more things change

Before taking up their own budget plan for next year, House Republicans pushed a version of President Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget to the floor for a vote, and it was it was unanimously defeated, 414-0.

Republicans have opposed Obama’s budget all year, criticizing its tax increases on the wealthy and saying it lacks sufficient spending cuts. …

GOP lawmakers forced the vote on Obama’s plan as a tactical move aiming at embarrassing Democrats. The Democrats have defended Obama’s budget priorities, but they largely voted “no” Wednesday night.

Republicans said Democrats were afraid to vote for Obama’s proposed tax increases and extra spending for energy and welfare. Democrats said Republicans had forced a vote on a version of Obama’s budget that contained only its numbers, not the policies he would use to achieve them.

That’s an interesting excuse.  Budgets are all about the numbers.  If the President wants to keep proposing massive deficits, increased spending, and higher taxes, those policies are the numbers. Democrats are just embarrassed that the numbers add up to old-school tax-and-spend policies, and that they didn’t have a chance to obfuscate by declaring that Republicans are engaging in a war on left-handed Basque women who use marshmallow Schnapps for medicinal purposes.

This is the second year in a row that Obama’s budget couldn’t win a single Democratic vote in Congress.  In parliamentary systems, that would be a vote of no confidence and the party would be looking for new leadership.  Perhaps it’s time for the country to do what Democrats won’t do for themselves and look for leadership who can produce rational numbers in budgets, or at least budgets that can win a vote from its own party.

 


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

funny that in my daily run through the idiot gauntlet at kos there was no mention of this vote occurring in the daily recap of congressional activity

DanMan on March 29, 2012 at 11:42 AM

The man is useless . . . absolutely useless.

rplat on March 29, 2012 at 11:46 AM

funny that in my daily run through the idiot gauntlet at kos there was no mention of this vote occurring in the daily recap of congressional activity

DanMan on March 29, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Of course not. Because that would be acknowledging The Messiah is an epic fail and they wouldn’t want to do that!

RadioAngel on March 29, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Yep, budgets are all about the numbers. As the dems know, once the money is appropriated and goes to the federal agencies under the president’s control… the programs and policies can and do change all day long.

Marcola on March 29, 2012 at 11:48 AM

The Republicans are warring against youth now? Well at least they let them live long enough to take up arms, whereas the Democrats are all about snuffing them before they even get to take a first breath.

Doesn’t seem very sporting to me.

Lily on March 29, 2012 at 10:59 AM

According to the person that they were interviewing an adult get’s $2.4 dollars, compared to minors who get $1 of government money. So the republicans war on youth is all based on how much government money is spent on them….because parent’s “adults” aren’t working -employed paying taxes and providing for their children out of their own pockets without $$$ from the federal government? It was a dumb segment, that no one at the table bothered to bring up the obvious. If you are an adult receiving Social Security or using Medicare, did you pay into both of those government programs? As a working adult, didn’t they have money with held from their pay checks, didn’t they pay into those programs, why shouldn’t they be allowed to use programs their money paid for? How are all those poor kids getting fed by the food stamp program if tax paying adults in this country aren’t working and paying their taxes? Yeah baby boomers are just selfish basteds for using the government programs they paid into through out their adult working lives/ The Mourning Joe panel lamented that adults vote at higher rates than youth…Hey Joe, do you suppose it’s because they have invested more, because of buying mortgages, insurance, and paying taxes (supporting all levels of government) through out their adult lives? The youth on the other hand haven’t been doing anything but being provide for by their parents – adults, that’s not exactly a huge investment by the youth in government.

They brought up the stat that there are less workers paying into social security for a larger group of people retiring. I made this observation in Allah’s thread on Obama and Planned Parenthood last night.

The very real economic dangers of an aging America

And planned parenthood is killing around a 1 million humans a year in the United States (replacement population)…this isn’t Chinese arithmetic it’s not that difficult to cipher, the government’s social engineering is FUBAR.

This is one example of why MSNBC comes in 27th in the Neilsens.

Dr Evil on March 29, 2012 at 11:48 AM

The Democrats largely voted “no”???

How about unanimously?

SWLiP on March 29, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Dr Evil on March 29, 2012 at 11:48 AM

Math tells us so much doesn’t it? Isn’t the estimate of 50 million abortions since 1973 used? And then you consider the illegals that have to work for cash and the segment of folks that insist on voting but can’t be bothered to have IDs.

Toss another payroll tax reduction (less revenue to SS) and the picture becomes much clearer and the outcome more predictable to the point of current reality.

DanMan on March 29, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Will lose in a landslide, despite some fraud votes from his backers. Can’t wait to see the moving vans returning to the White House in a few months.

Amazingoly on March 29, 2012 at 12:45 PM

414 – 0. Hmm. There are 435 members in the House. Apparently 21 voted “present.”

