The US Congress; Congressional races

[JDN]

Why should she?  I mean, yes, it would be nice, but frankly at this point, she has absolutely no incentive to do so.
Why give your opponent who no one has ever even heard of, a public forum and free publicity?

[DougMacG]

Why should she?

Surely you jest.

[JDN]

Why should she?

Surely you jest.

No, while as I said, it would be nice if she did, always nice to hear the topics debated, practically speaking, since she is WAY out in front, she has no incentive; only downside to give her opponent free publicity.   She gets nothing out of it.  So politically, as I said, "Why should she"?

[Crafty_Dog]

Ummm , , , out of respect for her constituents?

[DougMacG]

Saddam's Iraq, Putin's Russia, even the PRC at least pretend to have two party, contested elections, but not the Calif US senate race. Shame on her and the miserable losers who accept that.

[JDN]

While I am not necessarily a Feinstein fan (she is better than Boxer) why do you say, "shame on her" because her opponents are inept and/or poorly supported?  The majority of Californians really like Feinstein; they will vote for her.  Why blame her for her popularity?  instead, kudo's to her for being popular in the State.  That is how you get re-elected; not by debating a nobody opponent.

Shame on the losers perhaps; it is their incompetence that enables Feinstein to ignore them.  But don't blame Feinstein for being popular.

[DougMacG]

"don't blame Feinstein for being popular"

I clearly blamed her for refusing to debate her opponent and I compared her unfavorably to Saddam Hussein, Vladimir Putin and Mao.  If you need to change my words in order to argue against them, that means you actually agree with me?

Is there precedent for no debate because you are popular and your competitors are poorly funded and the media refuses to cover their campaigns?  In our state (MN), minor parties who get 15% of the vote in one election get a seat at the table in the debates of the next election.  (That law or tradition made possible the election of a wrestler as Governor while the two major parties were bickering.)

In the People's Republic of California, even a measure that gets 52.24% of the vote cannot become law if it is not liberal orthodoxy.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8)

Romney needs to release more tax returns than Ronald Reagan (says same poster) but Diane Feinstein does not need to even agree to a liberal hosted and moderated debate.  We need to know more personal stuff about a man accused of doing nothing wrong since high school but we don't need to have the views and votes of an incumbent Senator challenged whatsoever.  The blatant hypocrisy makes discussion useless.

[JDN]

Doug, don't be ridiculous.

You know as well as I do that front runners, if they are clearly front runners rarely debate their opponents.  Strategically, it doesn't make sense.
There is no upset, only downside.  That is politics played both both parties.  Perhaps regrettable, but fact.  There are quite a few precedents. 

And she is freely elected; overwhelmingly I might point out.   So why compare her to despots? 

As for Prop 8; it did not become law because it was considered by the Appeals Court to be Unconstitutional.  If I recollect, The Supreme Court may here this case; at the moment, it is only "stayed".  As for 52% approving it, well, to raise taxes, California requires a 2/3 vote in favor.  Hardly the will of the "majority" or the liberal orthodoxy. 

[DougMacG]

"You know as well as I do that front runners, if they are clearly front runners rarely debate their opponents."

Where I come from we have debates and at the national level level we have debates.  Why don't you post what you8 know and I'll post what I know.  More efficient that way.

"There are quite a few precedents."   - On both sides I presume.  All those words but you don't cite any.  When was the last time a Republican incumbent in Calif refused to debate to hold high office? 

You did not address the blatant hypocrisy point. 

[JDN]

Doug, there is NO hypocrisy.  Each politician chooses how to run their campaign.  Each politician is different.  That Feinstein sees no merit in giving attention to her unknown opponent mades good strategy.
Don't blame her. 

As for MN law, I am a bit vague, but as you phrased it, "In our state (MN), minor parties who get 15% of the vote in one election get a seat at the table in the debates of the next election."
That begs the question, IF there are no debates, well I guess you don't get a seat.  Further, as a side note, in the primary election Feinstein's opponent didn't even get 15%.  She is a no body
begging for attention; no wonder Feinstein won't give her any time.

I notice even in MN there is an argument about how many debates.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/polinaut/archive/2012/08/bills_call_for.shtml

It reminds me of our Presidential debates; Gingrich (a good debater) offered to debate Obama at every bus stop, Romney, given his marginal speaking ability if I had to guess is
grateful that he only has to meet Obama 2-3 times.   

[DougMacG]

JDN, you missed the pronoun in front of 'dont blame Feinstein'. You don't blame her. I do and you won't be dictating my view. You also missed completely the point about blatant hypocrisy. Might want to go back and read it before saying it isn't there.

I keep reading but don't see an example of an R incumbent in Calif getting away with no debate or any recent MN contest having no debate. Unresponsive replies make our own debates less fun.

[JDN]

I keep reading but don't see an example of an R incumbent in Calif getting away with no debate or any recent MN contest having no debate. Unresponsive replies make our own debates less fun.

Doug, again, it's their choice.  Maybe in the instances you cited they were not favored overwhelmingly?  But I don't think any more or any less of them if they choose not to participate.  They, with the advice of their political consultants decide what to do.  It's a strategic decision.  There is no legal or moral obligation.

