Democrat Senator Patty Murray is the Chairwoman of the Budget Committee and she says that there is no need for a resolution. Thus, we read in Politico:
The Senate will rely on the spending levels set by the two-year budget document written by Murray (D-Wash.) and House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and passed by Congress in December. Government funding runs out in October and Murray said her deal with Ryan will provide a sufficient guide to appropriators to keep Washington running into the next fiscal year.
We should work together to build on our two-year bipartisan budget, not create more uncertainty for families and businesses,” Murray said. “It wouldn’t be productive to relitigate it so soon after our two-year deal.”
Murray, who is also a member of Democratic leadership, said she does hope to lay out a long-term budgetary vision that would build on the Murray-Ryan framework. Her plan would likely to target tax loopholes used by corporations and the wealthy — generally not an area of agreement with the GOP.
Of course to do so would thus start a round of disagreements with Republicans, so maybe Murray will decide she shouldn’t bother. But some Republicans are upset that there will be no new budget this year.
Why? What else would you expect?
“Senate Democrats are required by law to produce a budget. Our nation is in enormous financial distress, and workers and families are suffering. Senate Democrats have produced only one budget in the last five years,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee.
Perhaps Sessions was not personally compromised in how he dealt with the Democrats in the budget deal. But as a member of the Republican Party I’m not sure his objections count for much. If he admits the Democrats have only produced one budget in five years, then they have already discounted the law. What difference does it make that “Senate Democrats are required by law to produce a budget”? Obviously, no one has the power or the will to penalize a Senate that does not follow the law. So how can that be a real concern?
The bottom line is that Ryan gave Murray the budget she wanted. So it makes complete sense that she wants to keep what she is happy with. Why jeopardize it?
If Republicans don’t like this, maybe they should rethink the strategy that they pursued that lead to the Ryan-Murray budget deal.