It is called the Budget Control Act of 2011. As part of the language it specifies that it serves as a budget resolution for Congress. Both chambers passed it and it was signed into law by President Obama.
Why is this important?
GOP candidates still falsely claim that no budget has been passed in three years.
Even if that were true, there’s a simple way to fix the problem: give the Dems a majority in the House. Why is this a point in the GOP’s favour?
Republicans want to portray Obama as inept - as in “he can’t even get a budget passed”.
Now it is true that Obama’s budget was not passed (nor was anyone’s) and that the final compromise was stubbornly painful to the point of a credit downgrade.
But Obama “won” the budget compromise. My evidence? That the GOP wants to back out of the sequestration.
Does a President ever get his budget passed? I admittedly don’t pay that much attention to the munentia of federal budget haggling, but my impression was that even in years where the Presidents party controls Congress, he submits a budget as Congress requires him to do by law, and then Congress promptly ignores it.
I don’t find the wikipedia article very persuasive. Can you quote the part of the act that you are referencing?
Yes, here is the full 74 page text of the act:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2011/08/01/full-text-budget-control-act-2011/
You laymen will find the “joint resolution” language on pages 29-31. It is a full repudiation of the claim that “no budget has passed”.
Enjoy.
(I linked to Fox News for your full viewing pleasure)
A “joint resolution” isn’t a synonym for budget. I think the budget the US is acting under is this one, which was passed in April of '11. IIRC, the Budget Control Act just increased the debt ceiling in return for some (probably toothless) future budget cuts. Though again, my understanding of the process is rather hazy.
But it is.
“Joint” is merely language that combines the House and Senate.
In the case of joint resolution Congress is bound. This budget has the full impact of the law.
I think I agree with your wider point (that the Budget Control Act is essentially a Budget Resolution). I don’t think your cites do a very good job of showing that that’s the case. A joint resolution is something with the force of law. By your own cite, a budget resolution doesn’t have the force of law. And it isn’t clear what “pages 29-31” have to do with anything being discussed.
The original GOP complaint was silly in any case, as a Budget Resolution doesn’t have anything to do with the President (its internal to Congress and not subject to veto), so trying to say that “Obama hasn’t passed a budget resolution” is technically true, but isn’t really any different then saying “Simplicio hasn’t passed a Budget Resolution”.
Here’s the thing: You’re going to lose if you insist on saying that budget was passed, because it wasn’t. The real point, which doesn’t lend itself to soundbites, is that a budget is pretty meaningless. It isn’t law. Congress has to pass appropriation bills in order to spend money, A budget doesn’t do that. So you’re just falling into a trap if you wan to play the budget game.
I think it was. So far as I can tell, the “budget” of GOP talking points is a Congressional Budget Resolution. I think section 106 is a budget resolution.
But as I said, I don’t know much about, so I’d be interested if someone had a counter-argument.
I think that’s a pretty easy case to make. Most people think of the “budget” as the law that allows the gov’t to spend money. Since the gov’t has in fact been spending money, its hardly an uphill climb to convince people that, to the extent that anyone who isn’t fixated on the minutiae of Congressional procedure cares, we’ve had plenty of budgets. “Trap” or not, I don’t the GOP is going to have much success convincing anyone outside the beltway that what really matters is budget resolution.
But the question of whether we have a budget resolution is mildly interesting for its own sake.
Budgets aren’t signed by the President. The Budget Control Act was. Furthermore, budget resolutions are binding. Democrats have treated the numbers in the Budget Control Act as non-binding, seeking to exceed them time and again.
But sure, have that one as a budget. Your guys still didn’t pass budgets in 2010, 2012, and Democrats voted against EVERY budget brought up for a vote for FY2013, even ones brought up by their own members.
Democrats don’t want to govern. The voters should oblige them.
What are you using as the definition of “budget”? If you mean a Congressional Budget Resolution as defined in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Budget Control Act pretty clearly meets the definition of that Act, since it amends the Act to say it qualifies.
Do you have a cite that the budget resolution in the Budget Control Act is somehow less binding then previous budget resolutions?
Do you remember that time when Congress wanted to spend more money in a given fiscal year, but then said “no, we can’t do that, it isn’t allowed in the Budget Resolution”? I don’t, which makes me think they have never been particularly binding. But I’d be interested to learn otherwise.
And yet, money appears to have been spent by the Federal Govenment in those years. And in 1998, 2002, 2005 and 2006. I’m starting to think “a budget” isn’t necessary to have “a budget”.
My understanding is the Budget Control Act is for 2012-2013.
Voters don’t care, because they correctly don’t passing or not passing a Budget Resolutions as equivalent to “governing”.
No, Republicans don’t want to govern, seeing as they were willing to almost cause complete financial collapse, going past two point where, as far as they knew, were past the point of no return, and forcing passage of a rushed bill they apparently didn’t like, seeing as they now want only half of it to take effect.
And of course the Democrats are trying to change the terms. That’s why the budget exists–it’s a last minute budget that takes effect if they don’t come to another budget agreement. And, no, wanting to only honor only the half of the emergency budget that doesn’t affect them is not trying to come to another budget agreement.
But go ahead and defend your people for lying, even in when you are using a hypothetical where you provisionally accept that their statements are inaccurate.
Or, to make that where you can understand it: If we have that one as a budget, that means your party lied. And that’s what this Pit thread is about.
This isn’t a Pit thread.