Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Why the hell won't the Senate propose & pass a budget bill to avoid the sequester

Posted 1 year ago on Feb. 26, 2013, 8:10 p.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

because it would be unconstitutional

67 Comments

67 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

For decades, the Rs are brilliant at manipulating the system to the very edge.
This is just one example.
As we know, boehner-koch-alec-rove-1% want a budget with no "revenue" so

they make a huge PR deal demanding that the Senate replace the sequester.

Since the Senate ( and POTUS ) want to raise revenues,
and the Rs know the Senate wants to raise revenue
and the Rs know anything that does NOT originate in the House is unconstitutional -

they are demanding that the Senate do what it cannot do.


Constitution Article 1 Section. 7.
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;
but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills


[-] -3 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Your blind allegiance to half of our problem is only driving the 91% of the population who are sick of all this shit away.

Please stop.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

In stead of telling me what is wrong with me -
tell us what is wrong with my post

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

IF the Senate and the POTUS wanted to raise taxes, they would have done it in 08 after that landslide victory.

Instead they extended the Bush cuts.

Wake up.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1989) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

If you had a solution to this latest GOP induced hostage crisis, you would have let us all know. What you have let us all know is that you think democracy is futile, you agree with most of Ted Nugent's positions, Dems can do nothing right, you support Cons by default, you have ZERO solutions to anything, if enough people listened to you we'd have a Bain-Con-1% government and country, exclusively GOP Internet and Fox Lies MSM-PBS (Idiocracy), no Voter Rights Act, and you probably should stick to sidewalk chalking and bus stop boxing. Every board has that guy, and you're that guy. That's cool.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Here ya go stupid, lets see what your ideas are:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/shake-it-up-real-solutions-to-real-problems-with-a/

Oh, you never comment on posts like that. How shocking.

Lets hear it.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1989) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

When you share your "thoughts" at least spell it correctly.

"Shake It Up: Real Solutions to Real Problems with Accountability Posted 10 months ago on April 27, 2012, 12:03 p.m. EST by hchc (3317) from Tampa, FL This content is user submitted and not an official statement (there are many more ideas and thouhts in the comments section)"

And if you don't know why our elected Reps go to WDC, I can't help you.

It's cool you're that guy, just be him with someone else.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Focus on the spelling error, ignore the comment. How typical.

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

The sequester is PART of a bill. It is not a bill on it's own. Thus amending the bill by removing the sequester or adjusting it IS something that the Senate can do.

And BOTH houses are posturing and refusing to compromise- http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/284829-rival-bills-teed-up-in-the-senate

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Amending a PASSED bill is impossible
If both houses wanted to ELIMINATE the sequester in total, it would n ot be a revenue bill, and I think either house could propose it. It is a REPLACEMENT this includes any revenues that must start in the house

[-] 1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Amending a passed bill is impossible? ROFL A passed bill becomes a "LAW". And you realize we have "AMENDED" the US Constitution MANY times right?

The SEQUESTER is a trigger that was built into the Budget Control Act of 2011. The Budget Control Act was the revenue bill, and it was PASSED (became law) in 2011 by both parties and both houses of congress.

If, as you claim, it is impossible to amend a passed bill (law), then neither the Senate OR the House can do a damn thing about the trigger-the sequester-because the Bill containing it was passed in 2011. And this whole thread is pointless.

As far as the constitutional definition of "revenue", please see the link I posted earlier.

"Only bills to levy taxes in the strict sense of the word are comprehended by the phrase “all bills for raising revenue”; bills for other purposes, which incidentally create revenue, are not included. "

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Where does the . "constitutional definition of "revenue"
APPEAR IN THE CONSTITUTION ?
"Only bills to levy taxes in the strict sense of the word are comprehended by the phrase “all bills for raising revenue”; bills for other purposes, which incidentally create revenue, are not included. "

Can you provide a link to info on any year ( in the last 200+ ) when the Senate passed a budget that included revenues - BEFORE the house d id

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

The constitutional definition of "revenue" as used in Article 1, Section 7, as "bills to levy taxes in the strict sense of the word..." is a Supreme Court determination made when cases came before the court that dealt with prior instances in which some felt the LAW had been broken.

http://www.lawforkids.org/sc/Law-Docs/article-1-section-7

There's a simple explanation.

