Obama’s budget won’t drop until April 8th

posted at 5:27 pm on March 8, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

And they’ve already reneged on previously proffered ETAs, so don’t get your hopes up. From The Hill:

The April release means President Obama’s budget will be nine weeks late, as it was due by law on Feb. 4, the first Monday in February.

Republicans have slammed Obama for delaying the budget so far past the deadline.

“This indicates a troubling unwillingness to lead,” Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, said of the new delay. “It is odd to me that the president would not have a plan and want the Congress to consider it.”

The New York Times makes President Obama’s excuses for him; he’s indisposed, you see.

But before him there was President Ronald Reagan, who exactly a quarter-century ago sent his budget to Congress 45 days late, citing the disruptions and data changes forced by the late-1987 deficit reduction deal that he had negotiated with Democrats, who controlled Congress. …

The blueprint’s arrival would follow House and Senate action over the next two weeks on their respective budgets, reversing the usual order; the president has gone first since 1921. And the delay would lend new meaning to the abbreviation for the White House Office of Management and Budget, O.M.B. — Obama’s Missing Budget.

Unlike Congressional Democrats in 1988, who expressed understanding for the lateness of Mr. Reagan’s budget, Republican leaders now are not as sympathetic toward Mr. Obama, in another sign of the current heightened partisanship. …

The current “heightened partisanship”? How about the current heightened deficits? Typically, the president produces his budget first so can Congress can work off of it in starting their own budgeting process, but not with this guy — it’s yet another opportunity to lead from which President Obama is distinctly shrinking away. Our national spending is outflanking our revenue at a historical rate, and a little bit of decisive and responsible leadership could go a long way, “but now Senate Democrats want Mr. Obama to hold off on releasing his budget until they finish work on their own this month.” Perfect.

Update: Hem, hem. It seems that, with the exception of first-timers and Reagan’s one upset, most everybody else has managed to take that deadline pretty seriously.

President's Budget Submission


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

The April release means President Obama’s budget will be nine weeks late, as it was due by law on Feb. 4, the first Monday in February.

It’s OK, the law is irrelevant to a Dictator.

And it’s especially irrelevant to an affirmative action, Ivy League educated Communist.

It’s all good.

- Barack Obama

OhEssYouCowboys on March 8, 2013 at 5:31 PM

Obama’s budget won’t drop until April 8th

Wouldn’t April 1st be more appropriate?

sharrukin on March 8, 2013 at 5:33 PM

I’m sure that April 1st would be more appropriate.

steebo77 on March 8, 2013 at 5:33 PM

The current “heightened partisanship”

WRONG. 100% Bi-partisan last year as his budget got ZERO VOTES FROM EITHER PARTY.

hillsoftx on March 8, 2013 at 5:34 PM

Give the man a break, you homophobes, Dog Eater’s August vacation in Martha’s Vineyard isn’t going to plan itself you know. Bark has things to do that you lowlifes couldn’t possibly understand.

Bishop on March 8, 2013 at 5:35 PM

I’m okay with this. The closer to April 15th… the worse the rollout of his “increased revenue” plan.

blammm on March 8, 2013 at 5:38 PM

The April release means President Obama’s budget progressive wet dream

FIFY.

hillsoftx on March 8, 2013 at 5:39 PM

But before him there was President Ronald Reagan, who exactly a quarter-century ago sent his budget to Congress 45 days late, citing the disruptions and data changes forced by the late-1987 deficit reduction deal that he had negotiated with Democrats, who controlled Congress. …

Slight difference – in 1988, the deadline was one month earlier (or 33 days to be exact).

Steve Eggleston on March 8, 2013 at 5:41 PM

I took a poli sci class in college. It was Government Budgeting.

Shit … all the Professor had to ask, on the final, and all I needed to answer was:

Exam Question – Explain, in detail, the Federal government’s budgetary process?

Exam Answer – There isn’t one, and the government doesn’t give a shit.

That’s a smokin’ “A,” if I’ve ever seen one.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 8, 2013 at 5:42 PM

Wouldn’t April 1st be more appropriate?

sharrukin on March 8, 2013 at 5:33 PM

I’m sure that April 1st would be more appropriate.

steebo77 on March 8, 2013 at 5:33 PM

In the ObamiNation, every day that isn’t April 15 is April 1.

