By Tom Quiner
The Senate is supposed to pass a budget each year. Harry Reid’s Democrats have refused to do it for over two years.
There’s a reason why: you’re going to have to take some political heat when you actually put your fiscal blueprint down on paper.
Some people think you’re spending too much money here; others are upset because you’re not spending enough there.
The law calls for it.
The very notion of political leadership calls for it.
Harry Reid refuses to do it. What political cowardice.
Democrats have to defend 23 Senate seats in the next election compared to only ten for Republicans. Mr. Reid’s political calculation is simple: by stonewalling, he’s hoping that Republicans, who have provided a detailed budget, will take all the political heat. His party’s view is: let’s make the debate about their ‘heartless’ plan instead of ours’.
Will the public take the bait and re-elect Democrats so demonstrably lacking in leadership? California Senator Diane Feinstein is clearly concerned. She said:
“On the budget front, I’m not a happy camper around here. I think we need to have a budget that we stand by.”
Arkansas Senator, Mark Pryor, said not having a budget …
“makes it harder to do things that we just need to do — there are people talking about an education bill, a highway bill — a lot of other things you just don’t know how much you have to spend.”
You just don’t know how much you have to spend. Think about that statement. The world’s most powerful deliberative body is making life and death budgetary decisions without a budget. They don’t know how much they can spend! And they’re doing it anyway!
We’re at 769 days and counting since the Senate passed their last budget.
Barack Obama is okay with this. I’d like to encourage you to ask the Republican candidates filing through Iowa these days this simple question: should you be elected President, will you demand that the Senate present a budget?