Further, it seems Republicans and Democrats avail themselves of the option to debate or not.

http://lemont.patch.com/blog_posts/should-be-no-debate-about-debates

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/orlando_opinionators/2012/06/no-debate-for-gop-senate-race.html

[Crafty_Dog]

When I ran for the US Congress in the 32d District of CA in 1984 the incumbent was long timer and Chairman of the Public Works (a.k.a. Pork) Committee which meant he got lots of donations from lots of lobbyists and trade groups and such from around the country.  The district's silhouette on a map was such an extreme example of gerrymandering that the WSJ, which was then on a mission against the high incumbency re-election rate (>98%!!! ) of the House of Representatives due to gerrymandering to incumbents' favor, used the silhouette as part of its editorials to help it make its point.

Incumbent Anderson never showed up for the debates around the district, which were broadcast on local cable TV with a few hundred in the audience.

My performance in the debates (vs. the Republican and some stand-in for Anderson) was such that then Congressman Dan Lungren (later CA AG and , , , Lt. Governor?) of the 42d (which was the neighboring district) asked me to run for the Reps the next time around.  Lungren had run his brother in '82 because of the strong working class Reagan vote in 1980 hoping that name recognition for the Lungren name would help.  The meeting in his office overlooking the harbor lasted about two hours.  I asked him how much seed money I would need to kick off my campaign.  "About $100,000" he said.

And that was that.

[Crafty_Dog]

Cong. Allen West's fundraisers are claiming he's 9 points down , , , 

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iERg3EgUMvE

If I have it right both of these men are Dem congressman fighting for a redistricted seat.

[DougMacG]

Republicans lead in the House.

Presidential race is now extremely close with the popular vote poll average exactly tied.

Either party could win the majority in the Senate.  The Senate with no toss ups right now goes to the Dems 52-48, with Republicans picking up only net one seat.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/2012_elections_senate_map_no_toss_ups.html

Neither party has any chance at 60 votes needed to control the Senate or the 67 votes needed in the Senate to turn our sovereignty over to the UN.

Get ready for (more) divided government where nothing good gets done.

Our last Senate race here was decided by 300 votes on recount.  Now is the time to get out and help somebody win one of these close elections!

[DougMacG]

Whistle-blower audio: Sen. Claire McCaskill’s husband cut business deals in Senate Dining Room

Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill’s husband used the U.S. Senate Dining Room to cut business deals selling tax credits tied to stimulus money, a whistle-blowing executive inside his company alleged on an audio recording exclusively obtained by The Daily Caller.

“The thing that irritated me about this was he [McCaskill’s husband Joseph Shepard] entertained these outside investors in the Senate Dining Room,” the whistle-blower said. “That’s where he closed the deal.”

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/18/whistle-blower-audio-sen-claire-mccaskills-husband-cut-business-deals-in-senate-dining-room/

[DougMacG]

Documents: Sen. Klobuchar took Ponzi schemer’s campaign contributions, didn’t prosecute

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/19/documents-sen-klobuchar-took-ponzi-schemers-campaign-contributions-didnt-prosecute/

Documents obtained by The Daily Caller show that U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar helped keep a multibillion-dollar Ponzi schemer out of prison in the late 1990s when she was the County Attorney in Hennepin County, Minnesota.

That financial criminal, Tom Petters, presided over companies whose employees gave Klobuchar $8,500 for her re-election campaign, and would later contribute more than $120,000 toward her U.S. Senate run.

One of those companies’ vice presidents was Ted Mondale, a former state senator and son of former U.S. Vice President Walter Mondale. Before taking office as Hennepin County Attorney, Klobuchar was a partner at the Minneapolis law form of Dorsey & Whitney, where Walter Mondale has practiced law since 1987.

Perhaps because of the lure of Petters’ campaign cash or his deep connection to Minnesota Democratic politics, Klobuchar used the power of her office in 1999 to ensure Petters was not charged with financial crimes. And despite significant evidence against him, she cleared the way for Petters to build his multibillion-dollar illegal empire by prosecuting only his early co-conspirators.

One of those co-conspirators, Richard Hettler, told The Daily Caller that Klobuchar was aware of what Petters was doing, yet willingly accepted campaign donations from Petters’ company and its employees.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/19/documents-sen-klobuchar-took-ponzi-schemers-campaign-contributions-didnt-prosecute/

[Crafty_Dog]

That would also fit here:  http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1872.0

[Crafty_Dog]

 
Even if Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan win on November 6, his agenda will be stymied if Republicans can't pick up at least three more seats than their current 47 and control the Senate. That's clear from the last two years, when Harry Reid's not-so-deliberative body became the graveyard for fiscal and other reform.

House Republicans won an historic midterm election in 2010, picking up 63 seats. They also gained six Senate seats, but a handful of weak GOP candidates (Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, Christine O'Donnell) cost them control of the upper body. Back in charge in 2011, Mr. Reid proceeded to stop nearly everything that House Republicans passed. President Obama hasn't even had to sweat a veto fight because nothing escapes Mr. Reid's lost world.

. ..Consider the record. In 2011 and 2012 the House passed more than three-dozen economic or jobs-related bills and with only a few exceptions they died in the Senate without a vote. The bills dealt with regulatory relief, tax reduction, domestic drilling for energy, offshore drilling, a jobs bill for veterans, repeal of ObamaCare and many more. Many passed the House with significant Democratic support, as the nearby list shows.

Then there is the Democratic failure on their constitutional obligation of passing a budget. House Republicans passed their budgets in each of the past two years in the spring. The latest one, crafted by Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan, contained $4.5 trillion in deficit reduction—at least twice as much as Mr. Obama's budget proposal.

By contrast, the Senate failed to pass any budget in 2012. Or 2011. Or 2010. The Senate hasn't passed a budget in more than 1,200 days. Sorry, Harry, you can't blame that on a Republican filibuster, because it takes only 51 votes to pass a Senate budget resolution. In 2011 and 2012 the Senate Budget Committee never even drafted a budget, thus inspiring a House bill to dock the pay of Senate Budget Committee Members for not doing their job.