Steve Eggleston on March 8, 2013 at 5:42 PM

This is nothing more than an Obama press event scheduled for 12:00 that starts at 1:30.

It shows a lack of leadership and an undisciplined staff who doesn’t take deadlines seriously.

Happy Nomad on March 8, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Bark has things to do that you lowlifes couldn’t possibly understand.

Bishop on March 8, 2013 at 5:35 PM

Or afford. But neither could he except that the filthy bastard isn’t the one doing the paying.

Happy Nomad on March 8, 2013 at 5:46 PM

I wonder if the confiscatory State would mind very much, if we reneged on our timely, tax paying duties?

OhEssYouCowboys on March 8, 2013 at 5:47 PM

The GOP will hold Bark accounta

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Sorry, I just couldn’t get all the way through it.

Bishop on March 8, 2013 at 5:48 PM

The April release means President Obama’s budget will be nine weeks late, as it was due by law on Feb. 4, the first Monday in February.

Hmmm, this sounds familiar… don’t tell me, I’ll get it… seems like if something is ‘due by law’, then not doing it… damn, it escapes me… not doing it is… bad, or something, and… wait a sec… has… consequences?

What again are the consequences for failure to do something that is ‘due by law’? I know that I fail to do any number of things that are ‘due by law’, I will certainly be fined, and depending on the infraction, may get the pleasure of doing some community service or of being a guest of the state for a vacation to a correctional facility for some amount of time.

I’m curious – these politicians of ours seem to continually fail to do things that are ‘due by law’ – or do things that are ‘against the law’ with shocking regularity – where are their f*cking consequences, hmmm?

Midas on March 8, 2013 at 5:50 PM

bho does not have a flippen clue what a budget is or what is used for, so why would he do one? It wouldn’t matter if bho did do a budget, it wouldn’t get any vote in congress anyways? dingy dong harry wouldn’t bring it up for vote because it might mean he had to DO HIS job?

Afterall, bho is so busy on AF1 campaigning and golfing he doesn’t have time for all that presidental stuff, don’t you know?
L

letget on March 8, 2013 at 5:51 PM

the dude’s getting fitted for an asbestos face mask so when the exploding goes off he won’t be burned so badly this time

He has to be the only president that has never had a single vote for one of his budgets.

I am still cracking up about Andy Harris (?) the congressman from Maryland smacking the CDC guy a couple of days ago. That right there is probably causing a huge rewite.

DanMan on March 8, 2013 at 5:54 PM

exploding ciger…

DanMan on March 8, 2013 at 5:54 PM

Dear NYT: Can you check your archives and let us know what BO’s excuse was for being 98 days late in 2009 when Dems had control of Senate and House? Heightened bipartisanship?

Buy Danish on March 8, 2013 at 5:55 PM

Nine weeks,more like nine months late!
(sarc).

canopfor on March 8, 2013 at 5:59 PM

“This indicates a troubling unwillingness to lead,” Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, said of the new delay. “It is odd to me that the president would not have a plan and want the Congress to consider it.”

“Will he ever commit himself to a plan? He has been very effective in criticizing others,” Sessions said. “The budget is so late, it doesn’t give me much confidence. It is almost like he is leading from behind even more that before. “
====================================

Zero Plan from Zero Man,Hopey The Kicking Can Down the Road Warrior!!

canopfor on March 8, 2013 at 6:02 PM

“Will he ever commit himself to a plan? He has been very effective in criticizing others,” Sessions said. “The budget is so late, it doesn’t give me much confidence. It is almost like he is leading from behind even more that before. “
====================================

Zero Plan from Zero Man,Hopey The Kicking Can Down the Road Warrior!!

canopfor on March 8, 2013 at 6:02 PM

But he’s so dreamy……<3

tru2tx on March 8, 2013 at 6:11 PM

That chart is screwed up. Carter submitted the 1982 budget? Reagan submitted the 1990 budget?

I think the screw up starts with the Nixon-Ford transition. I have no idea whether the timeliness tracks President or year so be wary.

Dusty on March 8, 2013 at 6:18 PM

And what exactly are the Republicans doing about it, exactly? Passing continuing resolutions? That’ll show him.

Daemonocracy on March 8, 2013 at 6:22 PM

Typically, the president produces his budget first so can Congress can work off of it in starting their own budgeting process, but not with this guy — it’s yet another opportunity to lead from which President Obama is distinctly shrinking away.

