Gay Patriot Header Image

Senate Democratic Budget Committee Chairman:
Date When Law Requires Vote on Budget is “Wrong Time to Vote”

There’s a reason they call it the do-nothing Democratic Senate.  On April 29, it will have been three years “since Senate Democrats” have “passed a budget., a “dereliction of duty”, writes Deroy Murdock which “flagrantly violates the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act.

Murdock quotes the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, outgoing North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad, who explains his party’s inaction:   “This is the wrong time to vote on the floor. . . .  I don’t think we will be prepared to vote before the election.”

Wrong time to vote? Not voting until before the election?  Kind of gives away the Democratic game now, doesn’t it?

Guess Conrad and his fellow partisans don’t want to let the American people know where they stand on the issues, particularly his colleagues in “purple” and “red” states.  And the Democratic contends he is “focused on getting a positive result for the American people.”  (Via Nick Gillespie via Glenn Reynolds.)

So, by that Democrat’s logic, you get a positive result by doing nothing.

“Floor votes”, Murdock offers, “would require Senate Democrats to borrow and spend, which annoys taxpayers, or cut outlays, which aggravates liberal lobbyists and porcine government-employee unions.”  Read the whole thing to learn some impressive projects “focused, energetic humans have completed in less time than Senate Democrats have consumed to accomplish nothing on the budget.”

But, well, it’s jus the wrong time for Senate Democrats to vote on the budget.  Wish I could have sent a note to the IRS earlier this month telling them it was the wrong time to do my taxes — that I needed to wait until after I bought a home to do them.

(So, any time we want to shirk our responsibilities and not meet a deadline, we can use the North Dakota Democrat’s excuse and say it’s the “wrong time” to get things done.)



  1. Democrats have figured out that as long as they ply their base with platitudes and flattery about their superior intellects (by calling Republicans “flat-earthers” and “anti-science”), they don’t have to come up with any actual policy.

    Why should Democrats care about policy if the people who vote for them don’t vote because of policy, but because of cultural identification with liberalism.

    Have you seen this bumper sticker the DNC is putting out? Could there be a better symbol of the complete vacuousness of the Democrat Party? Even the DNC can’t come up with a positive reason to vote Democrat.

    Comment by V the K — April 23, 2012 @ 9:23 pm - April 23, 2012

  2. #1

    That very catchy, brilliant bumper sticker slogan perfectly summarizes the mindset of the Democrats. There is no defense of their policies, nor is there a refutation of Republicans’ policies. It is just opposition to the Republican Party for the sake of opposition to the Republican Party.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — April 23, 2012 @ 9:58 pm - April 23, 2012

  3. There’s a reason they call it the do-nothing Democratic Senate.

    Yes Dan.

    I will always be pleased when a simple majority gets legislation passed in the senate… Perhaps when Repubs get control of the Senate, they will do everyone a favour and get rid of the filibuster, and restore some badly needed democratic principles in the Senate…

    Comment by Cas — April 23, 2012 @ 10:56 pm - April 23, 2012

  4. Budgets are exempt from the filibuster. They can be passed by simple majorities.

    Comment by V the K — April 23, 2012 @ 11:18 pm - April 23, 2012

  5. You mean “not voting until AFTER the election”, don’t you?

    Comment by perturbed — April 24, 2012 @ 6:42 am - April 24, 2012

  6. Error correction needed for coherence:
    “I don’t think we will be prepared to vote before the election.
    Wrong time to vote? Not voting until before the election?”

    Comment by Moses Lambert — April 24, 2012 @ 9:54 am - April 24, 2012

  7. Cas,

    You are always trolling for a “debate” so I offer you this:

    In the spirit of compromise, let’s amend the Constitution and specifically outlaw the filibuster in the Senate (or both Houses as a preventative of the House coming up with such a rule) and we repeal the Seventeenth Amendment and return the two senators from each state to the appointment process embedded in the body of the Constitution.

    Your move.

    Comment by heliotrope — April 24, 2012 @ 10:44 am - April 24, 2012

  8. Heliotrope:

    I have always believed that repealing the 17th Amendment would help to correct a number of problems with THE CAPITOL. (Shameless The Hunger Games reference.)

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — April 24, 2012 @ 11:17 am - April 24, 2012

  9. Others also have pointed out that the Democrats’ bumper sticker is the Luxembourg national flag.

    Eric Hines

    Comment by E Hines — April 24, 2012 @ 12:21 pm - April 24, 2012

  10. Luxembourg… a weak European country with a small economy, no military, no domestic oil production, and no global influence.

    Exactly the Democrats vision for the USA.

    Comment by V the K — April 24, 2012 @ 1:23 pm - April 24, 2012

  11. Luxembourg is one of the richest countries in the world, and it has one of the highest per capita GDP’s and it has low unemployment. It is also a tax haven. I’m not sure it is the best comparison. If you turn the flag on its side, though, and change the dimensions, you get the flag of France (although it is a bit off-coloured). In some ways, I think France is a more apt comparison, and it is likely to become even more apt soon (due to the probable election of socialist François Hollande, who promises to mirror Obama in his policies).

    Comment by Rattlesnake — April 24, 2012 @ 3:47 pm - April 24, 2012

  12. Hi HT,
    I guess we accept the contention that the filibuster makes it unlikely that a simple majority will ever be enough to get something passed in the Senate. If so, it is hard to blame the Dems ALONE for the failure of legislation to pass the Senate.

    In the spirit of compromise, let’s amend the Constitution and specifically outlaw the filibuster in the Senate

    My move, hmm. Well, since a filibuster is a result of senate rules that the Constitution allows the Senate to set for itself, I am unsure why we need to amend the Constitution to “outlaw it.” After all, once Repubs gain control of the Senate they can abolish it–and fair sailing to them, I say! HT, shouldn’t the Senate just take care of this nonsense and change its own rules (as it has done in the past with regards to the filibuster) and get rid of it–or if you don’t agree with that action, maybe you could explain why you might appear to think otherwise?

    Comment by Cas — April 25, 2012 @ 2:35 am - April 25, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.