Obama 0, Reality 414

This is really a case of “go read the whole thing” but HotAir has an article on the House vote over Obama’s budget plan.  First a brief reminder on what happened last year.

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.

OK, so that was then, what happened now?

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.

This is really quite astounding.  Getting every member of Congress to completely agree on anything, with a unanimous vote, is an accomplishment–one of failure.  Even the declaration of war vote after Pearl harbor wasn’t unanimous.  Ed Morrissey finishes with this thought.

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.

It is indeed time, but I worry that people won’t be able to put aside their Red vs Blue division and do what is right for Red, White, and Blue.

Update:  The RNC has released a video documenting history in the making.

Olbermann Canned, Again
When You Disagree With Leftists, They Simply Dehumanize You
  • jim_m

    I don’t recall any President in my lifetime having this difficulty in getting not merely his own party but some of the opposition to support his budget.  Clinton, both Bush’s, Reagan, all passed budgets with at least a token of support. 

    Few people recall that No Child Left Behind was Teddy Kennedy’s baby too.  W really made an effort to push the proposals from the left and the right.

    obama promised a new era of bipartisanship and we definitely have one.  One where bipartisanship is a thing of the past.  (OK, with the exception of his budget which is so insanely out of touch with reality that it garners bipartisan opposition)

    • Brucepall

      I agree Jim_m,  

      511 to Zero on Obama’s congressional votes for his budget.  

      Great Moogly-Googly!, Thats 414 (Nays) in the People’s House and 97 (Nays) in the Senate, with nobody, and I mean nobody, voting (Yeah) in support of the President.

       Yup, took real loyal bipartisanship opposition to accomplish that… 

      The repudiation of the direction Obama wants to take our country by Congress, regardless of what the spin-merchants say, bodes ill for his reelection prospects with the voters.

      How long before the administration’s minion(rats) start to abandon ship?

      Semper Fidelis-

      • How long before the administration’s minion(rats) start to abandon ship?

        I thought they already had started.

    • TomInCali

      I don’t recall any President in my lifetime having this difficulty in
      getting not merely his own party but some of the opposition to support
      his budget.  Clinton, both Bush’s, Reagan, all passed budgets with at
      least a token of support.

      As noted in my other post:

      House Democrats floated three of President Reagan’s budgets in the
      1980s. Those budgets collected 28, 15 and one votes, respectively.

      So either your recollection is faulty, or you just don’t pay attention to stunt votes (or, at least, the ones that are not initiated by Republicans).

      • jim_m

        Reagan didn’t go 3+ years without a budget.  Nuf said.

        • TomInCali

          Interesting that you keep switching your points after each previous one is shown to be invalid.

          • jim_m

             I huess the point is that obama offers a budget.  It fails miserably.  Instead of offering a revised budget or doing a compromise with the other party obama’s response is an F you to the Congress and the public.  If you are too blind or have your head to far up obama’s ass to see that I really can’t help you.

      • MunDane68

        Still trying to find a year that Ronald & Congress operated without a budget…

        Which years were they exactly?

        Not trolling, what years did the government operate without a budget in the 80’s?

        • As I recall (which may be accurate or may not be) – there was one hell of a lot of horse-trading done to get budgets passed. Reagan bumped up military spending, but it was at a cost of $1.35 for social projects for every $1 extra spent on the military. 

          The thought of NOT passing a budget wasn’t even considered.

          Of course, back then we had adults inside the Beltway who were aware their actions had consequences for the rest of the country.  Nowdays – they don’t give a shit as long as they can inflate their overblown egos.

        • As I recall (which may be accurate or may not be) – there was one hell of a lot of horse-trading done to get budgets passed. Reagan bumped up military spending, but it was at a cost of $1.35 for social projects for every $1 extra spent on the military. 

          The thought of NOT passing a budget wasn’t even considered.

          Of course, back then we had adults inside the Beltway who were aware their actions had consequences for the rest of the country.  Nowdays – they don’t give a shit as long as they can inflate their overblown egos.

      • MunDane68

        Still trying to find a year that Ronald & Congress operated without a budget…

        Which years were they exactly?

        Not trolling, what years did the government operate without a budget in the 80’s?

    • MunDane68

       NCLB was written by Kennedy, which NO ONE remembers.

      The interesting point is that 21 votes for “present” (Can you abstain in the House?)