I’d have to go back to the Budget Control Act but the President is not submitting just a budget. He is also supposed to submit a ledger of what was spent. I forget the details but the bottom line is that Congress doesn’t get an opinion of what will be needed next year — his proposed budget — but an accounting of the financials of the government, so Congress can do it’s job in financing the government.

Dusty on March 8, 2013 at 6:27 PM

canopfor on March 8, 2013 at 6:02 PM

But he’s so dreamy……<3

tru2tx on March 8, 2013 at 6:11 PM

tru2tx:Lol,ya especially in Mom Jeans,haha!:)

canopfor on March 8, 2013 at 6:31 PM

Don’t know if this has been posted yet.

Rand Paul OPED

He’s not done :)

Please let him attack the lack of a budget next.

gophergirl on March 8, 2013 at 6:34 PM

[Dusty on March 8, 2013 at 6:18 PM]

Ignore that. I jumped the gun before looking at the submission dates and assumed the year was the year of the submission.

Dusty on March 8, 2013 at 6:39 PM

The April release means President Obama’s budget will be nine weeks late, as it was due by law on Feb. 4, the first Monday in February.

No surprise there. He’s always been a day late and a dollar short.

As for the whores at the New York Times, meh! Does anyone really read that rag?

GarandFan on March 8, 2013 at 6:42 PM

The New York Times makes President Obama’s excuses for him; he’s indisposed, you see.

…45 days late…is a little better than 4 years late

KOOLAID2 on March 8, 2013 at 7:01 PM

But before him there was President Ronald Reagan, who exactly a quarter-century ago sent his budget to Congress 45 days late, citing the disruptions and data changes forced by the late-1987 deficit reduction deal that he had negotiated with Democrats, who controlled Congress. …

But I’m sure Reagan’s budget was a serious one. A budget for which he actually received votes in Congress. Thus far, none of Obama’s budget submissions have received a single vote.

TarheelBen on March 8, 2013 at 7:08 PM

exploding ciger…

DanMan on March 8, 2013 at 5:54 PM

banana in the tailpipe…

VegasRick on March 8, 2013 at 7:24 PM

That chart is screwed up. Carter submitted the 1982 budget? Reagan submitted the 1990 budget?

I think the screw up starts with the Nixon-Ford transition. I have no idea whether the timeliness tracks President or year so be wary.

Dusty on March 8, 2013 at 6:18 PM

It’s a function of who is President when the deadline was supposed to be. From the 1930s through 1990, it was before the inauguration of the next President. It may have made some sense when the federal fiscal year began on July 1, but that was changed in 1976.

In any case, a Presidential budget is, even when one party controls both the Presidency and Congress, essentially advisory only. Each Congressional budget uses its own language and numbers, and then it doesn’t even do more than set soft limits on the approprations bills that actually are the spending.

Steve Eggleston on March 8, 2013 at 7:26 PM

GG: Thanks for posting Rand Paul’s op-ed. It is a great follow up.

My own senator, Pat Toomey, sent out a weekly update email and had this to say about Rand Paul:

Senate rules permit a senator to speak for as long as he or she wishes – with some limitations. The senator may not leave the Chamber, sit down or yield time, although other members may ask questions. This week, the junior senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul, spoke for nearly 13 hours.

There were two important victories in his filibuster. First, he was able to pry from the Administration an answer he had sought for weeks about whether the U.S. government would use drones on American soil to kill U.S. citizens who are noncombatants. As a result of the pressure Sen. Paul’s filibuster brought, the Administration sent him a letter stating that the federal government would not carry out such activities.

Second, his stem-winder was a victory for the rights of the minority in the Senate. At a time when the majority leader, who sets the schedule, rarely allows the minority party to offer amendments or improve legislation, Sen. Paul was able to make his point as few before him have.

The federal government does not have the right to deprive citizens of their life or liberty without due process. This belief is foundational to us as Americans and I was pleased to join Sen. Paul twice on the floor of the Senate

Sen. Toomey also explained in his email what he told Obysmal at the dinner on Wednesday. Toomey is a fiscal conservative, interested in the growth and prosperity of our nation. I will post his remarks next.

onlineanalyst on March 8, 2013 at 7:42 PM

What Sen. Toomey said in re to the Wednesday dinner talks with Obysmal (and other fiscal issues):
Late last week, automatic spending cuts went into effect. I continue to believe it is important for the modest magnitude of those cuts to be implemented. I authored a bill that would have allowed the president and federal agency managers to make those reductions in a smarter way. Unfortunately, my idea was not adopted by the Congress.