All TAX bills, in which revenues either increase or decrease through TAXES must originate in the House. The Senate can vote to amend ANY of those bills or agree with amendments made to those bills.

Bills that DO NOT involve levying new taxes on the American people can come from the Senate. Bills that involve taxes PREVIOUSLY levied upon the American people-which at some earlier time ORIGINATED in the House, and were agreed to by the House: "the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills".

Since the SEQUESTER is part of an already existing LAW-that dealt with THE BUDGET, that originated in the House, the Senate CAN "propose or concur with amendments as on other bills".

The Senate CAN and DOES talk to the House all the time and CAN give their input on ANY bills that they would like the House to pass so they can approve them as well. They are called "budget plans" and the Senate members can vote on a "plan" and then submit that plan to the House as an indication of what they are willing to approve of. The HOUSE then uses some, or all, or none of that "plan" to originate a new bill.

The Senate and the House propose and pass "bills" amongst themselves ALL THE TIME. Bills are not LAWS. Then they pass their "bills" along to each other for approval, dissection, disapproval, etc. The FINAL BILL that results in the levy of new taxes upon the American people MUST originate in the House, pass the House and then be submitted to the Senate and pass the Senate before it becomes a LAW.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

From your link: "This is a summary of the important issues covered in this section of the US Constitution.
"All tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives." Again - a law cannot be amended after a bill becomes a law.


Again - if I am wrong, link me to a specific example of a revenue or tax bill passed by the Senate before the House
You have over 200 years to find one.

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

"Again - a law cannot be amended after a bill becomes a law."

Do the AMENDMENTS to the supreme law of this country, the US Constitution sound familiar?

You are wrong. Laws can be amended AND repealed. And they are all the time.

Now, as far as BUDGETARY bills, see:

http://budget.senate.gov/republican/public/index.cfm/committee?p=committee-history

Budget appropriations, blueprints, and continuing resolutions are ALL ways that the Senate can propose legislation WITHOUT "originating" and end result tax bill. They DO IT ALL THE TIME. The SENATE can pass it's OWN BILLS and proposals and then submit them to the House, which then draws up the FORMAL BILL so that the end result bill DOES originate in the House.

SO-get this clear in your head-the Senate can propose AND vote for a bill WITHIN THE SENATE even if that bill includes REVENUE. That does not mean it has "passed a bill" in the terms of that bill becoming a LAW. it means that the Senate has agreed on a specific piece of legislation.

THEN the Senate submits that "bill" to the House and IF the House votes on it and approves it within the HOUSE (meaning the majority of Reps agree with it) THEN the HOUSE draws up an OFFICIAL BILL implementing ALL of the agreed upon items, and then votes on the FINAL bill. THEN that "final bill" is submitted to the Senate for their approval, AGAIN, and then it moves to the President.

THUS ALL FINAL REVENUE bills DO "originate in the House" .

Your understanding of the Constitution and the Legislative process is clearly driven by something other than fact.

[-] -3 points by justiceforzim (-17) 1 year ago

You sure got that one right, otp. While bens,shooz,vq,gf turn every evil we face in this country into a l/r insult fest, the influence of money in politics grows, cyber laws are being enacted, our privacy is nearly non existent and the bill of rights is in shreds. Wall street continues to launder money for the political elite in DC. What fools they are to bicker about the dems and reps when they are both in cahoots to maintain their power and keep the citizens divided over false political party nonsense.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

SOP- when a coward is cornerd, he changes the subject

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

The only fool here is you. But, you keep tryin' there, Pal.I love this game. The one where you get a new ID just to be a dick because you don't have the balls to stick with one ID.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (27778) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Because the corpoRATists are standing in the way - doing their best to fuck over the American people.

[+] -4 points by shadows (-39) 1 year ago

Obama has been doing that since January, 2009

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20443) 1 year ago

No. Because they want to get re-elected and will lose money from their "supporters" if they do anything drastic, like raise taxes on the wealthy and reduce corporate loopholes.

[-] -1 points by justiceforzim (-17) 1 year ago

Or reform the largest part of the federal budget. The kids not only get stuck with our national debt, they will suffer the most when social security and medicare go broke. We cannot tax-the-rich our way out of this mess.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20443) 1 year ago

No, these politicians, who supposedly are to look out for the general welfare of the people, should also insure that workers receive a living wage. Profits should be shared more fairly with workers. If that were to happen we wouldn't need to tax the rich so much, now would we.