    • MunDane68

       NCLB was written by Kennedy, which NO ONE remembers.

      The interesting point is that 21 votes for “present” (Can you abstain in the House?)

  • Gmacr1

    Red, white and blue voters will put aside their Democrat vs Republican divisions. Its the Monochrome voters that will never let go.

  • Hank_M

    In 2007, Obama stated: “yes, I believe I can bring the country together in a way she [Clinton] cannot do.”

    Was this what he was talking about?
     

  • TaterSalad

     The
    President of the United States is a complete nutcase.  Now he wants to
    have our military in combat operations to “serve a search warrant” on
    the suspected enemy before attacking or entering a building.  Question: 
    Should a copy of this search warrant be preserved so that the parents
    of this young soldier or marine can have the actual and authentic copy
    if their son gets wounded or killed on this warrant.  How ironic!  The
    President will not provide a true and authentic copy of his birth
    certificate to the people of the United States to view but he wants the
    servicemen he commands to provide a search warrant to do their job.  We
    can only wonder how this search warrant method would have worked in WW2
    in Europe?

    http://americaswatchtower.com/2012/03/24/united-states-soldiers-may-need-search-warrants-to-conduct-night-raids-on-the-taliban-in-afghanistan-in-the-future/

    • [Groan] President Obama has already provided a true and authentic copy of his birth certificate.

      http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp

      You birthers are so blinded by your hate for President Obama that you can’t see the reality of Obama’s birth certificate.

      Anyway, you grossly mischaracterized the “search warrant” issue. The WSJ article about it states, “The administration’s most significant proposed concession on night raids would subject the operations to advance review by Afghan judges, U.S. military
      officials said. One option under discussion in U.S.-Afghan talks would require
      warrants to be issued before operations get the green light.”

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303812904577292004169109674.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth

      The “warrant” option would required the U.S. military to obtain a warrant from an Afghan judge. Upon obtaining the warrant, the military then could perform a night raid on a particular target area. Nowhere does the above quote say that soldiers would have to serve a search warrant.

      • Walter_Cronanty

         My reaction was somewhat different.  I agree with your birther reply.  In fact, I almost stopped reading there, as I imagined Mr. Salad’s linked source for the warrant story would be as reliable as his birther comment.  Surprise, surprise.  I think the warrant idea is terrible, and I don’t think that Mr. Salad “grossly mischaracterized” the search warrant idea.  While the military would not have to technically “serve” a search warrant, the idea is the same.  They have to get a warrant before they engage in night raids.  I suppose they wouldn’t have to yell: “US military – we have a warrant” before entering, but the idea of an Afghan judge having to okay our military raids is bloody awful.  I would rather us get out of Afghanistan before doing this.  Tell me, how long do you think an Afghan judge would live after issuing a warrant to raid a Taliban/Al Quida hide out?  Freaking ridiculous.

        • I’m starting to think the best choice would be to just go “Okay, I’m sorry, but this just isn’t working out.” – and then bail.

          You can help someone who wants to help himself.  You can help a group that wants to help themselves do better.  You cannot help someone or some group who doesn’t really want help, no matter how much they protest they need the help and tell you they really, really want it – they’ll sabotage your work, make sure it fails in order to keep you ‘helping’ them indefinitely.

          Their problems become their identity.  They hold onto them like a drowning man holds onto a life preserver.

          Afghanistan’s got problems.  Bad problems.  It’s not a state, it’s a very loose collection of tribes.  There’s no cohesion – no real desire for it.    It’s hard to make a country when you’ve got folks actively fighting the idea.

          • Commander_Chico

            Right, they have to work out their own problems.  I’m skeptical of the whole “Taliban” thing – “Taliban” being our label for Pashtun tribesmen who don’t like foreigners occupying their country.

          • In order to work out a problem, first you’ve got to admit there is one.

            They haven’t gotten that far yet – and likely never will.

        • Commander_Chico

          They have protected Afghan judges which SOF work with.  

  • GarandFan

    This certainly is a “historic” presidency.

  • 914

    Another Goose egg for the BIG O!!

  • herddog505

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but his last budget went down like this, too, did it not?

    But, in Barry’s defense, the Congress has learned that they “don’t need no stinkin’ budget!” Indeed, a budget is a downright hindrance: they would actually have to go on record supporting something and pay at least lip service to living up to it.  For the Congress, no budget = blank check.