Mr. Reid even declared in 2011 that it would be "foolish for us to do a budget," no doubt because he thought that would allow voters to see that what Democrats really want is even more spending and higher taxes. This would have made life difficult for vulnerable Democratic incumbents who pass themselves off as moderates in election years, such as Pennsylvania's Bob Casey, Montana's Jon Tester and Florida's Bill Nelson.

So Democrats simply sat back and took shots at the Ryan budget. Meanwhile, these same incumbents are now campaigning at home as champions of domestic energy, lower taxes, spending restraint and regulatory relief—everything the Democratic Senate helped to kill.

The Senate also failed in 2010 and 2012 to pass a single appropriations bill. According to an analysis by Senate Republicans, that hadn't happened before in the 150-year history of the current spending process. This year the Senate even failed to enact a national defense authorization bill, which almost never happens.

The House passed a bill to avert the tax cliff looming in January, but the Senate failed to act on that too. Last week Mr. Reid's chief Senate lieutenant, Chuck Schumer of New York, warned that Democrats will stop any attempt at bipartisan tax reform next year, calling the idea "obsolete." He's essentially promising pre-emptive gridlock in 2013 no matter who wins.

Voters can be forgiven for not knowing all this because the media mostly ignore Senate obstructionism these days. Instead, they dutifully follow Mr. Obama's lead when he says of Congress that "I think the American people will run them out of town because they are frustrated and they know we need to do something big and bold." He means Republicans.

But if it's big and bold that voters want, House Republicans have passed it. What stands in their way are Senate Democrats. One reason the Reagan policy revolution became law in 1981 is because Republicans scared enough Democrats into cooperating by picking up a net gain of 12 Senate seats in 1980 to gain control 53-46.

If voters want to break the gridlock of the past two years and start addressing the country's urgent fiscal and economic problems, they're going to have to elect a Republican Senate as well as Mr. Romney.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.dickmorris.com/senate-races-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports

[Crafty_Dog]

November 7, 2012, 12:24 am75 Comments

A Liberal Fantasy
 
By DAVID FIRESTONE


It’s rarely wise to make upbeat predictions about a group of lawmakers as reliably disappointing as the United States Senate. But with President Obama winning re-election and Democrats having a strong night in several states, this is not an impossible political fantasy:

The Democratic-controlled Senate is likely to be considerably more liberal than the one it replaces. Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Angus King of Maine (nominally an independent) replace Republicans. Tim Kaine of Virginia is more liberal than Jim Webb, the Democrat who retired, just as Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Chris Murphy of Connecticut are more liberal than Herb Kohl and Joe Lieberman. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts will be one of the strongest voices in support of Mr. Obama’s policies, and may even push the president leftward. Democrats could also win a few other races too close to call.
 
So what will the reshaped chamber mean? Possibly a stronger backbone, and one of the first places to show it will be filibuster reform. A more vibrant Democratic caucus could push Majority Leader Harry Reid to do what he should have done two years ago, and use a simple majority to curb the routine abuse of the filibuster as practiced by the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell.

That, in turn, could free up the president to appoint the kinds of judges and Supreme Court justices he wants, without worrying about constant Republican obstruction. And it could give the Senate fortitude in dealing with issues of taxes and budgets, putting the House, which will still be controlled by Republicans, in a corner.

A possible example: Let’s say the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule on New Year’s Day for everyone. President Obama could then propose that taxes be lowered on incomes of less than $250,000, and a Senate unencumbered by a filibuster could go along. That would leave only the House insisting that taxes be lowered on everyone, essentially blocking a tax cut for the middle class. The political pressure would be enormous, and it’s possible that a somewhat less rigid House would buckle. A similar outcome might hold true on another debt-ceiling confrontation.

The House will reject further financial reform, environmental regulation, campaign finance laws, etc., but a Senate and White House that are more closely aligned might be able to make the case for an agenda more forcefully than was seen in the first term. It may be just a fantasy, but for now it’s a pleasant one.

[DougMacG]

The results of the Senate races are shocking, but Michelle Malkin compiles a list of good news, depending on the side you come at this from...

1. Republicans retained control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

2. Voters in Alabama, Montana, and Wyoming all passed measures limiting Obamacare.

3. Tea Party candidate Ted Cruz, one of the conservative movement’s brightest rising stars, overcame establishment GOP opposition to clinch a U.S. Senate victory in Texas.

4. Corruptocrat Beltway barnacle Rep. Pete Stark was finally kicked out of office in California.

5. Despite entrenched teachers’ union opposition, a charter school initiative in Washington state triumphed.

6. Despite entrenched Big Labor support, a radical collective bargaining power grab in Michigan failed.

7. Oklahoma voters said no to government race-based preferences in college admissions, public contracting, and government hiring.

8. Montana voters said no to boundless benefits for illegal aliens.

9. Washington state approved taxpayer-empowering limitations on its state legislature’s ability to raise taxes.

10. For the first time since Reconstruction, the GOP won control of the Arkansas state house.

11. Voters rejected tax hike ballot measures in Arizona, South Dakota, and Missouri.

12. Louisiana voted to protect gun rights.

13. Kentucky voted to protect hunting and fishing rights.

14. Parental notification for minors’ abortion prevailed in Montana.

15. North Carolina Republicans claimed the governor’s office, congressional gains, and control of the state’s general assembly.

