Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Examiner)   The law that requires Congress to pass an annual budget has no enforcement mechanism, which is why Harry Reid isn't in the stocks in the public square being pelted with vegetables   (washingtonexaminer.com) divider line 42
    More: Obvious, Harry Reid, congresses, Republican, Budget Planning, enforcement mechanism, stockpiles, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, vegetables  
•       •       •

568 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Jan 2013 at 2:58 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



42 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-09 12:46:02 PM  
The reason is that the Constitution reserves discipline of Congress to each respective House. So, the question is, what should the enforcement mechanism be?

I propose that it be done as an alteration of the rules of the House and Senate, allowing that after April 15th, if there is no budget, any single member of either house may present himself (or herself) to the sergeant-at-arms of that house, and order that all members not present in that house's chamber be confined there.

Probably need to arrange restroom facilities, to avoid "cruel and unusual punishment" challenges. That appears the only Constitutional obstacle, however.
 
2013-01-09 12:47:31 PM  
Stop sending over crap with a farking amendment to the constitution attached and we'll see what we can do.
 
2013-01-09 12:57:04 PM  
How about this- we don't need an arbitrary budget to run the government.
 
2013-01-09 01:07:53 PM  
That first sentence was dumb as hell.
 
2013-01-09 01:31:16 PM  

DamnYankees: That first sentence was dumb as hell.


It's the farking Examiner. I'd be surprised if every sentence weren't dumb as hell.
 
2013-01-09 02:00:18 PM  

abb3w: The reason is that the Constitution reserves discipline of Congress to each respective House. So, the question is, what should the enforcement mechanism be?

I propose that it be done as an alteration of the rules of the House and Senate, allowing that after April 15th, if there is no budget, any single member of either house may present himself (or herself) to the sergeant-at-arms of that house, and order that all members not present in that house's chamber be confined there.

Probably need to arrange restroom facilities, to avoid "cruel and unusual punishment" challenges. That appears the only Constitutional obstacle, however.


I recommend de-gerrymanderingification for the district of any member not passing a budget on time.
 
2013-01-09 02:07:05 PM  
The republican have to blame themselves for Reid. If the party had not had a batshait crazy woman, Sharron Angle, on the ticket and instead used a cardboard cutout of Kyle Busch the problem that is Reid would not be there. If the filibuster rules change maybe something will get done this year in the Senate
 
2013-01-09 02:24:02 PM  
See the violence inherent in the Baggers.
 
2013-01-09 02:46:27 PM  

2wolves: See the violence inherent in the Baggers.


bloody peasant
 
2013-01-09 03:06:27 PM  
I just had a brilliant idea to solve the budget issues.

A congressional dunk tank. Pay $10 for a chance to dunk the senator or representative of your choice. All proceeds go to pay off the national debt.

Imagine the line.
 
2013-01-09 03:15:02 PM  
No controlling legal authority


approves


www.closermag.fr
 
2013-01-09 03:15:17 PM  
Why is this solely Reid's fault?
 
2013-01-09 03:17:40 PM  

Moosecakes: Why is this solely Reid's fault?


Because libs.
 
2013-01-09 03:18:13 PM  
So the House passes a budget and sends it to the Senate. The Senate looks at the budget and disagrees with it and sends it back to the House. So the House passes a budget and sends it to the Senate. The Senate looks at the budget and disagrees with it and sends it back to the House. So the House passes a budget and sends it to the Senate. The Senate looks at the budget and disagrees with it and sends it back to the House. So on and so forth...

Now according to the article author, the person who deserves the blame for all of that is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. However, I bet if we gave him time though, the article author could blame it all on President Obama too!

In reality the House Republicans are adding all sorts of partisan cuts, adding pork in areas and throwing in a bunch of laws and such they want passed. The Senate, looking for a budget that cuts only things the Democrats like and adds nothing but stuff they don't like, refuses to pass the budget. So here we sit, two sides calling each other stupid and an article author for the Washington Enquirer who thinks all the blame belongs to the Democrats.
 
2013-01-09 03:19:09 PM  

Moosecakes: Why is this solely Reid's fault?


He runs the Senate and the Senate has failed to even pass it own version of a budget much less act on any submitted by the House (Where they must originate anyway). Any bills sent his way have been pronounced dead on arrival by him - not even put to a vote. So yes he should get most of the blame
 
2013-01-09 03:19:39 PM  

Dinki: How about this- we don't need an arbitrary budget to run the government.


If whatever we've currently got is considered "running" the government, then you're right. A few of us are old-fashioned enough to want a bit more discipline involved in the process, however.
 
2013-01-09 03:20:18 PM  

Moosecakes: Why is this solely Reid's fault?


The Examiner, that's why.

The first time I was given an Examiner on my way to work, I thought it was a Onion-esque fake Right Wing paper - Colbert style
 
2013-01-09 03:28:17 PM  

hasty ambush: Moosecakes: Why is this solely Reid's fault?

