Senate gives pre-dawn OK to Democratic budget
By The Associated Press
This article was published March 23, 2013 at 9:56 a.m.
- Comments (3)
- aAFont Size
WASHINGTON — An exhausted Senate gave pre-dawn approval Saturday to a Democratic $3.7 trillion budget for next year that embraces nearly $1 trillion in tax increases over the coming decade but shelters domestic programs targeted for cuts by House Republicans.
While their victory was by a razor-thin 50-49, the vote let Democrats tout their priorities. Yet it doesn't resolve the deep differences the two parties have over deficits and the size of government.
Joining all Republicans voting no were four Democrats who face re-election next year in potentially difficult races: Sens. Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Mark Pryor of Arkansas. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., did not vote.
The vote came after lawmakers labored through the night on scores of symbolic amendments, ranging from voicing support for letting states collect taxes on Internet sales to expressing opposition to requiring photo ID's for voters.
The Senate's budget would shrink annual federal shortfalls over the next decade to nearly $400 billion, raise unspecified taxes by $975 billion and cull modest savings from domestic programs.
In contrast, a rival budget approved by the GOP-run House balances the budget within 10 years without boosting taxes.
That blueprint— by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., his party's vice presidential candidate last year — claims $4 trillion more in savings over the period than Senate Democrats by digging deeply into Medicaid, food stamps and other safety net programs for the needy. It would also transform the Medicare health care program for seniors into a voucher-like system for future recipients.
"We have presented very different visions for how our country should work and who it should work for," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who chairs the Senate Budget Committee. "But I am hopeful that we can bridge this divide."
A day that stretched roughly 20 hours featured brittle debate at times. The loudest moment came toward the end, when senators rose as one to cheer a handful of Senate pages — high school students — who lawmakers said had worked in the chamber since the morning's opening gavel. Senators then left town for a two-week spring recess.
Congressional budgets are planning documents that leave actual changes in revenues and spending for later legislation, and this was the first the Democratic-run Senate has approved in four years. That lapse is testament to the political and mathematical contortions needed to write fiscal plans in an era of record-breaking deficits that until this year exceeded an eye-popping $1 trillion annually, and to the parties' profoundly conflicting views.
Though budget shortfalls have shown signs of easing slightly and temporarily, there is no easy path for the two parties to find compromise — which the first months of 2013 have amply illustrated.
Already this year, Congress has raised taxes on the rich after narrowly averting tax boosts on virtually everyone else, tolerated $85 billion in automatic spending cuts, temporarily sidestepped a federal default and prevented a potential government shutdown.
By sometime this summer, the government's borrowing limit will have to be extended again — or a default will be at risk — and it is unclear what Republicans may demand for providing needed votes. It is also uncertain how the two parties will resolve the differences between their two budgets, something many believe simply won't happen.
Both sides have expressed a desire to reduce federal deficits. But President Barack Obama is demanding a combination of tax increases and spending cuts to do so, while GOP leaders say they won't consider higher revenues but want serious reductions in Medicare and other benefit programs that have rocketed deficits skyward.
Obama plans to release his own 2014 budget next month, an unveiling that will be studied for whether it signals a willingness to engage Republicans in negotiations or play political hardball.








Comments on: Senate gives pre-dawn OK to Democratic budget
To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.
You must login to make comments.
WillAlBee says... March 23, 2013 at 10:43 a.m.
I see that Senator Pryor voted "Nay" on this issue. He must realize that he is in serious re-election trouble back home. Does he really think that we don't "know" that Mr. Reid was going to get this passed without Mr. Pryor's vote, and good ol' Harry let him vote "Nay" so that he will look good for the voters here? It's too little, too late, and just plain too phony in my opinion. We need to make Sen. Boozman the State's senior Senator in the next election.
( permalink | suggest removal )
morebeer says... March 23, 2013 at 12:03 p.m.
Pryor's strategy rarely works. He's either a Democrat or he's not. If he can't vote with his party on the budget — which is a policy statement, perhaps the biggest — then he's a pretend Democrat. And why would voters, if they prefer a Republican, vote for a pretend Democrat when they can have a real Republican in the office? Pryor should have voted for the budget and then told voters why it was the right thing to do: Because he's not willing to dismantle Medicare, SS, Pell Grants and food stamps so the GOP can spend $1 trillion more on defense and safeguard tax breaks for the wealthy.
( permalink | suggest removal )
GrimReaper says... March 23, 2013 at 12:48 p.m.
beer, I think you ought to vote to kick him out so you can run a real lefty Democrat.
( permalink | suggest removal )
To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.