If Medicare was expanded to include all people, the young and the healthy as well as the elderly and the poor, the costs would level out and it would remove the connection to employment and free employers from the cost as well as free employees to live their lives as they see fit.

[-] -1 points by justiceforzim (-17) 1 year ago

I am not going to debate the merits of socialism with you and it really has nothing to do with the unsustainable trajectory of so called "entitlements"

[-] -2 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Most people in gov have been nothing but sell outs and ass kissers for a very long time.

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (20443) 1 year ago

Very true, but I think it's even worse since Citizens United. Not one banker has been put away or even on trial since the Global Financial Crisis and they claim to be governing us with our "general welfare" as their main objective? It's a joke.

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Not nearly as big of a joke as the people tolerating it. This is like dealing with children, they will push boundaries as far as they can. Play mom off dad, and vice versa. Get busted? Deny, deny deny.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20443) 1 year ago

True. The American people are the ones tolerating it, sadly. WTFU people!

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

You mean raise taxes on themselves? And who is wealthiest in Congress, Reps or Dems?

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Are you stupid? Are you missing the entire picture here?

Please take your moronic partisan nonsense somewhere else. Im sorry you were lied to your whole life. But its time to get over it.

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

Congress will never raise taxes on itself.

[-] -3 points by TheBlackSun (-32) 1 year ago

So the democrats are the problem?

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (27778) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

AHHHAhahahaha U'r funny.

[-] -2 points by TheBlackSun (-32) 1 year ago

Well. They control the Senate.

[-] -2 points by justiceforzim (-17) 1 year ago

And control the DOJ. The Dems control the ability to prosecute. After the Frontline piece, Lenny Breuer resigned (long overdue over Fast and Furious) and yet no cases are being brought to trial.

[-] 0 points by conservatroll (117) 1 year ago

It's very telling when someone gets downvoted for stating the facts.

[-] 2 points by whaddyathink (-89) from Millville, NJ 1 year ago

A driver was stuck in a traffic jam on the highway outside Washington, DC. Nothing was moving.

Suddenly, a man knocks on the window.

The driver rolls down the window and asks, "What's going on?"

"Terrorists have kidnapped Congress, and they're asking for a $100 million dollar ransom. Otherwise, they are going to douse them all in gasoline and set them on fire. We are going from car to car, collecting donations."

"How much is everyone giving, on average?" the driver asks. The man replies, "About a gallon."

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

ROFL!

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

GOOD NEWS-
now the Rs [ sen pat toomey ] is proposing that the president be given the power to propose ALL of the cuts.
great idea - tell the lemmings that we Rs are willing to compromise -
and let the president do exactly what we want - all cuts & no revenues


I would cut every military contract in every Rs district


another brilliant slimeball

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The R districts would deserve the cuts. Obviously Boehner knows Pelosi is right about all spending bills originating in the house (& last terms don't count). I'm glad she made him look stupid.

And the phony proposal to give up congressional constitutional power to control spending is just ludicrous & DOA.

Tax the rich goddamn it!

[-] 2 points by grapes (2838) 1 year ago

Our grade school students when confronted by mathematics have the correct answer: it's too hard!

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Because US Congress is Fascist. They wont oppose big business.

"...In general, the manifesto was antisemitic, anti-capitalist, anti-democratic, anti-Marxist, and anti-liberal.[43] On 24 February 1920[dubious – discuss], the party also added "National Socialist" to its official name, in order to appeal to both nationalists and socialists, becoming the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP, or Nazis for short), ..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSDAP

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Fascist_Party

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34124.htm

US Moves Towards Open Arming Of "Syrian Rebels"

By Stephen Lendman

February 28, 2013 "Information Clearing House" - Kerry replaced Clinton at State. He didn't miss a beat. He continues her imperial arrogance. He prioritizes war. He deplores peace. He supports Israel's worst crimes.

He's contemptuous of rule of law principles. He supports wrong over right. He's indifferent to human suffering. US imperial priorities alone matter.

His first overseas trip continues. He left Sunday. He's visiting nine countries in 11 days. After meeting with French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, he said:

"We all agree that the time has passed for President Assad to heed the voice of his people and the voice of the people in the world who want a peaceful transition and a new opportunity for Syria."

