Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Oddness in the Galleries

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.
Now, this may show my lack of sophistication, but the recent noises made by the  Republican leadership in the House of Representatives seems to fly in the face of the constytooshun that they so love to defend.

Now, maybe I am splitting hairs, but I think that a budget bill has a lot to do with revenues as well as spending.  Many completely rational people try to make these two aspects come within spitting distance of each other.   Now the Republicans in the House are trying to score some strange political points by punting the spending bill over to the Senate.

Again, maybe my reading of the text of Article One, Section Seven is mistaken, but it says flat out that all bills defining how much money we can take in is the sole responsibility of the House.  The Senate can concur and/or propose amendments, but the heavy lifting has to be done by the house.

The Republican leadership has taken the position that taxes cannot be raised.  That means we are constrained to the amount of money we can take in.

There is an outdated "Solve the Deficit" game that is available at the New York Times.

You see, we pay too few taxes for what we expect from government.  Add to this the fact that there are too many people for too few jobs and you have a recipe for an ongoing problem balancing revenues and expenditures.  Throw in a couple of unnecessary wars, a shitpot of corruption, and interest on past debt not getting any smaller and what you have is a recipe for the cold times.

So, the Republican fucktards in the House of Representatives think that they can score some political points by blaming the Senate for not passing a budget.  The truth is, both parties have completely lost track with their responsibilities and have devolved into a fairly useless debating society.


John D. Wheeler said...

Yeah, let's just get rid of them and let Obama run things, then we'd get stuff done ;-) Hey, look how well it worked for Germany in the 1930s....

The sad part is, I'm sure there are people who think that would be a fine idea....

russell1200 said...

The problem of people wanting something for nothing was at least part of the thinking behind limiting the electorate to those who held property. There is problems with that thinking as well, but it is none-the-less true that government's role has expanded with the increased electorate size.