  • Commander_Chico

    Who sucks worse, Obama or the Congress as a body?  Close call, a more craven bunch of poltroons hasn’t been seen with a few exceptions (Tom Coburn and Bernie Sanders being among them)

    • jim_m

      Who sucks worse, Obama or the Congress as a body?

      It all depends. 

      Congress headed by Nancy Pelosi and a clique of drooling idiots who don’t know what the Constitution says and don’t care and who insist on passing legislation whose contents they are ignorant of and have no interest in knowing, is far worse than the current Congress regardless of its deficiencies.

      Is the current Congress worse than 0bama?  No.  Again – regardless of its manifest deficiencies.

      Is Pelosi’s Congress worse than 0bama?  That’s a tough call.  I’d argue that both obama and Pelosi’s Congress are not interested in the good of the people but are interested in their own enrichment and securing vast increases in power and control over the public.  Both 0bama and Pelosi have demonstrated a complete disregard for the Constitution and a desire to circumvent it at every opportunity.

      The Boehner Congress may be corrupt and inefficient but only in the common way.  Pelosi’s Congress bordered on the criminal in its dismissal of Constitutional rule and the passing of legislation that they knew nothing of.

      • Hugh_G

        We can always count on you Jim for an inanity:

         “My congress is corrupt but yours is the mostest corruptest, nah na nah na nah…” 

        You learned that on the playground in 2nd grade. Right?

        Seriously man do ever read what you write?

        • jim_m

           Actually, the point was to acknowledge that the current congress isn’t exactly perfect, but yes, it sure as heck is better than than the previous.

          Frankly, I’m not sorry that you are incapable of recognizing the ignorant, corrupt and anti-American activities of Nancy Pelosi and her toadies.  I’m not sorry because I really don’t care what you think and I understand that you are far too much of an ideologue to understand that Pelosi and her friends did everything I said that they did.

    • Chico, when it comes to suckitude only the Senate — which had nothing to do with this — comes close to Obama.

      • Commander_Chico

        I’ll go with anyone who isn’t a liar or schemer, no matter what party.

        • Maybe you should change your handle to Diogenes.

  • sabbahillel

    It is interesting that  21 people (435 – 414) who could not find enough spine to vote against it still could not bring themselves to be listed as supporting it. This is even though they knew that it could never pass. That is even more telling than the number of actual Democrat nay votes.

    • jim_m

       Were they abstaining or just not present? 

      • Brucepall

        Nah… they were absent or out doing the important fundraising and look-at-me events, instead of coming to work and doing the people’s business.

        And if anyone wants to quibble… absent, abstain, out to lunch… its all the same ol’ sorry-ass excuse.

        Semper Fidelis-

  • sabbahillel

    I would consider deliberately staying away to avoid the vote the same as voting “present” like the president likes to do. I do remember an article that Congresscritters are not allowed to vote “present”.

  • MichaelLaprarie

    “Getting every member of Congress to completely agree on anything, with a unanimous vote, is an accomplishment…”

    Well, Obama was hailed as “The Great Uniter.”  Guess he finally succeeded in uniting some folks.

    • Oh SOB! Now that’s funny!

  • TomInCali

    Wow, victories where you can get them, eh? Even Fox News acknowledges this was a “tactical” vote, not a real one:

    GOP lawmakers forced the vote on Obama’s plan as a tactical move aiming at embarrassing Democrats…. House Republicans last tried this same tactic in 2000 on President Clinton’s budget.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/28/gop-run-house-easily-rejects-obama-budget/

    Republicans knew the Democrats would vote no, because the Democrats are working on a their own variation of Obama’s budget:

    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.

    So Republicans simply held a stunt vote on what they knew was an incomplete budget, just to get the political point of saying no Democrats voted for it.

    This is really quite astounding.  Getting every member of Congress to
    completely agree on anything, with a unanimous vote, is an
    accomplishment–one of failure.

    [Edit: Please don’t spam the same content in multiple comments. Thanks. -DK]

    • TomInCali

      It was hardly spam. It was using the same 20-word Fox News quote to rebut two different commenters making the same invalid point. But since you deleted it from my post above, I’ll amend my above post with:

      Was it as astounding when the same thing happened to a Republican budget?

