Why didn’t the Dems preempt this crisis by passing a budget last year??

[Anonymous]

Can someone explain this? Why didn’t they just cut the budget last year (before the election when they could have passed whatever they wanted to) with a few little things to show that they agree that spending should be decreased, couldn’t they have averted this entire ordeal? They may have even saved a few house seats if they passed a lower budget. Or am I missing something??

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain this? Why didn’t they just cut the budget last year (before the election when they could have passed whatever they wanted to) with a few little things to show that they agree that spending should be decreased, couldn’t they have averted this entire ordeal? They may have even saved a few house seats if they passed a lower budget. Or am I missing something??

First, they could not pass whatever they wanted to because of the Senate Republicans' use of the filibuster over just about everything. Also, they could not pass a budget without addressing the extension of the Bush tax cuts. The Democrats claimed to oppose an extension and were afraid that not extending the tax cuts or extending them below $250,000 only would lead Republicans to attack them for raising taxes. My more cynical side would say that the Dems always intended to extend the cuts and were more afraid of pissed off liberals.

The stated plan was that they would pass a budget after the election. Why they thought things would be better after a butt-kicking was never clear to me.

On days that I trust the Democrats, which are fewer and fewer all the time, I think that they should have proposed a budget that contained significant infrastructure spending and only extended the tax cuts below $250,000. Then, let the Republicans filibuster it and attack them for only caring about the rich and allowing our bridges to collapse.

Also, the issue of spending is not really anything anyone really cares about. It is simply a campaign issue and nothing more. If people cared about spending, there would be a massive anti-war movement.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain this? Why didn’t they just cut the budget last year (before the election when they could have passed whatever they wanted to) with a few little things to show that they agree that spending should be decreased, couldn’t they have averted this entire ordeal? They may have even saved a few house seats if they passed a lower budget. Or am I missing something??

First, they could not pass whatever they wanted to because of the Senate Republicans' use of the filibuster over just about everything. Also, they could not pass a budget without addressing the extension of the Bush tax cuts. The Democrats claimed to oppose an extension and were afraid that not extending the tax cuts or extending them below $250,000 only would lead Republicans to attack them for raising taxes. My more cynical side would say that the Dems always intended to extend the cuts and were more afraid of pissed off liberals.

The stated plan was that they would pass a budget after the election. Why they thought things would be better after a butt-kicking was never clear to me.

On days that I trust the Democrats, which are fewer and fewer all the time, I think that they should have proposed a budget that contained significant infrastructure spending and only extended the tax cuts below $250,000. Then, let the Republicans filibuster it and attack them for only caring about the rich and allowing our bridges to collapse.

Also, the issue of spending is not really anything anyone really cares about. It is simply a campaign issue and nothing more. If people cared about spending, there would be a massive anti-war movement.

it just seems like they screwed this up for themselves. bad planning, bad execution, bad political maneuvering, at least from how it looks right now.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
it just seems like they screwed this up for themselves. bad planning, bad execution, bad political maneuvering, at least from how it looks right now.

That's how it looked then. Many of us were trying to warn them.

I have said it over and over, but the day after winning a historic election that put Democrats in charge of the White House and both chambers of Congress, the Democrats began negotiating their surrender. If anyone can ever explain that behavior, they will probably deserve a Nobel of some sort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain this? Why didn’t they just cut the budget last year (before the election when they could have passed whatever they wanted to) with a few little things to show that they agree that spending should be decreased, couldn’t they have averted this entire ordeal? They may have even saved a few house seats if they passed a lower budget. Or am I missing something??

First, they could not pass whatever they wanted to because of the Senate Republicans' use of the filibuster over just about everything. Also, they could not pass a budget without addressing the extension of the Bush tax cuts. The Democrats claimed to oppose an extension and were afraid that not extending the tax cuts or extending them below $250,000 only would lead Republicans to attack them for raising taxes. My more cynical side would say that the Dems always intended to extend the cuts and were more afraid of pissed off liberals.

The stated plan was that they would pass a budget after the election. Why they thought things would be better after a butt-kicking was never clear to me.

On days that I trust the Democrats, which are fewer and fewer all the time, I think that they should have proposed a budget that contained significant infrastructure spending and only extended the tax cuts below $250,000. Then, let the Republicans filibuster it and attack them for only caring about the rich and allowing our bridges to collapse.

Also, the issue of spending is not really anything anyone really cares about. It is simply a campaign issue and nothing more. If people cared about spending, there would be a massive anti-war movement.

it just seems like they screwed this up for themselves. bad planning, bad execution, bad political maneuvering, at least from how it looks right now.

Wow, d'ja think?

These are the Democrats we're talking about.

Anyway, a lot of this anger at Democrats for not having spines is misplaced:

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/04/democratic_spinelessnes/

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
it just seems like they screwed this up for themselves. bad planning, bad execution, bad political maneuvering, at least from how it looks right now.

That's how it looked then. Many of us were trying to warn them.

I have said it over and over, but the day after winning a historic election that put Democrats in charge of the White House and both chambers of Congress, the Democrats began negotiating their surrender. If anyone can ever explain that behavior, they will probably deserve a Nobel of some sort.

Wrong people at the wrong positions?

Rahm Emmanuel (and Reid to a lesser extent) specifically. The White House made fetish out of "bipartisanship". The GOP is not set up to be a bipartisan partner.