Sen. Harry Reid Delays Budget Vote Until 1pm Sunday

By Jeralyn, Section Economy
Posted on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 09:36:23 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Sen. Harry Reid has decided there's no more jams to kick out tonight for the Senate. The 1:00 am vote has been postponed until 1:00 pm Sunday to give everyone more time to make bad decisions.

Negotiators told National Journal that progress was made on the toughest remaining issue -- a so-called trigger to ensure that spending cuts of up to $2.4 trillion would, in fact, be instituted by a special committee the debt-ceiling bills in Congress would establish.

Here are the details on the 12 member Joint Commission proposal (Section 301 of H.R.2693.) The Commission must finish its report with spending cut recommendations by Nov. 23. They will be voted on by Dec. 23. No amendments will be allowed. Also, no motions to postpone or move on to other business, no motions for points of order.

Translation: Reid to Republicans:[More...]

Here's a thread to vent your frustration.

Update via Bloomberg News:

The new panel would have to act before the Thanksgiving congressional recess in late November or government programs including Defense and Medicare would face automatic, across-the-board cuts, the person said.

The New York Times puts it this way:

A failure of the new committee to win enactment of its proposal could then set off automatic spending cuts across the board, including to entitlement programs.

< Here Comes the Last Minute Budget Capitulation | Will The Debt Ceiling Deal Get Worse? Depends Who Is Voting For It >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Sen. Harry Reid Delays Budget Vote Until 1pm Sunday | 35 comments (35 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Org*nizing for Americ* robo-called Thursday night, (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by BBQinDenver on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 12:23:55 AM EST

with an invitation to attend a meeting Wednesday evening for the 2012 campaign; I pressed "1" to acccept the invite and to have someone contact me with the location of my neighborhood meeting. A chance to vent (?and find others who are also angered) and challenge.
And having risked being in what can most likely be described as the enemy camp, I am reaching out to the TL folks in the metro Denver neighborhood to join me for coffee and/or spirits soon. Louis.

and, yes, I do have a dog in this fight. (5.00 / 4) (#10)
by BBQinDenver on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 12:34:05 AM EST

Owned a small business for 25 years that I closed Dec 25. Closing was made possible by Medicare benefits starting 2 years ago, and by a (very) modest Social Security benefit starting 1 year ago. I do not believe that I would have survived standing on my feet for 70-80 hours a week for another 2 years. And the fight is for all those behind me to have these benefits as well.


: And a very good business it was (none / 0) (#11)
by Jeralyn on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 12:44:33 AM EST

Louis. Thanks for stopping by.

Perhaps you can suggest that Obama volunteer (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by esmense on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 09:54:51 AM EST

to step down for the good of the country. We can't primary him, that would be too divisive. But, if he has enough love of country, and the good sense God gave him, he has to realize that he doesn't have the skills needed for the Presidency at this point in time.

Then perhaps he and the rest of the Democratic establishment could put their endorsement and resources behind somebody else who could promise a new approach and a fresh start (not Biden, at least not for the top).

A Hillary/Biden ticket vs. Bachmann/Cain would be quite a matchup.

Johnson had a 36% approval rating when he went before the public and said, "I shall not seek, nor will I accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President."

Obama is only at 40% now and definitely going down.


Or, suggest that he change his party (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Anne on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:23:12 AM EST

affiliation; if he wants to govern like a Republican, let him be a Republican, and give the Democratic party back to people who want it to represent real Democrats - the kind that see this manufactured crisis for what it is, and would never push for policy that undermines the safety net and fundamentally reduces the quality of people's lives.


HRC will not be up to the job (none / 0) (#32)
by Politalkix on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:31:27 AM EST

After the way she let GWB, Cheney and Rumsfield walk right over her (while very valiantly staring down Code Pink supporters) and let the financial institutions run wild during her tenure as a Senator, she is certainly not the "fresh start" that people need at this time.
"Fresh" does not mean "Repackaged".