16. Paul Ryan will return to Congress after winning re-election and continue to carry the torch for entitlement reform and budget discipline.

17. Conservatives won big victories in the Kansas state legislature.

18. Republicans won historic supermajorities in Tennessee.

19.Across the country, Republicans reached a post-2000 record number of gubernatorial victories.

20. Conservatives who were devastated by the national election results demonstrated how to lose with dignity and grace. There will be finger-pointing and recriminations and soul-searching, but committed activists can’t and won’t lose heart. We’ll regroup, recover, and keep fighting for our country.

21. Wisconsin: GOP wins back the state Senate.

[Crafty_Dog]

I gave money to Cong. West's campaign and have given to his recount efforts:



Is this email not displaying correctly?
View it in your browser
http://ttpmail.theteaparty.net/webmail/16542/264686222/009422fc1874ab2d4117e4eaee32d517

Dear Patriot,

Below please find a special message from one of our
sponsors, PresidentDowngrade.com. They have important information to
share with you. Thank you.

Please note that the following message reflects the opinion and
representations of our sponsor alone, and not necessarily the opinion of
TheTeaParty.net.

http://ttpmail.theteaparty.net/e/16542/6E805A5750D37C0A1482F661C484Dr/gbjr/264686222

Important Update on Allen West Recount
 
Dear Fellow American:
 
I would like to give you a brief update with the very latest on Allen
West’s recount.
 
As of this morning, Congressman West refuses to concede and is demanding
a full recount.
 
No winner has officially been declared, although West’s liberal
opponent Patrick Murphy not surprisingly has already “spiked the
ball”. (Murphy credits his alleged “win” to the endorsement of
turncoat Republican Bob Crowder, who West crushed in the GOP primary with
75% of the vote.)
 
Congressman West has filed a lawsuit in Palm Beach County Circuit Court
requiring the County Election Board to “impound all paper ballots and
voting machines”.
 
The suit also seeks the impoundment of “documentary or record
evidence… to prevent further voting and/or to declare the intent of
voters for votes cast on the voting machines.”
 
Congressman West has filed a similar suit in St. Lucie County, and has
also asked for a hand recount of paper ballots.
 
Florida state law provides for an automatic recount if election night
results are within 0.5%. The current vote tally is outside of this
threshold (50.5% to 49.6%).
 
The fact is we’re going to need Allen West’s leadership to fight
Obama in his dreadful second term.
 
If there’s ever been a time we’ve needed a man of principle to lead
Republicans on Capitol Hill, it is now.
 
Just yesterday, House Speaker John Boehner said there’s no mandate for
“new taxes”. But he also said House Republicans are “willing to
accept new revenue, under the right conditions.”
 
I know you’re exhausted in every respect. The past 48 hours have been
heartbreaking.
 
But please consider supporting an Allen West recount, if you think
that’s the right thing to do, with a donation of $5, $25, $100, $500 or
more. 
Go Here Now
http://ttpmail.theteaparty.net/e/16542/donate-html-key-PV8GI9DRQ9PO/gbkf/264686222

 
I’ve included below an article from NewsMax, which is based out of West
Palm Beach (part of West's congressional district), that gives additional
details about Congressman Allen West’s recount.
 
Thank you for all that you do.
 
Yours for America,
 
Bob Adams
Founder & Chief Strategist
 
P.S. -- The conservative President Downgrade PAC is considering a major
effort to support an Allen West recount.  If you think it’s the right
thing to do, please show your support with a donation of $5, $25, $100,
$500 or any amount. 
Go Here Now to Support Our Work
http://ttpmail.theteaparty.net/e/16542/donate-html-key-PV8GI9DRQ9PO/gbkf/264686222

-----
NewsMax Media
 
Allen West Refuses to Concede, Files Lawsuit to Impound Voting Machines
By Stephen Feller
 
Fiery congressman Allen West refused to concede defeat Wednesday and has
filed a lawsuit demanding a full recount of votes in his Florida
district
after his efforts to get re-elected to the House of Representatives
appeared to fall some 2,500 votes short.
 
The Republican's lawsuit, filed in court in Palm Beach County, called for
paper ballots to be counted and voting machines “impounded.”
 
A recount of early votes flipped the results from 2,000 in his favor to a
win for Democratic challenger Patrick Murphy, West’s campaign manager
Tim Edson alleged in a press release the day after the election.
 
“This race is far from decided and there is no rush to declare an
outcome,” Edson said. “Ensuring a fair and accurate counting of all
ballots is of the utmost importance.”
 
Though a winner has not officially been declared, with all precincts
reporting, Murphy garnered 160,328 votes to West’s 157,872, a
difference of 2,456, according to the official results
 
The state of Florida requires that election results be within 0.5 of a
percentage point to trigger an automatic recount. The 50.4 percent to
49.6 percent result of Tuesday’s election, a 0.9 difference, is not
close enough for that to happen.
 
West’s suit seeks specifically to prevent any tampering with ballots or
machines as he works with St. Lucie County Supervisor of Elections
Gertrude Walker on recounting votes.
 
In the release, Edson claims the recount flipped the election, as did
“numerous other disturbing irregularities reported at polls across St.
Lucie County including the doors to polling places being locked when the
polls closed, in direct violation of Florida law, thereby preventing the
public from witnessing the procedures used to tabulate results.”
 
“The St. Lucie County Supervisor of Elections office clearly ignored
proper rules and procedures,” Edson said, “and the scene at the
Supervisor's office last night could only be described as complete chaos.
Given the hostility and demonstrated incompetence of the St. Lucie County
Supervisor of Elections, we believe it is critical that a full hand
recount of the ballots take place in St. Lucie County."
 
