The current political posturing in D.C. is not over the federal budget. \u00a0It\u2019s over a \u2018continuing resolution\u2019 to fund the government for three months.<\/p>\n
That is because the United States of America is entering its fifth fiscal year without an actual federal budget. \u00a0An actual federal budget has not passed both houses of Congress and been signed by the President since George W. Bush was President.<\/p>\n
The President is required by law to submit a budget to Congress every year. \u00a0The person currently occupying the White House during his golf tour has done so. \u00a0Those budgets have been received in a truly amazing display of bipartisanship and \u00a0have failed to received a single vote from any member of congress of either party, and that includes the socialist who caucuses with the democrats. \u00a0 I think the best one of his budgets did was 0-97 in the Senate.<\/p>\n
The House has submitted at least one budget, with bipartisan support every year, which Harry Reid has refused to bring to the floor for a vote. \u00a0The Senate has produced one budget, within the last year, on a strict party line vote.<\/p>\n
It is important to note that when the democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, they failed in their primary duty of producing a federal budget. \u00a0It is not because they tried and failed, they just didn\u2019t even try.<\/p>\n
So it is clear that having a federal budget, that receives a close examination, and is open to debate and review by the public is not something that the democrats want. \u00a0Which raises the question of why they don\u2019t want the transparency that \u00a0an actual federal budget would bring.<\/p>\n