I keep hearing some commentators saying that the senate is not fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities by not passing a budget. Having actually read the constitution when I was in school - in those days students actually had to read - I did not recall any such detailing of responsibility. However, I was hopeful. If the senate was in violation of the constitution, then would this be an impeachable offense whereby we could impeach the entire senate? That is such a great idea that I went back and re-read the constitution. Unless I somehow overlooked it, I could find nothing in the document that mandated that the senate pass a budget. There is language that all bills dealing with money must originate with the house of representatives but nothing that says that the senate must pass a budget when it comes over from the house. So either that I missed something or we are missing a golden opportunity to make the senate somewhat useful and relevant.
Speaking of the budget. If the house were serious, instead of passing more and more budgets just to see them wither in the senate, the house would not pass any more continuing resolutions. That would force serious discussions on the budget and the final enactment of one. However, I am not convinced the house is serious either. What is particularly worrisome is that the issue has fallen out of the public's eye. No one talks about the budget, the debt and the deficit anymore. Instead of the republican candidates hammering home this issue and what they would do about it, they are more intent on telling us why not to vote for the other republican rather than why to vote for themselves. Ask yourself if you know a reason to vote for a particular republican rather than voting against Obama? I don't.
Money Hoarding Versus Reserve Hoarding
3 days ago