Senate Democratic budget extends standoff with GOP
WASHINGTON (AP) - An exhausted Senate gave pre-dawn approval Saturday to a Democratic $3.7 trillion budget for next year that embraces nearly $1 trillion in tax increases over the coming decade but shelters domestic programs targeted for cuts by House Republicans.
While their victory was by a razor-thin 50-49, the vote let Democrats tout their priorities. Yet it doesn't resolve the deep differences the two parties have over deficits and the size of government.
Joining all Republicans voting no were four Democrats who face re-election next year in potentially difficult races: Sens. Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Mark Pryor of Arkansas. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., did not vote.
White House spokesman Jay Carney praised the Senate plan, saying in a statement it "will create jobs and cut the deficit in a balanced way."
While calling on both sides to find common ground, Carney did not hold out much hope for compromise with Republicans. The rival budget passed by the GOP-led House cuts social programs too deeply, he said, and fails "to ask for a single dime of deficit reduction from closing tax loopholes for the wealthy and well-connected."
The Senate vote came after lawmakers labored through the night on scores of symbolic amendments, ranging from voicing support for letting states collect taxes on Internet sales to expressing opposition to requiring photo IDs for voters.
The Senate's budget would shrink annual federal shortfalls over the next decade to nearly $400 billion, raise unspecified taxes by $975 billion and cull modest savings from domestic programs.
In contrast, a rival budget approved by the GOP-run House balances the budget within 10 years without boosting taxes.
That blueprint- by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., his party's vice presidential candidate last year - claims $4 trillion more in savings over the period than Senate Democrats by digging deeply into Medicaid, food stamps and other safety net programs for the needy. It would also transform the Medicare health care program for seniors into a voucher-like system for future recipients.
"We have presented very different visions for how our country should work and who it should work for," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who chairs the Senate Budget Committee. "But I am hopeful that we can bridge this divide."
A day that stretched roughly 20 hours featured brittle debate at times. The loudest moment came toward the end, when senators rose as one to cheer a handful of Senate pages - high school students - who lawmakers said had worked in the chamber since the morning's opening gavel. Senators then left town for a two-week spring recess.
Congressional budgets are planning documents that leave actual changes in revenues and spending for later legislation, and this was the first the Democratic-run Senate has approved in four years. That lapse is testament to the political and mathematical contortions needed to write fiscal plans in an era of record-breaking deficits that until this year exceeded an eye-popping $1 trillion annually, and to the parties' profoundly conflicting views.
"I believe we're in denial about the financial condition of our country," Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, top Republican on the Budget panel, said of Democratic efforts to boost spending on some programs. "Trust me, we've got to have some spending reductions."
Though budget shortfalls have shown signs of easing slightly and temporarily, there is no easy path for the two parties to find compromise - which the first months of 2013 have amply illustrated.
Already this year, Congress has raised taxes on the rich after narrowly averting tax boosts on virtually everyone else, tolerated $85 billion in automatic spending cuts, temporarily sidestepped a federal default and prevented a potential government shutdown.
By sometime this summer, the government's borrowing limit will have to be extended again - or a default will be at risk - and it is unclear what Republicans may demand for providing needed votes. It is also uncertain how the two parties will resolve the differences between their two budgets, something many believe simply won't happen.
Both sides have expressed a desire to reduce federal deficits. But President Barack Obama is demanding a combination of tax increases and spending cuts to do so, while GOP leaders say they won't consider higher revenues but want serious reductions in Medicare and other benefit programs that have rocketed deficits skyward.
Obama plans to release his own 2014 budget next month, an unveiling that will be studied for whether it signals a willingness to engage Republicans in negotiations or play political hardball.
The amendments senators considered during their long day of debate were all nonbinding, but some delivered potent political messages.
They voted in favor of giving states more powers to collect sales taxes on online purchases their citizens make from out-of-state Internet companies, and to endorse the proposed Keystone XL pipeline that is to pump oil from Canada to Texas refineries.
They also voiced support for eliminating the $2,500 annual cap on flexible spending account contributions imposed by Obama's health care overhaul and for charging regular postal rates for mailings by political parties, which currently qualify for the lower prices paid by nonprofits.
In a rebuke to one of the Senate's most conservative members, they overwhelmingly rejected a proposal by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., to cut even deeper than the House GOP budget and eliminate deficits in just five years.
The Democratic budget's $975 billion in new taxes would be matched by an equal amount of spending reductions coming chiefly from health programs, defense and reduced interest payments as deficits get smaller than previously anticipated.
This year's projected deficit of nearly $900 billion would fall to around $700 billion next year and bottom out near $400 billion in 2016 before trending upward again.
Shoehorned into the package is $100 billion for public works projects and other programs aimed at creating jobs.
__
Associated Press writer Andrew Taylor contributed to this report.