: Unfortunately she is about as liberal as the Dem (none / 0) (#34)
by esmense on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:54:59 AM EST

establishment will tolerate. At least she has a husband he can speak effectively to ordinary people about complex economic issues, and she will energized the female vote. A vote that definitely needs to be energized if we have any hope of keeping a nutcase -- or a formerly centrist/conservative who must respond to the nutcases, like Romney -- out of office.
At this point, there is really not much reason to believe that Obama can win re-election. If the best we can do is someone not much more progressive who can win, then it is worth it.

: Beyond ridiculous (none / 0) (#35)
by Yman on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:54:59 AM EST

She would be twice the POTUS that the current joke has been ... and "fresh" (and "Hope" and "Change") doesn't mean a third GW Bush term.

This legislation is beyond bad; it is evil. (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by jawbone on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 09:28:07 AM EST

Forced on us by Obama.

One thing we know for sure (5.00 / 2) (#28)
by mjames on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 09:44:19 AM EST

It wasn't the "terrorists," as defined by our government and the MSM, that brought this country down. It was the government itself, along with unfettered capitalism, incessant warmongering, and dissipation of the rule of law (such as those individual rights set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights). It's like these idiots never read a history book.

I've said all along, as have many others, our government "representatives" do not want to honor the money they "borrowed" from the Social Security trust fund. In fact, they never had any intention of paying it back, though they are legally obligated to do so. So, they've twisted themselves into pretzels to find a "legal" way to avoid paying their debt. While we're supposed to continue to pay for their salaries and their pensions and their health care and their insane wars.

I would hope someone smarter that I would come up with a way to show them who's boss. Like if, on a date certain, we all go to our respective banks and withdraw our money. On the same day, we take all our money out of the stock market. And we stop paying our bills, based on the model set by our government. (That is, we renegotiate our individual debt unilaterally, as they are doing now with the government debt). Yes, pension plans would be hurt, everyone would be hurt, but, still, pension plans are already being looted and will soon cease to exist (same for 401k plans) and ... inaction in the face of this disaster is anathema to me and I'm 66. I'm ready to march on Washington. Whatever it takes.

I guess it starts with campaign finance reform. And an agreement amongst all liberals not to vote for anyone who supports this blatantly crooked deal. That means anyone, starting with that tiny man in the White House. You know, the guy with the outsized ego and pea brain, the guy who wants to be in with the in crowd more than helping the country, the guy who destroys that which we were promised, the quisling par excellence.

All this talk about "triggers" makes (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by Anne on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:19:01 AM EST

me think there could be - should have been - some powerful ads that end with the tag line: Legislation that will pull the trigger on cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will shoot people like this [photos of the old, the poor and the sick] - and these are the people holding the gun [photos of everyone from Obama on down].

Is it too late? Probably. And in no small part because so many people refused to see that this is where it's all been heading. In some ways, I can't blame them for holding onto the idea that Democrats wouldn't do this because Democrats stand for protecting people, not harming them - but we haven't had those kinds of Democrats in charge of policy and agenda for some time now, and that alone should have been a major red-flag, giant-neon-sign warning.

Hard to know what else to say, but to those for whom the-other-guy-is-worse is still the metric, the standard for how they will vote, for whom even this will not be enough to make them say "no," I don't for the life of me understand how you think anything can ever get better that way. Whatever barely visible incremental good that ever comes out of Democratic leaders these days is dwarfed in size, scope and effect by the massive regressive and punitive policy these same Democrats are cooperating in and even engineering.

I'm not sure I could be more disgusted.

: They have and are still even as we (none / 0) (#33)
by MO Blue on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:45:05 AM EST

type either blaming the Tea Party or saying well the 99.9% proposed right wing Republican legislation is not really all that bad. Kinda good, don't you know. It will be a real win for Obama. Superman has unfurled his cape and saved the universe one more time.

the joint commission (none / 0) (#1)
by observed on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 11:47:14 PM EST

sounds highly undemocratic. IANAGDL, but I wonder about constitutionality. It seems like delegating away constitutional congressional powers to unelected officials.

they are elected officials (none / 0) (#2)
by CoralGables on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 11:56:57 PM EST

from both parties and from both the House and the Senate.