He runs the Senate and the Senate has failed to even pass it own version of a budget much less act on any submitted by the House (Where they must originate anyway). Any bills sent his way have been pronounced dead on arrival by him - not even put to a vote. So yes he should get most of the blame


That first sentence doesn't make sense to me.  Anyway, you can't blame him for the bullshiat the House throws at him.

James!: Stop sending over crap with a farking amendment to the constitution attached and we'll see what we can do.


This.
 
2013-01-09 03:35:58 PM  

abb3w: The reason is that the Constitution reserves discipline of Congress to each respective House. So, the question is, what should the enforcement mechanism be?

I propose that it be done as an alteration of the rules of the House and Senate, allowing that after April 15th, if there is no budget, any single member of either house may present himself (or herself) to the sergeant-at-arms of that house, and order that all members not present in that house's chamber be confined there.

Probably need to arrange restroom facilities, to avoid "cruel and unusual punishment" challenges. That appears the only Constitutional obstacle, however.


I prefer having my budgets done by people who actually think them through, instead of people who have been locked in the Capitol for ten days and will sign anything just to get the fark out of there.
 
2013-01-09 03:43:55 PM  
The enforcement mechanism is if you don't pass a budget, there's no money to spend. You want a budget, ban continuing resolutions.
 
2013-01-09 03:52:11 PM  

lennavan: The enforcement mechanism is if you don't pass a budget, there's no money to spend. You want a budget, ban continuing resolutions.


Because letting congress shutdown government would work so much better. *facepalm*
 
2013-01-09 03:56:22 PM  
It takes 60 votes to pass a budget bill in the Senate.

Thanks a lot, Harry!
 
2013-01-09 03:59:09 PM  
Can some Republican apologist please direct me to the language of the Congressional Budget Act you maintain "requires" Congress to pass a budget in the form of a single annual bill. Furthermore, please direct me to constitutional language you believe makes passing a budget in the form of a single annual bill a "core constitutional obligation," as the article asserts.
 
2013-01-09 04:15:27 PM  
A law without an enforcement mechanism is a suggestion.

Also, there shouldn't be an enforcement mechanism, because that's an incentive to pass a bad budget.
 
2013-01-09 04:20:22 PM  
If only there were some kind of.. House.. of Representatives .. that was supposed to create and pass a budget per the Constitution ... that was lead by some kind of... Speaker...
 
2013-01-09 04:23:25 PM  

hasty ambush: Moosecakes: Why is this solely Reid's fault?

He runs the Senate and the Senate has failed to even pass it own version of a budget much less act on any submitted by the House (Where they must originate anyway). Any bills sent his way have been pronounced dead on arrival by him - not even put to a vote. So yes he should get most of the blame



So the bills must originate in the house but the senate should pass 'its own version' (even though it cannot originate a bill and therefore this would be useless grandstanding) and should the house send poisoned bills the senate must vote on them even though they are deliberately poisoned to prevent that.

THE BLAME IS ON THE HOUSE WHICH ORIGINATES BILLS IT KNOWS CANNOT PASS AND DOES NOT EVEN INTEND TO PASS.

Got that into your skull? need a hammer?
 
2013-01-09 04:32:44 PM  
So congress is exactly like the UN?
 
2013-01-09 04:33:43 PM  

hasty ambush: Moosecakes: Why is this solely Reid's fault?

He runs the Senate and the Senate has failed to even pass it own version of a budget


And the reason that the Senate can't pass a budget is the same reason it has so much trouble passing anything - Republicans put anonymous holds and filibusters on every piece of paper in the building.

Oh, sure. Some troll will respond to that statement by saying 'But budget or reconciliation bills CAN'T be filibustered! So there!"
To which the response is this: yes, bills that have been deemed to be budgetary cannot be filibustered. But the resolution to deem a bill to be budgetary CAN.
 
2013-01-09 04:41:13 PM  

Corvus: lennavan: The enforcement mechanism is if you don't pass a budget, there's no money to spend. You want a budget, ban continuing resolutions.

Because letting congress shutdown government would work so much better. *facepalm*


Uh, an enforcement mechanism isn't supposed to be better. Otherwise it wouldn't work. *facepalm*
 
2013-01-09 04:42:25 PM  

Corvus: lennavan: The enforcement mechanism is if you don't pass a budget, there's no money to spend. You want a budget, ban continuing resolutions.

Because letting congress shutdown government would work so much better. *facepalm*


Well, lennavan has a point. The republicans have enough bodies in the Senate to maintain a filibuster. They've got enough people in the House to simply vote down any bill. Any bill that calls for so much as a single dime to be spend has to have at least their silent consent to get passed.

They don't need a budgetary bill. They don't need a debt ceiling. They don't need a balanced budget amendment. If republicans don't want to spend money, all they have to do is say 'no'. Which I'm pretty sure we can all agree they're good at.

They're like a some 800 lb fatass that doesn't have the self-control to not eat himself to death and so they end up begging someone to come lock their fridge.
 
2013-01-09 04:55:48 PM  
I'm pretty sure the 2nd is supposed to be the enforcement mechanism.
 