Nevertheless, I am continuing to work to find a solution and get our country on a sustainable fiscal path. That’s why this week, I accepted President Obama’s invitation to dinner to discuss these issues. I am happy to work with the president if he is willing to work with us. We had a candid and constructive conversation on both sides – most of it about fiscal issues.

There are areas where we could reach common ground, but it’s not going to happen over one dinner. If this were easy, we’d have done it years ago. This is only the beginning of a process and there’s a lot of work left to do.

Speaking with President Obama, I stressed that in order to have economic growth and job creation, we must first get on a sustainable fiscal path. This means long-term structural reforms of the mandatory health care programs. The second huge opportunity that I stressed is that we must have tax reform in order to have strong economic growth and, as a result, more jobs. That means simplifying the tax code, wiping out preferences and lowering marginal rates for all Americans and employers.
As your U.S. Senator, I am willing to work with anyone for the good of everyone in our state and country, and I will continue to seek solutions for our fiscal problems.

onlineanalyst on March 8, 2013 at 7:46 PM

What difference does it make? The only budget that the dog-eater and his cronies can come up with is one with higher taxes and more spending. Do we really want to have to deal with more of that? Screw their budget.

HiJack on March 8, 2013 at 8:53 PM

Is Obama planning on submitting a budget that can actually get a vote? This thing is just a big scam. The Democrats got big budget increases, when they had the power, and they really don’t plan on giving the House, the people who supposedly control the purse strings, any control over the budget at all.

Keep in mind, the House could have gotten control over the budget over 2 years ago. How? Simple, insist on a budget from the Senate. It would have entailed a lot of negative publicity, from Pravda and Izvestia, but eventually, the Senate would have had to propose a budget. Then, in regular order, the budgets would go to reconciliation to work out the differences. The Democrats refused to do this because they wanted to keep their increased spending and, I suspect, the Republicans were willing to go along because the liked the increased spending too.

Don’t be fooled by all the chit/chat from these people, the Democrats would have had to cave if the Republicans held out for a budget from the Senate, because it’s the law. The Republicans willingly bypassed the law by signing CR’s which allowed all of this.

It’s sort of like Congress passing the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, rather than declaring war on Vietnam. Johnson got the power to bomb and none of the cowards were actually held responsible for declaring war. Just think, the cowards only cost us 58,000 lives. I wonder how many lives would have been lost if they actually had to vote on a declaration of war?

bflat879 on March 8, 2013 at 10:14 PM

No surprise there. He’s always been a day late and a TRILLION dollar short.

GarandFan on March 8, 2013 at 6:42 PM

(small correction)

landlines on March 9, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Just wanted to make you aware of latest Sequester travesty – and this is much bigger than WH tours – cancelling all tuition assistance to our soldiers. The link is for Army but I believe all the branches are doing the same thing
https://www.goarmyed.com/public/public_display_news.aspx?news_id=1670&type=5

The Secretary of the Army has approved the suspension of Tuition Assistance effective March 8, 2013. Soldiers will no longer be permitted to submit new requests for Tuition Assistance. However, Soldiers currently enrolled in courses approved for Tuition Assistance are not affected, and will be allowed to complete current course enrollment(s).

This change in the Army Tuition Assistance program applies to all Soldiers, including the Army National Guard and Army Reserves. The Army understands the impacts of this decision and will re-evaluate the decision if the budgetary situation improves.

robertb on March 9, 2013 at 11:28 AM

I don’t think you understand fully.

Congressional sources said last week that they had been told the budget was coming on March 25, meaning the latest April 8 release date would be yet another delay.

That is the quote that you should have used. The CR ends March 27. The Feb BLS data came in good. Sequester happened in March. Any and all negative input will be blamed on the sequester and Republican adherence thereof. April 8 is the Monday following the first week; which means that all economic data for March, and 1st Quarter, will be in and have a weekend of “news”. Why such, what looks like, excessive improvement in Feb? Linear narrative – Jan, Feb, March, April’s wahhhmbulance.

Conspiracy? Sure. Plausible? Yes. Bill Clinton just admitted to a conspiracy on DOMA.

John Kettlewell on March 9, 2013 at 11:52 AM