DESIGNATION- Members of the joint committee shall be appointed as follows:

(i) The majority leader of the Senate shall appoint three members from among Members of the Senate.

(ii) The minority leader of the Senate shall appoint three members from among Members of the Senate.

(iii) The Speaker of the House of Representatives shall appoint three members from among Members of the House of Representatives.

(iv) The minority leader of the House of Representatives shall appoint three members from among Members of the House of Representatives.


thanks. I thought of (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by observed on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 12:03:22 AM EST

checking that, but only after I posted the comment.


Still haven't (none / 0) (#5)
by CoralGables on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 12:10:34 AM EST

decided what I think of it, but as of this afternoon that was the way it was written.

Ultimately this may turn out to be the way to save Congress from itself. Whether 523 House & Senate Members would vote to sit idly by while only 12 of them make the decisions will be tough on some egos.


Up or down vote on whole package (none / 0) (#6)
by oculus on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 12:17:47 AM EST

w/o ability to pick and choose from its content?


: That's (none / 0) (#15)
by CoralGables on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 01:19:38 AM EST

how it appears to me.
No amendments. No filibustering. No pork.
Just vote.

Why do they need a committee (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by BrassTacks on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 02:18:42 AM EST

To do THEIR job. Sheeze. One stupid thing after another.


This committee is being set up (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by MO Blue on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 06:15:14 AM EST

and the vote is structured the same way as for base closings. They are doing it that way for the same reason so that members of Congress and the president do not have to take individual responsibility for legislation that will hurt the people on Main St.


I believe (none / 0) (#18)
by CoralGables on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 02:42:15 AM EST

if you look at the debt that has mounted since Ronald Reagan became President, that answer should be obvious.


: The answer is obvious but (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by MO Blue on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 06:32:11 AM EST

not quite the way you answered it.
There were many options to prevent this from happening. There were also other options on how to fix the problem.
Our government has chosen time after time to govern for the benefit of Wall St. As was once said "The banks owe the place." The moneyed interests get bailed out of after their decision to fleece the general public went sour and now reap bigger and better profits. Top management reap more and more millions in salaries and bonuses. Huge amounts of money have been spent for the benefit of the top 1 - 2% of the country. Our legislation is more often than not written by the lobbyists of various corporations for their benefit. Our politicians suck on the government tit during their stay in office and take their generous pensions (much of which is tax free) to their new jobs as consultants or lobbyists to the industries that they supported through their legislation.
Now under the guise of being fiscally responsible our political leaders, including the president, has decided to pay for their corporate welfare programs on the backs of the poor and the middle class and follow up by giving corporations and the uber-wealthy more tax breaks.

invoke the 14th Ammendment already. (none / 0) (#3)
by thereyougo on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 11:58:02 PM EST

Obama has to do that and I think he will. His hand will be forced and that is that. If he capitulates, he's done, as it will show he has no leadership, and no cojones. He has to go for broke and often he's taken the path of least resistance to appease the Republicans.

He can't do that now or risk being elected in 2012.

Spilt milk (none / 0) (#7)
by lilburro on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 12:18:36 AM EST

possibly intentionally spilt...but, I do wish that Obama relied upon Pelosi more during these negotiations.

I don't know if there is a radical miscommunication between them, or what, but she is far to the left of Obama's rhetoric. At least she brings up the fact that Bush is terrible and the cause of many of our problems. Her speech is here.

: All the same (5.00 / 0) (#9)
by lilburro on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 12:25:28 AM EST

having watched that speech, if I was a Democratic politician right now, I would say "Dear rich people - since you do not apparently deserve to have your taxes raised because you are 'job creators,' we have 10% of the US population who needs a job. Do your job or pay the bill." Guess what, they'd pay the bill.
I assume our politicians are too thoroughly owned to make simple, populist points like that.

