Scofflaw Democrats
29th February 2012
The Budget Act of 1974 requires the House and Senate to meet certain deadlines, culminating in the adoption of a budget resolution. The Republican House has obeyed the law, but the Democratic Senate has thumbed its nose at the statute, illegally refusing to meet any of the statutory deadlines or to adopt any budget at all for the last three years.
The Senate’s scofflaw ways are shared by the Obama administration. Federal law requires the Medicare trustees to report annually on the solvency of the Medicare program. The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 further provides that if, for two years in a row, more than 45% of Medicare funding is coming from general revenues rather than Medicare taxes, the president must submit legislation to Congress to address the Medicare funding crisis. President Bush dutifully followed the law, but President Obama has ignored it for the last three years.
Today was the deadline for Obama to comply with the Medicare Modernization Act by submitting a plan to rescue Medicare’s finances. Obama, of course, has no intention of doing anything to reform entitlements. So, for the fourth year in a row, he chose to act illegally. He did nothing.
Earlier today, I was on a call with Senator Jeff Sessions, and I asked what can be done to hold the Democrats accountable for their wanton law-breaking. Unfortunately, the statutes in question contain no sanctions or enforcement mechanisms. The only real recourse is to public opinion. For that recourse to be meaningful, Americans would need to know that their president and the Democratic Senate believe that they need comply with the law only when it is convenient for them. Unfortunately, the press has no interest in publicizing the fact that the Democrats are scofflaws. So the Democrats ignore the law, secure in the knowledge that their secret is safe with the national media.
My, what a surprise. Aren’t you surprised? I’m sure surprised.
February 29th, 2012 at 14:10
Rules only matter to Democrats when said rules can be used to make Republicans look bad.
February 29th, 2012 at 18:32
If Congress had been serious, they’d have given the law some teeth. Since the law has no teeth, it can–and will–be ingnored. Rather like speed limits.
And contrary to popular (right-wing) belief, the situation isn’t being ignored by ‘The Liberal Biased Media’ because it will make Democrats look bad; it’s being ignored because 1) nobody really cares, and 2) nobody really cares.
February 29th, 2012 at 21:42
“If Congress had been serious, they’d have given the law some teeth. Since the law has no teeth, it can–and will–be ingnored. Rather like speed limits.”
This is ridiculous, Dennis. It’s only done by Dems. It doesn’t help to make excuses for the criminals who are destroying our country. Could it be that the sponsors of the law NEVER IN THEIR WILDEST DREAMS thought the governmental body responsible for the budget would be so IRresponsible as to not make one?
Maybe they could never have foreseen how criminally negligent/irresponsible/subversive Democrats would become.
“it’s being ignored because 1) nobody really cares, and 2) nobody really cares.”
The congressional 2010 election is pretty convincing evidence that somebody does care. I, for one, don’t think it is escaping notice.
March 1st, 2012 at 18:17
Excuses? I make no excuses; they are patently wrong on the face of the situation. However, they face no consequences, so their behavior won’t change. A body in motion, etc., etc. What’s needed here is the ‘outside force’ which will change the trajectory.
“Could it be that the sponsors of the law NEVER IN THEIR WILDEST DREAMS thought the governmental body responsible for the budget would be so IRresponsible as to not make one?” Oh, please; I never took you for a naif. OF COURSE they they were aware of the possible outcomes; they live and work in WASHINGTON, DC. They knew exactly what they would get, and they DIDN’T CARE.
And why was that, you ask? Because when Congress holds one party’s feet to the fire over any given issue, they know that when the mix changes they could/will be the ones getting the hot foot. Nobody, of either party, wants to have their hands tied–by moral, or fiscal, or any other kind of restraint. What goes around will come around, and what you do unto others will be done unto you.
It’s getting play now because it’s an election year. Republicans see it as ‘low-hanging fruit’ with which to score points on the Dems and maybe win a few seats, or even the top office. But if there were no election in the offing, I doubt very much that even the die-hard right wing would hear very much about it.