      And then I’ll ask readers to refer to my reply to jim_m’s first post at the start of this thread to see the quote I excerpted that initially followed my statement, but was deleted.I’m not sure that having to inconvenience readers and make them look in two places is as disruptive as letting me just reuse the quote, but they’re your rules.

      • DanKaripides

        It’s all good Tom.  You just have no idea how many times I have to delete robo-cut-in-paste stuff, where you can see someone has been tasked to paste the same thing in as many blogs as possible.

        Your comments are fine and you raise interesting counterpoints.  I just am sensitive seeing to seeing the same thing in multiple places.

        Carry on…

    • Vagabond661

      Wait, that’s amazing. Democrats are actually working on a budget?

      • Walter_Cronanty

        What the hell, it’s only been about 3 years since our country had an actual budget, right?  What’s a few years and a few trillion dollars? 

    • jim_m

       Democrats said Republicans had forced a vote on a version of Obama’s
      budget that contained only its numbers

      Not to put too fine a point on it but a budget is the numbers.  The policies that go along with it are really not that material.  If the budget is so bloated that the dems won’t vote for it then what this tells me is that these so-called policies are nothing but window dressing meant to obfuscate the issue and distract from the graft that the dems were hoping to pass out to their donors.

      • TomInCali

        The policies that go along with it are really not that material.

        Huh? Of course the policies are important! A budget that calls for spending X millions on coloring Easter eggs is quite different from one that calls for spending the same amount of money on transportation infrastructure. The Democrats’ budget is in line with Obama’s on the numbers, so that tanks your “bloated” strawman. They just differ on the specifics. That seems a more responsible approach than those who think politicians should either just shut up and follow the party line, or do what they can to obstruct the opposing guy regardless of merit.

        • jim_m

           A budget that spends $1 Trillion more than the government takes in is DOA regardless of whatever virtuous ideals it claims to support.  It is foolish to pretend otherwise.

          • TomInCali

            In that case, I look forward to your evisceration of the Republican/Paul budget proposal, which also explodes the deficit.

          • jim_m

             I’m sure it’s better than Barry’s budget funded by Unicorn farts.

          • TomInCali

            Perhaps, but one thing we won’t be able to do is evaluate it against your constantly shifting ideology: “numbers don’t matter… well, they do matter, but only if they’re big… well, big numbers don’t matter, it’s only how they compare to other big numbers, which ‘you’re sure’ (suggesting you haven’t even looked at them) are better.”

          • $16 trillion debt.

            $2 trillion income from taxes annually.

            $3.5 trillion expenditure each year.

            No budget for the third year.  

            Like it or not, those are just about all the numbers you need to understand the predicament we’re in.

            But – don’t worry.  It’ll all become much clearer in a few years when we can’t roll over debt any more, and the creditors start demanding their due.  

            Just watch what’s going on in the EU.  Germany’s started to refuse Greek bonds.

            http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_wsite2_1_30/03/2012_435700 

            The writing’s on the wall.  It all depends on whether you want to read it.  

            Something has to change.  Business as usual won’t cut it, massive spending ‘to ‘stimulate’ the ‘proper’ things has failed – and that’s all the ‘progressives’ know to try.  Throwing more money after what’s already been wasted won’t improve the situation.

            Especially considering how our congress won’t pass a budget.  Can’t overspend or waste money if you don’t have a budget, right?

          • Brucepall

            JLawson,

            You have a way of cutting though the BS and getting to the heart of the matter.

            Best post on this thread.

            +1

            Semper Fidelis-

  • And in other news, Obama’s blocked any drilling on the Atlantic coast for 5 years. You can look, but you can’t touch.

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/obama-oks-oil-exploration-along-atlantic-coast-but-not-drilling/ 

    If you’re a supporter, you’ll come up with a wonderful reason why this is a good thing.

    If you’re not, you’ll be pissed the next time you fill up and you’ll remember this – and every time you hear “Well, even if you start drilling NOW, we won’t see any oil for 5 years!” you’ll want to put your fist through the mouth of the talking head parroting that line… because it’s the same line they’ve been using for DECADES to avoid making more drilling a priority.

    Remember also, Obama is focused like a laser on job creation. I leave it to you to decide whether he’s trying to create jobs, (which drilling would do, as would lower energy costs) or destroy them before they’re created.

    • jim_m

       We’re drilling everywhere we can, which means nowhere.