Damn. You're right. April 29 2009.

PolitiFact Wisconsin | Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate has gone nearly three years without a budget, GOP Rep. Paul Ryan says

You know what though, you're still wrong, because the point still stands. If fear of filibuster is the reason for the Senate not passing a budget, why not pass one when you control both houses, and you don't have to worry about passing one then facing a filibuster?

The Democrats controlled both houses in 2010 when the next budget was up.

2011 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Dems still held both houses before the September 30 deadline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...lections,_2010

This is what you said...

A budget could have been approved by the Democrat controlled house before September 30. They did not have to worry about a filibuster. The budget could have been approved in the House.

So I was wrong about the niggle, but it would appear I was right about the main point. Not passing a budget had nothing to do with filibuster fear.

yeah, and now the spin cycle will start....

It might have been a different story if The Democrats in fact Controlled both houses in 2010 and failed to pass a budget.. but well, too bad they didn't control both houses. The Conference Report would have still been subject to Filibuster and Republicans would have done so.


Wrong.. If you're referring to the mythical 2 year Super Majority well, check your facts, that didn't happen either. The Democrats held a Super Majority for about 4 months, which wasn't enough time and the wrong time of year to pass a budget resolution.

Afraid not...

Oh I love how you keep repeating " Democratic Controlled, as if you're wishing it was somehow correct....


I never said they "Feared" a Filibuster. Harry Reid would be leading the Charge on the Filibuster if the shoe was on the other foot. He has stated the reason he will not bother with a budget is because as long as the Economic Terrorists are in Washington it is a waste of time. This particular group of Republicans is not concerned with the Economy, Jobs, The middle Class, or even having a Government. All they want to do is protect their interests on Wall Street and destroy the Rest. Oh, and they are deeply concerned with Social issues such as Stopping Gay Marriage, Stopping Abortions, and Suppressing Voters on the Democratic side....

We could have been well on our way to a balanced budget by now if they would stop playing partisan games and pass a budget. I'm afraid we're about to get 4 more years of the same though so I for one don't have any grand delusions of anything getting better, even after Obama is re-elected the most we can hope for is 4 more years of slow growth and high unemployment.... But hey, we at least have an Army that can take on the rest of the world and not break a sweat.... thanks to the Bush Budget we are still using.

No. I was referring to a simple majority which was in effect until November 2010.

But you know what? It is possible I don't understand this yet. Take it apart with me.

OK, so this first method would only require a simple majority in the House, right?


As I understand it, it's this second method that could cause a problem. He goes on...

Parliamentary procedure: Why the Senate hasn't passed a budget | The Economist

So as I read that if Pelosi's House came up with a budget before November 2010, and the Senate agreed with it in a conference report it could pass with a simple majority, but if Reid wanted to pass a Senate resolution he'd need a supermajority to avoid the possibility of fillibuster.

Is that correct?

The answer is Yes, and No.

First of all they don't have until November, they have I think until Sept to Enact a new Budget or they have to pass a Continuing resolution. Once they do that that budget is dead and is no longer up for a vote.

The Senate can pass a Budget resolution with a simple Majority, it's the Deeming Process that is subject to Filibuster.

Here's how it breaks down..

The President proposes his budget normally the first Monday in Feb,Once he does that then the process starts.

Now that the Budget proposal has been handed down both houses are responsible for drafting budget resolutions. The Budget is sent to The House Committee on the Budget and the Senate Committee on the Budget.They have until early April to finalize their drafts and submit them to their respective floors for a vote on adoption.

Once passed the budget is adopted by Congress but it is not Law and does not require the President's signature. This adopted budget then becomes the blueprint they will use during the appropriations process.

Now here is where it gets tricky... Once the budget is adopted it goes to selected representatives to negotiate a conference report. They work out any differences between the house and the senate versions and then this "Conference Report " Gos back to their respective Floors for another vote on passage. This is a conference report, not a resolution , so it is subject to endless debate and this is where the Republicans have used the Filibuster to continue blocking all of President Obama's budgets. If you have followed politics for any length of time you know the mere threat of a filibuster will stop most anything from being put up for a vote. And now we know why Harry Reid refuses to play this game and waste even more time...

And so long as you know The Democrats did pass a budget resolution and adopt the fiscal 2010 budget. It just never made it out of the appropriations process because the Republicans couldn't afford to let him actually accomplish his goal of cutting the deficit in half. The CBO projected that the fiscal 2010 budget would have done just that, cut our deficit in half by 2012... but I guess we'll never know because the Republicans got what they wanted.

Anyone going up against David Axelrod needs all the PR help they can get.

To be honest I only got interested in American politics sometime after the last election. When I first came here I had to ask what a Progressive was, and I didn't fully understand what congress was. This is how I learn.

On the 2010 budget, as I understand it, it was stopped in the House by the Dems. Was it not?

Dems won?t pass budget in 2010 - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com

So it would seem the Republicans had nothing to do with the stoppage of the 2010 budget. It was stopped in the House by Dems.

OK, so again, I'd like to go back to this one.

So specifically then if the Dems could have got the budget past argument with itself, and out of the House in 2010, and got the Democratic Senate to pass an identical resolution, is it not true that the budget would have passed without the possibility of filibuster?

A couple of little sidebars, just because I'm curious. Wasn't the 2010 budget the one where Obama promised transparency. Wasn't there a promise to televise the Dem talks on C-Span, or something, but they locked the doors?

And did this one have anything to do with the budget?

Filibuster in the United States Senate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

hey I've been following politics my whole adult life and I still learn new stuff every day.....

Well the Democrats did stop one Budget themselves because there was a split with the Conservative Democrats and the Far Left and they couldn't agree on spending. They didn't beat the deadline on negotiating so were forced to fund the Government through other means that year. It had to be the Same budget from your link because that was the only Obama Budget that actually passed.

No they had nothing to do with that one but not a single Republican supported it either. They sat on the sidelines and let the Democrats fight it out to a draw.

No. the House and Senate both passed a concurrent resolution which sent the Budget to Committee. Once the Committees were through hashing out the details they would then send the budget back to the respective houses for another vote. This is where a Filibuster would have been possible, and the Republicans were waiting already having warned of a Filibuster if the budget made it through Committee.

I don't know, I never expected him to keep this promise. Politicians make promises they know they can't keep, all of them do it, so I personally don't hold them accountable unless it's an important promise. I get enough politics in a given day to make the average guy sick so I'd rather not have live feeds or C-span showing me live footage of Politicians at work, My blood pressure would rise and I might get physically ill.


No that was a little private Filibuster Old Bernie was doing to stop the Bush Tax cuts from being extended. It didn't work though.. Obama made the deal... And they say he can't work with the other side.

Is this first of the two possible methods of passing the budget ever possible? Yes or No.

If yes, why was it not possible in 2010?

Yes it's possible , that is how most budgets are passed and signed into Law.

It wasn't possible on the 2010 budget because the house and Senate had a dispute and did not pass the Conference report. Some of the Old Bluedog Democrats wanted something different concerning spending on entitlements and they were unable to agree.

If they had agreed and the Conference report came back for a vote then the republicans could have Filibustered. At that time Technically the Democrats didn't have the Super Majority because Senator Kennedy was ill and in order for the Super Majority to work all 60 seats must be there to vote.