2013-01-09 05:27:56 PM  

ds615: [Redacted]


enjoy your visit from the Secret Service
 
2013-01-09 05:48:51 PM  
Wait, is this the same "the Democrats/Obama haven't passed a budget in X years!" derping point that I hear all the time?

Because it's real simple: Congress doesn't have to have a budget to spend money, and requiring all of government expenditures to go into one bill is inefficient to say the least with the polarization of politics these days. Hey, look, another talking point down.
 
2013-01-09 06:09:40 PM  

Karac: hasty ambush: Moosecakes: Why is this solely Reid's fault?

He runs the Senate and the Senate has failed to even pass it own version of a budget

And the reason that the Senate can't pass a budget is the same reason it has so much trouble passing anything - Republicans put anonymous holds and filibusters on every piece of paper in the building.

Oh, sure. Some troll will respond to that statement by saying 'But budget or reconciliation bills CAN'T be filibustered! So there!"
To which the response is this: yes, bills that have been deemed to be budgetary cannot be filibustered. But the resolution to deem a bill to be budgetary CAN.


BS Harry Reid never let the bIlls advance to that point when they came from the House. He pronounced them DOA. That means they are never even in a position to be blocked by other Senate members. (Why would GOP Senators move to block a GOP house budget?)He even did it to one of Obama's proposed budgets:. Reid is happy not to have to make the tough calls regarding spending cuts


No member of congress or the cabinet level and above member of the executive branch should get paid when there is no budget
 
2013-01-09 06:13:09 PM  

Kornchex: ames!: Stop sending over crap with a farking amendment to the constitution attached and we'll see what we can do.

This.


So basically your opposed to sending an Amendment out to the states to see if they will ratify it? What are you afraid of, the will of the people?
 
2013-01-09 08:03:00 PM  
ppfffftttt, here's your budget, everything.

Everything?

I SAID EVERYTHING!
 
2013-01-09 08:54:34 PM  

hasty ambush: Kornchex: ames!: Stop sending over crap with a farking amendment to the constitution attached and we'll see what we can do.

This.

So basically your opposed to sending an Amendment out to the states to see if they will ratify it? What are you afraid of, the will of the people?


The will of the people, via their elected Senators, is stopping this crap before it goes that far.

If the House was willing to work with the White House and Senate to reach a compromise deal that could pass, I'm sure the Senate would be happy to vote on it. Until then, the ridiculous, far right crap they pass will be delivered straight to the garbage bin in Harry Reid's office.
 
2013-01-09 09:34:15 PM  

cptjeff: hasty ambush: Kornchex: ames!: Stop sending over crap with a farking amendment to the constitution attached and we'll see what we can do.

This.

So basically your opposed to sending an Amendment out to the states to see if they will ratify it? What are you afraid of, the will of the people?

The will of the people, via their elected Senators, is stopping this crap before it goes that far.

If the House was willing to work with the White House and Senate to reach a compromise deal that could pass, I'm sure the Senate would be happy to vote on it. Until then, the ridiculous, far right crap they pass will be delivered straight to the garbage bin in Harry Reid's office.


Nonsense they have nothing to lose by sending it to the states/people except thata Balaced Budget Amendment might pass and what a crimp that would put in their plans.

All budgets are compromise the House sends up a bill the Senate has passes a vesion they go into conference committee and hammer out a compromise. But Harry Reid is afriad to let that happen.
 
2013-01-09 09:36:46 PM  

cptjeff: hasty ambush: Kornchex: ames!: Stop sending over crap with a farking amendment to the constitution attached and we'll see what we can do.

This.

So basically your opposed to sending an Amendment out to the states to see if they will ratify it? What are you afraid of, the will of the people?

The will of the people, via their elected Senators, is stopping this crap before it goes that far.

If the House was willing to work with the White House and Senate to reach a compromise deal that could pass, I'm sure the Senate would be happy to vote on it. Until then, the ridiculous, far right crap they pass will be delivered straight to the garbage bin in Harry Reid's office.


and as I said Loser Reid even pronounced an Obama budget DOA-Link
 
2013-01-09 11:02:20 PM  
In general, the lack of an immediate enforcement mechanism has always been the bane of Congress. We need to install one immediately.

I recommend returning a set of stocks, a pillory, and the whipping post to the front of Capitol Mall immediately, and the appointment of a suitably strong-armed thug to serve as Executioner and Torture-Master by Monday. A truckload of tomatoes and eggs can be shipped as soon as practicable.
 
2013-01-10 03:02:20 AM  
Um... The reason this law doesn't exist is because otherwise the lower house would be the sole arbiter of the budget since they're the originator, and could do pretty much anything they want in it unless the Senate wants to suffer these penalties?

Why is this even a question?
 
2013-01-12 01:18:28 AM  
That's due to the fact that politicians and public servants are no longer held accountable to their word and you can't just walk up to them and say "you're a lying sonofab*tch" lest you wake up getting teabagged by some Gestapo twat in Guantanamo. Convenient, that.
 
Displayed 42 of 42 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report