: Pelosi is a joke (none / 0) (#20)
by klassicheart on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 04:12:32 AM EST

You must be kidding. Isn't that the same Pelosi who managed the health care debate in the House when the House was run by Democrats? We see what we got from Democrats? Actions speak louder than words. And anyway, Pelosi was one of Obama's big supporters in the primaries. Someone who was so wrong about Obama has demonstrated very poor judgment...and they shouldn't be trusted now for their judgment. In fact they shouldn't be trusted.
Let's ask Bernie Sanders whom he trusts. Pelosi does not act the truth. She is part of the establishment Dem leadership that has been a disaster. And we certainly can blame that leadership for ever vouching for Obama.

Please read the update to the post (none / 0) (#12)
by Jeralyn on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 12:47:53 AM EST

According to Bloomberg, if the Commission fails to agree on a plan before Nov., Medicare gets cut automatically.

This is a nightmare. (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by byteb on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 12:56:58 AM EST

Exactly (none / 0) (#17)
by BrassTacks on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 02:21:41 AM EST

They can't do their jobs so they're pushing it off onto this committee. I'm hoping they can't get the votes to pass this atrocity.


: I think then it passes anyway (none / 0) (#19)
by Jeralyn on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 02:45:20 AM EST

The NY Times says:

failure of the new committee to win enactment of its proposal could then set off automatic spending cuts across the board, including to entitlement programs.
Is there a prohibition against repealing the cuts after they've passed? Maybe they'll forget to put that in. In the unlikely event we get a Democrat House in 2012, and we get real Dems instead of faux-Dems, maybe they can reverse the cuts.

If what National Journal (h/t Hullabaloo) (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by MO Blue on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 07:11:10 AM EST

is correct it is even worse.

If the Super Committee fails, Congress must send a balanced-budget amendment to the states for ratification. If that doesn't happen, across-the-board spending cuts would go into effect and could touch Medicare and defense spending.

A complete list according to post:

$2.8 trillion in deficit reduction with $1 trillion locked in through discretionary spending caps over 10 years and the remainder determined by a so-called super committee.

The Super Committee must report precise deficit-reduction proposals by Thanksgiving.

The Super Committee would have to propose $1.8 trillion spending cuts to achieve that amount of deficit reduction over 10 years.

If the Super Committee fails, Congress must send a balanced-budget amendment to the states for ratification. If that doesn't happen, across-the-board spending cuts would go into effect and could touch Medicare and defense spending.

No net new tax revenue would be part of the special committee's deliberations.

Please take note that one this is being set up in such a way as to guarantee that large cuts to the safety net programs will be made and prohibits any increase in tax revenue.

As Akins points out:

None of which even touches the fact that the discretionary spending cuts and bipartisan commission to recommend entitlement cuts are right in line with what President Obama has repeatedly said he wanted, anyway. We're certainly not going to get any help to stand up to this atrocious "compromise" from the President: he actively wants most of what is in it.

Now might be the time to call and at least suggest that you might not pull the lever for the "D" if this goes through. That might be more effective than promising that no matter how bad they hurt you and yours, you will love them in the voting booth in 2012.


Is there any precedent (none / 0) (#13)
by observed on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 12:55:48 AM EST

for this provision?


Peter Defazio (none / 0) (#21)
by klassicheart on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 04:17:39 AM EST

is a voice I want to hear from. He didn't support Pelosi for minority leader....and is not part of leadership...

If the new "compromise" passes , (none / 0) (#25)
by observed on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 08:56:55 AM EST

I will have no doubt that the entire process for the last two weeks has been scripted with this outcome in mind. Obama gets to claim "victory" once more by abdicating responsibility.
You think there will be a vote on the commission's recommendations?
Hah, the commission will probably recommend sacrificing the first born of every American who earns less than $200,000/ year, so that not voting will seem like the moderate compromise.

Only the intransigence of the bat guano wacko Tea (none / 0) (#26)
by jawbone on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 09:26:10 AM EST

Tea Partiers and ConservaDems stands between us losing full SocSec and Medicare benefits and Obama fulfilling his objective of cutting/gutting SocSec/MM.

That is a pretty thin reed to hang on to.

We no longer have a Democrats representing us in Washington -- they all (at least those in positions of power) sound like and act like Republicans now.