The next issue before the Senate is funding the federal government.
The House passed, largely along party lines, a $1.1 trillion continuing resolution (CR) on December 8 to keep the federal government funded through September 30 of 2011.
The bill essentially freezes discretionary spending at current levels, which is $46 billion less than President Obama wanted, but hundreds of billions of dollars more than the country can afford.
The Senate will need to vote on the House version of its own CR by the end of the week, when the current two-week CR ends.
Here’s hoping the Senate rejects the House bill and passes something more fiscally responsible.
To begin with, freezing the current budget preserves the exorbitant spending and all those earmarks in the 2010 pork-laden budget. That’s not what Republicans, who have sworn off earmarks, should do.
Secondly, this is the current House’s effort to maintain control over the budget for a year after the American people have made it clear they want change.
And it is particularly galling considering the House could be charged with dereliction of duty in the budget process. First, House Speaker Pelosi decided to punt on passing a budget last spring, for the first time since 1974. All those big RED deficits are so unpleasant to explain to the public.
Then both the House and Senate failed to pass by the end of the fiscal year, which is September 30, even one of the 12 appropriations bills that fund the federal government. It’s not unusual for Congress to fail to pass some of the funding bills because of differences that need to be worked out, but not one of them?
The better approach would be to pass another short-term CR to fund the government for another month or so. That would allow the new Congress—filled with a bevy of newly-elected members who campaigned on getting federal spending under control—to work out the budget, and be held accountable for it.
Soon-to-be-ousted Speaker Pelosi has managed the budget for four years and has driven the country into near bankruptcy. The current regime shouldn’t be given control for a fifth year.