"That’s why we are examining and developing ways to accelerate the political transition that the Syrian people seek and deserve."

Plans are to assure Western-backed death squads more aid. They're not rebels. They're invaders. They're terrorists. Media scoundrels don't explain.

Last June, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused America of arming Syrian opposition fighters. Doing so is contrary to what US officials claim, he said.

On February 28, the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) said Kerry backs anti-government terrorists. He wants Assad ousted faster. He's involved in doing what he won't admit. He's sending "military vehicles and armors" to death squad killers.

He "neglected any stance that helps the political dialogue, and he only promised to back the armed groups in a way that encourages them to continue their criminal acts of killing, terrifying the innocent citizens, and destroying the government institutions."

Doing so makes him complicit in crimes of war and against humanity. He was earlier as Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman.

He's a longtime insider. He threatens world peace. He prioritizes war. He risks global conflict doing so.

Washington's actively arming, funding, training, and directing anti-Syrian government terrorists. It's been ongoing since conflict erupted.

America planned, instigated, and directs it. Syria is Washington's war.

Obama wants subservient puppet leadership replacing Assad. Plans are longstanding. They're lawless. They're to advance America's imperium. Kerry's job is assuring it. It's his top priority. He's an imperial warrior. Don't expect him to explain.

He's meeting with Friends of Syria in Rome. They subvert peaceful conflict resolution. He'll meet with Syrian National Council representatives in Istanbul.

Opposition fighters won't be left "dangling in the wind," he said. Aid will be significantly increased. Weapons and munitions are prioritized. Wars aren't waged without them.

Regional allies are complicit in supplying them. Israel's very much involved. So are Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and Turkey. Western war profiteers produce them.

Kerry provides diplomatic cover. He claims he wants peaceful conflict resolution. Washington's waging war to prevent it.

It's got blood on its hands. It bears full responsibility for tens of thousands of Syrian deaths. Kerry's complicit in high crimes. He's dismissive of anti-Assad death squad atrocities.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Right, like they give a shit about the constitution...

Sincerely,

Free Speech Zones Indef Detention Spying Forced Corporatism Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc...

[-] -1 points by peacehurricane (293) 1 year ago

What does it matter what they vote it is not for America that they do anything and appealing to or expecting any help from them is absolute nonsense look what it has gotten us this far nothing has changed in that place and we need to get out of the so-called capitol and get a real one!

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

HOW

[-] -1 points by peacehurricane (293) 1 year ago

Mother Nature may come to our assistance. Occupy people should move here, I live in Oregon come on over and live in the most democratic ideal location in the world!

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

It's not that the procedure would be unconstitutional, it's that without the House's approval of a Senate budget bill, it means nothing. Same thing if the House does it. Unless both houses accept and pass the bill, it doesn't take effect. The Senate hasn't passed a budget bill since 2009.

[+] -5 points by justiceforzim (-17) 1 year ago

The Senate hasn';t passed a buget since 09 because POTUS hasn't submitted one that even ONE Dem would vote for. Just another way he thumbs his nose at the Constitution.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago
[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

while you're reading the constitution

let me know where it allows the president to declare years worth of wars without the authority of the Congress.

How was the war against Libya constitutional? How are the drone wars constitutional?

[-] -3 points by justiceforzim (-17) 1 year ago

Read soine more and yoiu will find that POTUS is tasked with developing the budget. Congress funds it as it sees fit.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Obama did propose a budget
You can read it
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/
but the Senate cannot origi nate a revenue bill
Which means, of course, the Senate could pass a bill
that eliminates social security, medicare, and medicaid

[-] 1 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 1 year ago

The Budget Act of 1974 requires each house of Congress to pass an annual budget resolution by April 15. The Senate has not passed a budget resolution since April 29, 2009, although Democratic leaders there say they expect to meet the deadline this year. when did the house last pass a resolution?

[-] 0 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 1 year ago

According to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, the President must annually submit a budget to Congress by the first Monday in February. The only time Obama met the deadline during his presidency was in 2011.

No leadership.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

by justiceforzim (48) 15 hours ago
The Senate hasn';t passed a buget since 09 because POTUS hasn't submitted one that even ONE Dem would vote for. Just another way he thumbs his nose at the Constitution.