Provisional and absentee ballots have not yet been counted, but there are
not enough to swing the election back to West, reported the Palm Beach
Post, which caused Murphy to claim victory in the race on Wednesday.
 
© 2012 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

http://ttpmail.theteaparty.net/e/16542/donate-html-key-PV8GI9DRQ9PO/gbkf/264686222

There is no limit to what you can donate. PresidentDowngrade.com
http://ttpmail.theteaparty.net/e/16542/2012-11-09/gbkr/264686222

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/robbins-report/2012/nov/9/allen-west-asks-recount-amid-growing-vote-count-sc/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://watchdogwire.com/florida/2012/11/10/massive-voter-fraud-in-st-lucie-county-florida-141-turnout/

Same story, different source:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/robbins-report/2012/nov/10/florida-vote-twist-more-ballots-voters/

[Crafty_Dog]

>
> There has been a lot of misinformation out there about the state of the race, and
not surprisingly the local press is dutifully parroting the talking points coming
out of Patrick Murphy’s campaign proclaiming the race decided, so here’s the
truth: this race remains far from decided.
>
> Today the St. Lucie County Supervisor of Elections, after promising to recount all
early votes, counted only ballots from the last three days of early voting,
netting Allen West over 500 votes.  The problem is those aren’t the first three
days of early voting—the days the Supervisor of Elections originally said were
compromised by faulty data cards in the machines. 
>
> We will continue to fight for a recount of all early votes.  In addition, we will
ensure that the public is able to view the poll book sign-ins to ensure the number
of early votes cast match the numbers of voters who checked-in to vote.
>
> Nothing coming out of Supervisor of Elections Gertrude Walker’s office adds up,
stories are constantly changing, and the hostile attitude of the Supervisor is
disturbing.  What originally looked like dangerous incompetence is looking more
and more like a willful attempt to steal an election.
>
> We will not allow a Democrat Supervisor of Elections to steal this election.  We
will pursue every legal means available to ensure a fair an accurate election. 
>
> I know you have stood with Allen every step of the way for the past four years and
I know you will continue to stand with us as we fight liberal efforts to steal
this election.  Your efforts in Palm Beach County and St. Lucie County protecting
the integrity of the election have been tremendous these past few days.   
>
>
>
> Tim Edson
> Campaign Manager
>
> P.S. Your continued financial support will help ensure we have the resources to
fight to ensure liberals don't steal this election.

[DougMacG]

This was one of the most disappointing results.  The 36 year old mayor of Saratoga Springs was a big hit at the 2012 RNC, close to becoming the first African-American female Republican elected to Congress.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/08/28/utahs-mia-love-gets-enthusiastic-reception-in-tampa/
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/11/07/matheson-bests-mia-love-in-utah-house-race/

[Crafty_Dog]

I too noticed her, including an extensive interview on FOX.  She was part of the reason I gave money to a Black Conservatives PAC (BAMPAC IIRC) and was disappointed to see her lose.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://secure.donationreport.com/donate.html?key=UZBCVO17DBYZ

[Crafty_Dog]

Now that they have the recount, I'm not sure why this group is asking for more money, but I post this here for the info it contains.

==========================

Dear Fellow American:
 
It’s been an amazing turn of events over the last 12 hours.  Late last night, the St. Lucie elections board voted 2 -1 in favor of a full recount of all eight days of early voting.
 
This is a huge victory for Allen West.
 
This unplanned vote occurred just hours after a St. Lucie County judge rejected West’s request for a full recount of early votes.  The full recount of ballots from early voting is underway.  We will continue to keep you updated as events continue unfold.
 
Meanwhile, liberal Democrat Patrick Murphy has sued for an emergency injunction to stop the counting of all votes, and state Democrats are in full panic.
 
“Allen West needs to admit defeat and move on”, snarled Debbie Wasserman Schultz in a statement with South Florida Democrats.
 
This is a major victory for Allen West, but we cannot afford to take the gas off of the pedal now!  Go Here Now to Support Our Work.
 
Yours for America,
   
Bob Adams
Founder
 
P.S. – We’re so close to victory. We can win this fight!  Support Our Campaign to Help Allen West.

[DougMacG]

Now that they have the recount, I'm not sure why this group is asking for more money...

Recounts involve (guns,) lawyers and money.  The Al Franken / Norm Coleman (Obamacare) recount was an 8 month legal battle.  Disputed ballots far outnumbered the initial and final margins of victory.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Minnesota,_2008

Recounting precincts that had 150% turnout, retrieving boxes of uncounted ballots from the trunks of cars takes time, verifying the permanent address of felons serving life without parole, these things aren't easy.  It's not like they just sit around and count valid ballots. 

Besides, raising money is what 'non-profits' do for a living!

[Crafty_Dog]

I suspect your last sentence gets to the essence 

Anyway, I gave $50 to West's campaign and $25 to his recount efforts.  That's about all my budget says is suitable for me.

[Crafty_Dog]

Allen West has conceded.  

http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/20/two-weeks-later-allen-west-concedes-election/

[Crafty_Dog]

BD first posted this on the Politics forum, but I think it quite germane here as well and so post it here.  I learned quite a bit from reading the following:

=============================

http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/11/20/will-merkley-warrens-talking-filibuster-proposal-work/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+themonkeycagefeed+%28The+Monkey+Cage%29

Will Merkley & Warren’s “talking filibuster” proposal work?

by Gregory Koger on November 20, 2012 · 1 comment

in Blogs


Last Friday, our friends at Wonkblog posted the comments of two Monkey Cagers on Senator Merkley’s proposed-but-still-vague reform. I thought I would elaborate on whether Merkley’s proposed reforms will help make the Senate more effective…or at least less of a disaster.