While their victory was by a razor-thin 50-49, the vote let Democrats tout their priorities. Yet it doesn't resolve the deep differences the two parties have over deficits and the size of government.
Joining all Republicans voting no were four Democrats who face re-election next year in potentially difficult races: Sens. Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Mark Pryor of Arkansas. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., did not vote.
White House spokesman Jay Carney praised the Senate plan, saying in a statement it "will create jobs and cut the deficit in a balanced way."
While calling on both sides to find common ground, Carney did not hold out much hope for compromise with Republicans. The rival budget passed by the GOP-led House cuts social programs too deeply, he said, and fails "to ask for a single dime of deficit reduction from closing tax loopholes for the wealthy and well-connected."
The Senate vote came after lawmakers labored through the night on scores of symbolic amendments, ranging from voicing support for letting states collect taxes on Internet sales to expressing opposition to requiring photo IDs for voters.
The Senate's budget would shrink annual federal shortfalls over the next decade to nearly $400 billion, raise unspecified taxes by $975 billion and cull modest savings from domestic programs.
In contrast, a rival budget approved by the GOP-run House balances the budget within 10 years without boosting taxes.
That blueprint- by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., his party's vice presidential candidate last year - claims $4 trillion more in savings over the period than Senate Democrats by digging deeply into Medicaid, food stamps and other safety net programs for the needy. It would also transform the Medicare health care program for seniors into a voucher-like system for future recipients.
"We have presented very different visions for how our country should work and who it should work for," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who chairs the Senate Budget Committee. "But I am hopeful that we can bridge this divide."
A day that stretched roughly 20 hours featured brittle debate at times. The loudest moment came toward the end, when senators rose as one to cheer a handful of Senate pages - high school students - who lawmakers said had worked in the chamber since the morning's opening gavel. Senators then left town for a two-week spring recess.
Congressional budgets are planning documents that leave actual changes in revenues and spending for later legislation, and this was the first the Democratic-run Senate has approved in four years. That lapse is testament to the political and mathematical contortions needed to write fiscal plans in an era of record-breaking deficits that until this year exceeded an eye-popping $1 trillion annually, and to the parties' profoundly conflicting views.
"I believe we're in denial about the financial condition of our country," Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, top Republican on the Budget panel, said of Democratic efforts to boost spending on some programs. "Trust me, we've got to have some spending reductions."
Though budget shortfalls have shown signs of easing slightly and temporarily, there is no easy path for the two parties to find compromise - which the first months of 2013 have amply illustrated.
Already this year, Congress has raised taxes on the rich after narrowly averting tax boosts on virtually everyone else, tolerated $85 billion in automatic spending cuts, temporarily sidestepped a federal default and prevented a potential government shutdown.
By sometime this summer, the government's borrowing limit will have to be extended again - or a default will be at risk - and it is unclear what Republicans may demand for providing needed votes. It is also uncertain how the two parties will resolve the differences between their two budgets, something many believe simply won't happen.
Both sides have expressed a desire to reduce federal deficits. But President Barack Obama is demanding a combination of tax increases and spending cuts to do so, while GOP leaders say they won't consider higher revenues but want serious reductions in Medicare and other benefit programs that have rocketed deficits skyward.
Obama plans to release his own 2014 budget next month, an unveiling that will be studied for whether it signals a willingness to engage Republicans in negotiations or play political hardball.
The amendments senators considered during their long day of debate were all nonbinding, but some delivered potent political messages.
They voted in favor of giving states more powers to collect sales taxes on online purchases their citizens make from out-of-state Internet companies, and to endorse the proposed Keystone XL pipeline that is to pump oil from Canada to Texas refineries.
They also voiced support for eliminating the $2,500 annual cap on flexible spending account contributions imposed by Obama's health care overhaul and for charging regular postal rates for mailings by political parties, which currently qualify for the lower prices paid by nonprofits.
In a rebuke to one of the Senate's most conservative members, they overwhelmingly rejected a proposal by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., to cut even deeper than the House GOP budget and eliminate deficits in just five years.
The Democratic budget's $975 billion in new taxes would be matched by an equal amount of spending reductions coming chiefly from health programs, defense and reduced interest payments as deficits get smaller than previously anticipated.
This year's projected deficit of nearly $900 billion would fall to around $700 billion next year and bottom out near $400 billion in 2016 before trending upward again.
Shoehorned into the package is $100 billion for public works projects and other programs aimed at creating jobs.
__
Associated Press writer Andrew Taylor contributed to this report.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_pie
http://www.patrickomalley.com/national-debt-per-taxpayer-us.html
take a look at the two pie charts linked above.
National debt is now roughly $46,000 for every man woman and child in the country, I imagine that excludes the illegals.
But by taxpayer it's $104,000. For every federal tax dollar you send in this April $.46 will go to the interest on the money government has already spent.