The budget WAS submitted but it cannot originate in the Senate

[-] 1 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 1 year ago

Was the budget like that 2011 "job's bill" that no Dem would support?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

look it up - it MUST go thru the House first
I suggest that you ask your congressman to bring it to the floor to see what happens

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

foot in mouth

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-1/15-bills-and-resolutions.html

Revenue Bills

"Insertion of this clause was another of the devices sanctioned by the Framers to preserve and enforce the separation of powers. It applies, in the context of the permissibility of Senate amendments to a House-passed bill, to all bills for collecting revenue—revenue decreasing as well as revenue increasing—rather than simply to just those bills that increase revenue."

"Only bills to levy taxes in the strict sense of the word are comprehended by the phrase “all bills for raising revenue”; bills for other purposes, which incidentally create revenue, are not included. Thus, a Senate-initiated bill that provided for a monetary “special assessment” to pay into a crime victims fund did not violate the clause, because it was a statute that created and raised revenue to support a particular governmental program and was not a law raising revenue to support Government generally. An act providing a national currency secured by a pledge of bonds of the United States, which, “in the furtherance of that object, and also to meet the expenses attending the execution of the act,” imposed a tax on the circulating notes of national banks was held not to be a revenue measure which must originate in the House of Representatives. Neither was a bill that provided that the District of Columbia should raise by taxation and pay to designated railroad companies a specified sum for the elimination of grade crossings and the construction of a railway station. The substitution of a corporation tax for an inheritance tax, and the addition of a section imposing an excise tax upon the use of foreign-built pleasure yachts,have been held to be within the Senate’s constitutional power to propose amendments."


The Sequester is part of a bill that was already proposed and passed by both the House and the Senate. Changing the sequester or avoiding it would only mean an AMENDMENT to an already existing bill.

The House has ALREADY PASSED two bills to amend the bill and deal with the sequestration, but the SENATE will not pass either one.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The house bills were last year. They are no good in this term. The House MUST go 1st with the new law. That is what the constitution says..

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

You misunderstand. The sequester was part of the Budget Control Act 0f 2011. And that Act is still "the law" as of today. BOTH parties and BOTH houses of Congress passed it.

Adjusting a bill is called AMENDING and the Senate can design and vote on a AMENDMENT to the BCA that changes or removes the sequester trigger. Thus "The Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills"

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Please. You're fantasizing. The sequestor was passed to forced congress to act BEFORE the deadline.

That action must be a spending bill this term originating in the house. that's all.

They ain't gonna do that cause they don't want to go on record with the kinds of cuts that were in their 2 bills last term.

The house repubs are cowards. They're afraid to out themselves as heartless cuters of pgms for the sick/poor/elderly, and they're afraid to do the right thing and close tax loop holes for rich because the tea party will primary their sorry asses.

Aaaaaaah ha ha ha ha.

The house repubs are the problem. They need to grow a spine and do the right thing.

They should just listen to Occupy, Raise taxes on the wealthy, invest in job creation, reward insourcing and raise wages!

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (27778) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

And - it - "IS" - just that easy. That does not even take into account charging and prosecuting the meltdown criminals.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_sequestration

"Sequestration was later included as part of the Budget Control Act of 2011, which resolved the debt-ceiling crisis; the bill set up a Congressional debt-reduction committee and included the sequestration as a disincentive to be activated only if Congress did not pass deficit reduction legislation. However, the committee did not come to agreement on any plan, activating the sequestration plan. The sequestration was to come into force on January 1, 2013 and was considered part of the fiscal cliff, but the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 delayed it until March 1 of that year."

The super committee-three Dems and three Reps could not reach an agreement that both houses would pass, and thus the sequestration that BOTH houses agreed to by signing it into LAW, was triggered.

bensdad just said it's impossible to amend a passed bill (LAW). If you agree with him, then the sequester can't be stopped as it's already a law.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The house repubs are cowards. They're afraid to out themselves as heartless cuters of pgms for the sick/poor/elderly, and they're afraid to do the right thing and close tax loop holes for rich because the tea party will primary their sorry asses.

Aaaaaaah ha ha ha ha.

The house repubs are the problem. They need to grow a spine and do the right thing.

They should just listen to Occupy, Raise taxes on the wealthy, invest in job creation, reward insourcing and raise wages!

[-] -3 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

What is so bad about the sequester?