Zumkopf on March 29, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Good gravy, Ed,
How about a leadership that can pass a budget PERIOD.

Tenwheeler on March 29, 2012 at 1:41 PM

And yet, most of them would fall off the bus for Obama

It means, Obama can submit a bill that massages his base, knowing it will not be passed, so he wont have to print another 2 trillion

Each Dem can find somethng in the bill he opposes, for the sake of his re election.

They can be for Obama, while being against him

Meanwhile, they have so far gotten in temporary measures than any socialist could hope for.

In this budgetless state, while nothing is specified, anything goes, even it it goes by fiat, or regulation, or edict via appointees

And all the Dems can say, their hands are clean

entagor on March 29, 2012 at 1:42 PM

97-0 and 414-0. Basilsbest on March 29, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Could the RNC and PACS start blasting this message now, please?
The statist media is obviously going to be silent or misleading on this topic.

The Democrats have not passed a budget in 3 years. Obama can’t even get a Democrat to vote for his budget because it is so bad. The Republicans have passed 3 budgets but Obama and the Democrats have passed none in three years. Over and over and over.
Frame it as a war on the elderly-if we can’t pass a budget, Social Security and Medicare will become insolvent.

talkingpoints on March 29, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Frame it as it is. Incompetents In Charge.

Basilsbest on March 29, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Dear God, I knew this president would be a disaster but this….

Election day cannot come soon enough.

Afterburner with Bill Whittle: Merchants of Despair

Yakko77 on March 29, 2012 at 2:04 PM

414 – 0. Hmm. There are 435 members in the House. Apparently 21 voted “present.”

Zumkopf on March 29, 2012 at 12:50 PM

anybody have a tally so we can see who they are?

DanMan on March 29, 2012 at 2:06 PM

The MSM is pushing the “GOP led congress” spin on this and they hope no one reads to the 414-0 bit.

Speaking of MSM absurdities,did you ever notice when the media covers Dem-left congressional maneuvers and bills, they’re referred to as “lawmakers”-implying lofty,noble motives and stature.

When it’s Republican and/or conservative action or legislation they’re referred to as “Republicans in Congress”implying partisan,questionable motives and stature.

Media bias comedy gold.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on March 29, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Well, at least now he has one thing he can point to that he was able to unify both parties over.

Scrappy on March 29, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Obama budget, measure gets 0-414 drubbing
..now that’s REAL BIPARTISANSHIP = everybody of every party REJECTS OBOZO’s pathetic, outrageous, joke budget !!!!

TeaPartyNation on March 29, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Speaking of budgets, the house just approved Ryan’s budget

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/29/house-poised-to-vote-on-gop-budget/

NYCChris on March 29, 2012 at 3:45 PM

The Democrats have defended Obama’s budget priorities, but they largely voted “no” Wednesday night.

Who is doing the editing here? Largely voted no? How about “exclusively voted no” as I’m certain a 414-0 vote would show? There is no more of a rejection possible, so to say “largely” understates the facts and conceals just how toxic an Obama budget now, routinely, actually is.

AnonymousDrivel on March 29, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Still not ready to lead.

Chuck Schick on March 29, 2012 at 4:40 PM

What a sad, sad spectacle Mr. Obama.

lynncgb on March 29, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Under normal circumstances, I’d declare Obummer a lameduck.

But, he just goes and hires another czar and goes around legitimate procedures.

The scariest part of my day, including the last three years, starts with opening up Drudge in the am, to see what President DickTator did to us today.

After living in Tripoli and Benghazi for 7 years, Obummer reminds me of the very dead Col. Gadaffi of Libya.

Same talking down to you on tv, every single day.

Typicalwhitewoman on March 29, 2012 at 8:08 PM

I just wanted to write somewhere that Ben cardin in my opinon sucks and I wouldn’t vote for him if he magically restored single handily all the oysters in the cheasapeake bay.

So there, now I feel better.

His “friend’ commercial is a travesty.

losarkos on March 29, 2012 at 11:24 PM

Consistency: Obama budget fails to get a single Democratic vote … again

Not to worry, the MSM, and their local yahoo affiliates, will spare no self-respect in soft-peddling this item to the utmost of their ability as college-educated journalists.

minnesoter on March 30, 2012 at 12:36 AM

In other words, until, and only until, we bankrupt the MSM, they will continue to believe that they own us.

minnesoter on March 30, 2012 at 12:40 AM

House Dem’s to Lord High Obama – Nothing personal you understand, we have to pretend you suck, so we can save our lying no-good commie seats, otherwise we’d be all for continuing the grotesque spending binge! Like you said to Commrade Vlad, give us until after the election, eh pal?!

insidiator on March 30, 2012 at 7:56 AM

Comment pages: 1 2