First, some background on what the Senate reformers are talking about:  HuffPo says,
 

The critical component, though, is a mechanism that would force senators to physically take the floor and speak in order to maintain opposition to legislation. The effort to end a filibuster is called a cloture motion. Under the proposed rules, if a cloture vote failed to win a simple majority, the bill would be killed and the Senate would move to new business. But if it won a majority—though less than a supermajority of 60—the bill would remain on the floor for any senator who wished to opine on it. If at some point no senator rose to speak, after given several chances to do so, a new vote would be called—and only a simple majority would be needed to pass it.

[...]

Merkely said that the package he and his allies put together will also include more direct reforms. Reid has suggested simply eliminating the filibuster on the motion to proceed to debate, which would save the Senate many hundreds of hours of wasted time the course of a term. Merkley said such a provision was likely to make it into the final package, as well as restrictions on filibustering efforts to send a bill to conference.

 There are two ways to think about this reform, or any others that may be discussed. First, how does this change the filibustering game? And, for which proposals is this most likely to make a difference?

Q1: It could make a difference on major bills for which the pro-bill (or nomination) coalition is more intense than the anti-bill coalition. If we compare four major bills from the 111th Congress, I would guess that this would have been most helpful on the stimulus and banking reform bills, since Republicans—even with more conservative constituencies—may have faced some criticism in their home states for blocking efforts to (respectively) stop the economy’s tailspin and address the cause of the Great Recession. On the other hand, Republicans probably would have lined up all day to stop health care reform and climate change/cap & trade.

But the devil is in the details. One of the key points I make in my book and follow-up commentary is that senators can’t just wave a magic wand and revert to Mr. Smith Goes to Washington-style “attrition” filibusters. There are reasons the filibustering game changed in the 1960s, and the Senate can’t go back unless it is as difficult or more difficult to conduct a filibuster as it is to fight against one. The problem with a classic  attrition filibuster is that a single obstructionist could demand the attention and disrupt the sleep of a majority of the Senate, as Smith does in the movie. That is, the costs of the two sides are asymmetrical, so it is easier to filibuster than to outlast a filibuster. A determined majority could outlast a single obstructionist, or a few senators, but an organized succession of twenty or so senators could occupy the floor one at a time, each demanding the presence of a majority of the Senate. In order to restore attrition filibusters, the Senate needs to balance the rules of the game so that only one pro-bill senator is required to stay in the chamber while an anti-bill senator filibusters.

For example, let’s say a narrow majority votes for cloture and the Senate begins a Merkley-style attrition filibuster..

(1) does post-cloture vote debate have to be germane? Let’s say the bill in question is immigration reform; can a filibustering senator give a twelve-hour speech on U.S. policy in Afghanistan? Or the Petraeus affair? If so, a Merkley filibuster simply grants the opposition a monopoly on C-SPAN to express their political message for the day.

(2) Can a filibustering senator call for a quorum? If s/he does so, does s/he lose the floor? (“Yes” is the current answer) or does a quorum call constitute the end of the debate phase altogether?

(3) What if there are votes on amendments to the bill during the debate phase—does that “end” debate? If not, what if there are hundreds of votes on amendments?

(4) can a senator raise a point of order during the debate phase and request a roll call vote? If so, what if s/he does this dozens of times?

(5) if the post-vote debate ends and there are still amendments outstanding, does the Senate immediately vote on the underlying bill? Or is there a marathon of votes on amendments until they are all disposed of? If the latter, how does the rule prevent a filibuster-by-amendment?

These are questions that can be answered, and I would expect the final draft of the proposal to address these questions. But I merely suggest that designing an effective reform can be tricky.

Q2: Which bills would benefit the most? I would guess that this reform would most benefit major bills that the minority party is willing to block covertly but not overtly. I am still stunned that the GOP did as much as it did to block Dodd-Frank, and if they had to do it in front of the cameras and take time from their fundraising schedules to actually debate the bill, it may have passed much faster. It would also benefit the middle tier of bills that are important enough to merit a cloture vote and floor time provided the opposition is not intense. This category could include legislation like appropriations bills, reauthorization of traditionally bipartisan bills (highway funding, agriculture), and possibly appellate court nominations. These bills would also benefit greatly from the elimination of filibusters against motions to proceed. Obviously, one filibuster against a bill is less than two filibusters but, more subtly, a filibuster against a bill that is on the floor of the Senate can be more politically costly than a filibuster to keep it off the floor in the first place.

The Merkley proposal (as outlined) does less to help low-priority bills and nominations that are not salient enough to merit a cloture vote. For these measures, the threat of a filibuster would still be sufficient to keep them in limbo. This is not an argument against Merkley’s proposal, but it does mean that in order for the Senate to consider these proposals more efficiently and fairly, some sort of expedited cloture process would also be helpful.

[Crafty_Dog]

I'm not familiar with the issue here, but even though this is a POTH editorial, on the first blush the argument seems plausible to me.

I wonder how/if/whether this applies to the Senate not passing a budget for the last four years?
==============================

Democracy in the House
 
Published: January 9, 2013
 


The only reason that income taxes on 99 percent of Americans did not go up this month was that Speaker John Boehner briefly broke with an iron rule of Republican control over the House. He allowed the fiscal-cliff deal to be put to a full vote of the House even though a strong majority of Republicans opposed it.