The top link takes you to a pie chart showing you roughly 25% going to each of military, healthcare and pensions.with roughly the remaining 25% doing all the other stuff.Â
For my line of thinking we could stop doing a lot of the worlds police action saving a lot of military dollars but more importantly cutting political pensions completely and deleting Obama care which would greatly reduce healthcare costs.
I don't believe the solution to the healthcare cost crisis is Obama care. If you've ever looked at your bill from a medical visit you'll see some of the costs are unrealistic. Put a cap on medical management pay and a profit limit to the drug companies and medical providers. Other than that let the free market decide the cost of your health insurance based on your lifestyle. Obama care makes the same cost of medical care for someone who drinks and smokes to their detriment for those who act responsibly with their health and that just puts a burden on society and removes the natural consequences for bad behavior.
Everybody should live with natural consequences for not taking advantage of educational opportunities, destructive health behavior and their own personal choices. Much of the welfare programs take away that cause-and-effect for bad behavior to the detriment and cost to the country.
You want healthcare, get educated and get a job if you don't you should be allowed to die, it's called personal responsibility taking that out of society destroys the society. Just look at the history of communist countries who have tried what Obama is doing.
building looks like it is on fire.
@TreeWizard  if only it were occupied and on fire the nation would be much better off.
The only thing the parties agree on is that they will not suffer any cut backs or income loss themselves.
Does this "budget" factor in Obamacare for illegals? Oh, silly me, a trillion dollars in new taxes should cover it.....
http://cdn.rollcall.com/news/immigration_vote_splits_gang_of_8-223395-1.html?popular=true&pg=1&cdn_load=true&zkPrintable=1&nopagination=1
good to know that the republicons are a weak group. Its about time they get out the way cause they can't leadÂ
This comment has been deleted
@larefÂ
In the world of politics, I'd say Pillsbury Funny Face drink mix is more apt than Kool-Aid. Rootin-Tootin Raspberry  vs Lefty Lemonade.
@di_da_is_alpha @laref  Who gets to claim the Hatorade?  Â
@Sundowner @di_da_is_alpha @larefÂ
All  sides have members who indulge in that particular "refreshment" from time to time. Some, Mike Malloy comes to mind, drink  it almost exclusively. However claims of its use are often exaggerated.  Telling someone  "you can't tax yourself into prosperity" is not hate.
Nice to check how close you are to re election as a factor in deciding your vote, is that what representative means?
"White House spokesLIAR Jay Carney praised the Senate plan, saying in a statement it "will create jobs and cut the deficit in a balanced way."
How can Carney lie with such a straight face. There will be no jobs created and his kids and grandkids will have to pay for the larger debt.
@RalphCramden Back in reality, our deficit is shrinking the fastest since the years after WWII. And Obama's promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term was met according to deficit to GDP ratio. They don't talk about that much on Fox News though.
You are ignorant to deficit facts and your statement is patently false.
@lakeview @RalphCramden
Source?Â
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesglassman/2012/07/11/the-facts-about-budget-deficits-how-the-presidents-truly-rank/
@lakeview
I don't know where you are getting your information but it is incorrect. Our debt to GDP is increasing every year.
Debt to GDP was 76% on the day 0bama took office. Today it is 106% and climbing. The CBO is predicting it will be 135% by 2017.
@di_da_is_alpha @lakeviewÂ
The total GDP to debt has done nothing but go up.
Yearly GDP to debt means nothing except in the eyes of the politicians who know the public knows nothing about macro economics.
Voters are pretty easy to deceive.
@RalphCramden @lakeview
I think lakeview might be getting his/her  info from here ....... http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/112012-634082-federal-deficit-falling-fastest-since-world-war-ii.htm .....  "From fiscal 2009 to fiscal 2012, the deficit shrank 3.1 percentage points, from 10.1% to 7.0% of GDP."Â
Notice how 2009 compares to 2007 and 2008 ..... Â http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43698-Nov-MBR.pdf
It's like someone who drinks a six pack of beer per week for years drinking a whole keg one week, then cutting back to a pony keg a week, and claiming they've cut back on their drinking. Â
@lousecraptonÂ
CBO.
@RalphCramden @lakeview and where are you getting your information? back of a box of oatmeal?
"I believe we're in denial about the financial condition of our country,"
The liberals certainly are.
And why, or why, is there NEVER any mention about cutting foreign aid? Why are the politicians so he11 bent on further harming the US, yet have no qualms about sending billions of dollars every year to foreign countries that hate our guts?
I find it interesting that the D's that voted against  the D budget are all up for re-election next year.  Â
Well of course! You only ram things down people's throats when there is nothing they can do about it. I am a bit puzzled by them doing this however. I thought Democrats had to pass a bill so they could find out what was in it??