That informal rule, which bars a vote on legislation unless it has the support of a majority of Republicans, has been one of the biggest stumbling blocks to progress and consensus in Congress, and, in its own way, is even more pernicious than the filibuster abuse that often ties up the Senate. Under the 60-vote requirement to break a filibuster, at least, coalitions can occasionally be formed between the Democratic majority and enough Republicans to reach the three-fifths threshold.

But under the majority-of-the-majority rule in the House, Democrats are completely cut out of the governing process, not even given a chance to vote unless Republicans have decided to pass something. Since 2010, there have been enough extremist Republicans in the caucus to block consideration of most of the bills requested by the White House or sent over from the Senate. If President Obama is for something, it’s a safe bet that most House Republicans are against it, and thus won’t bring it up.

That’s why the House never took a vote on the Senate’s latest five-year farm bill. Or the Violence Against Women Act. Or a full six-year transportation bill. Republican opposition prevented consideration in the last term of the Senate’s $60 billion in providing relief from Hurricane Sandy; so far, the House has been willing to approve only a measly $9.7 billion after members claimed the Senate’s bill was full of (nonexistent) pork.

The House has always been a sprawling, unruly chamber, and its leaders have long used some form of control to choose which bills reach the floor and to push their party’s policies. The majority-of-the-majority requirement, however, is relatively new and entirely a Republican creation. Newt Gingrich occasionally used it when he was speaker, but it was institutionalized in 2004 by Speaker Dennis Hastert (and Tom DeLay, the power behind the throne).

This anti-democratic tactic, now known as the “Hastert rule,” helped turn the chamber into a one-party institution that utterly silenced the minority. A post-9/11 intelligence reform bill, urgently sought by President George W. Bush, was bottled up by Mr. Hastert and his allies, who knew it would pass if Democrats were allowed to vote.

This was not a rule used by Democrats. Speaker Tom Foley allowed the North American Free Trade Agreement to pass in 1993 on mostly Republican votes, and when Nancy Pelosi took the job in 2007, she repudiated the Hastert rule, allowing both parties to vote together on legislation. For example, she allowed a bill to pass paying for the Iraq war over the objections of most Democrats.

“I’m the speaker of the House,” she said at the time. “I have to take into consideration something broader than the majority of the majority in the Democratic caucus.”

That’s an attitude rarely expressed by Mr. Boehner. But if the country is to move forward on issues with widespread support — getting past the debt limit, immigration reform, gun control, and investments in education and infrastructure — he will have to let the two parties vote together on a solution.

[DougMacG]

It has always been true, as far as I know, that the majority party has complete control of the House including what gets through committee and what goes to a vote.  Maybe it was only Hastert or Boehner who said it aloud or in public that bills will be passed with a majority of the majority or it won't come to a vote - except for the exceptions.  Tip O'Neill didn't have to say it; people knew who was in charge.

They gave one example of an exception with Pelosi and one with Boehner.  Not much difference.  Democrats didn't want responsibility for failure in Iraq and Republicans didn't want blame for tax rates going up.

The majority DID approve of the Speaker's handling of it, proven by reelecting him within hours.  They just wanted their 'No' vote recorded.

[bigdog]

It has always been true, as far as I know, that the majority party has complete control of the House including what gets through committee and what goes to a vote.  Maybe it was only Hastert or Boehner who said it aloud or in public that bills will be passed with a majority of the majority or it won't come to a vote - except for the exceptions.  Tip O'Neill didn't have to say it; people knew who was in charge.

They gave one example of an exception with Pelosi and one with Boehner.  Not much difference.  Democrats didn't want responsibility for failure in Iraq and Republicans didn't want blame for tax rates going up.

The majority DID approve of the Speaker's handling of it, proven by reelecting him within hours.  They just wanted their 'No' vote recorded.

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/52_132/-18700-1.html

[DougMacG]

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/52_132/-18700-1.html

"Pelosi’s more inclusive approach" and "willingness to include Republicans"... 

Seriously?  Did anyone watch healthcare get passed?

[DougMacG]

I am listening and reading all this the best that I can, but I don't see anything in rules that keeps a Senate Democratic majority from passing a budget.  They can and Lew lied; that is still my opinion.

Of course it's not binding.  Nothing the Senate alone passes is.

Keeping my mind open for what I am missing here ...


Big

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/02/parliamentary-procedure


"It's true that you cannot filibuster a budget resolution in the Senate, because the Budget Act provides special rules for consideration of a budget resolution, including a time limit on debate. So the Senate can pass a resolution with only a majority vote.  However, the resolution does not take effect when the Senate passes it.  It takes effect in one of two ways: if the House and Senate pass an identical resolution, usually in the form of a conference report; or if the Senate passes a separate Senate Resolution (as opposed to a concurrent resolution, which is what a budget resolution is) that says the House is “deemed” to have agreed to the budget resolution passed by the Senate.
But there are no special procedures for the simple Senate Resolution required by this second, “deeming” process, so it is subject to the unlimited debate allowed on almost everything in the Senate.  If you do not have the support of 60 Senators to invoke cloture and end a filibuster, or prevent a filibuster from even starting (because everyone knows  60 Senators support cloture), you cannot pass such a deeming resolution in the Senate.
Because its rules are different, the House with a simple majority can pass a resolution deeming that the House and Senate have agreed to the House resolution so that it can take effect. This means the allocations in the resolution, such as for appropriations, are in effect in the House and anybody can raise a point-of-order against legislation that would cause a committee to exceed its allocation.
But this is for purposes of enforcement in the House only. What the House does has no effect whatsoever on the Senate or its budget enforcement.  And vice versa, if the Senate deems that its budget resolution has been agreed to."

The point is cloture. The implicit assumption is that GOP senator(s) will filibuster.

I believe you cannot filibuster a budget bill under current Senate rules.


"Budget bills are governed under special rules called "reconciliation" which do not allow filibusters."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_Rules_of_the_United_States_Senate

Under reconciliation, bills cannot be filibustered and can thus pass the Senate by majority vote.
http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2009/04/20-budget-mann

The reconciliation process, by contrast, limits debate to 20 hours and bypasses the filibuster altogether. It was instituted to ensure that minority obstruction couldn't block important business like passing a budget or reducing the deficit.
http://prospect.org/article/50-vote-senate

Budget reconciliation is a procedure created in 1974 as a way of making changes in federal policy to meet fiscal guidelines set by  Congress. Because the process includes a limit of 20 hours of debate, reconciliation bills cannot be blocked by filibuster in the Senate and need only a simple majority to pass.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/congress/budget_reconciliation/index.html

[DougMacG]

Re-posting this across to Congress thread by request.  We are discussing rules of congress but my starting point was alleging that nominee Lew of the Glibness branch was misleading the people.
--------------

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=155

Step Three: Enforcing the Terms of the Budget Resolution
...
However, the budget point of order is important in the Senate, where any legislation that exceeds a committee's spending allocation — or cuts taxes below the level allowed in the budget resolution — is vulnerable to a budget point of order on the floor that requires 60 votes to waive.
...

Yes, BD, but a Budget Point of Order is a rule defined in the 3rd step, to apply to changes after a budget is passed.  The second step (same link) says this:

"Once the committees are done, their budget resolutions go to the House and Senate floors, where they can be amended (by a majority vote)...It also requires only a majority vote to pass, and its consideration is one of the few actions that cannot be filibustered in the Senate."

We never got past Step 2, to pass a budget by April 15.  Step 3 controls the process after there is a budget resolution passed.  It defines rules they must follow to change what was passed.  But there wasn't one passed in the Senate in the 3 years in question.  Right?


The original point about Lew and a lying White House is that the threat of a filibuster was not the reason the Senate had not passed a budget.  Lew said it was.  This was a Susan Rice moment.  He was sent up to create a false impression of what happened and what didn't happen.  Republicans wanted Senate Democrats to pass a budget - to show their hand; they were not trying to stop them, nor could they.  Republicans with control of the House in 2 of those years had no need to stop a budget in the Senate and no power to stop it.  This is a matter of political gamesmanship and they deserve to be called out.  Republicans wanted Democrats to 'show us your spending' as required under the 1974 law.   Show us your cuts, show us your spending and we will use that either get cuts done or for other political advantage:  'Senator so-and-so voted to cut Medicare, here is the record', or he/she refused to make any cuts at all to close a trillion dollar gap. 

But there was no need for a Dem majority Senate to follow the law and pass a budget because there is no penalty defined in the 1974 law.  They just kept the spending going without real cuts for years with continuing resolutions, blamed the Republicans, and using the cover provided by willing accomplices in the media like professional journalist Candy Crowley in the clip.

[DougMacG]

Yesterday I read that 6 Dem Senators are up in 2014 in states where Pres. Obama got 42% of the vote or less.  (Can't find the article now, but a similar list at the Wash Post link.) One of those was Jay Rockefeller in West Virginia.  Dems currently have 55 in the Senate.

Today's news:  Jay Rockefeller won't seek reelection.  http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/jay-rockefeller-to-retire-86054.html

This Washington Post piece says that of the ten most vulnerable Senators, 9 are Democrats and the other is in Kentucky.  They didn't have Rockefeller in their top ten:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/11/09/senate-democrats-face-a-very-tough-2014-map/

Year 6 is where Bush lost it all and Obama is weakest when he is off the ballot.  Some of these are states where he can't do much to help.  No predictions here after the 2012 fiasco, but the opportunity for Republicans is there once again.

[Crafty_Dog]

Rockefeller is 75 now.

==========

"Re-posting this across to Congress thread by request.  We are discussing rules of congress but my starting point was alleging that nominee Lew of the Glibness branch was misleading the people."

Understood; but due to understandable thread drift the conversation definitely has entered into material of lasting research value in the context of Congressional procedures and so I am glad to have it here.
==============
http://www.dickmorris.com/filibuster-reform-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports

[bigdog]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNxzQUyZu_U&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Do you believe that the former Director of OMB / Office of Management and Budget, Chief of staff, graduate of Harvard and Georgetown, does not know that passing a budget in the Senate requires only 51 votes?

Does Candy Crowley not know that either?

[bigdog]

The point is cloture. The implicit assumption is that GOP senator(s) will filibuster.

[bigdog]

The point is cloture. The implicit assumption is that GOP senator(s) will filibuster.

I believe you cannot filibuster a budget bill under current Senate rules.


"Budget bills are governed under special rules called "reconciliation" which do not allow filibusters."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_Rules_of_the_United_States_Senate

Under reconciliation, bills cannot be filibustered and can thus pass the Senate by majority vote.
http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2009/04/20-budget-mann

The reconciliation process, by contrast, limits debate to 20 hours and bypasses the filibuster altogether. It was instituted to ensure that minority obstruction couldn't block important business like passing a budget or reducing the deficit.
http://prospect.org/article/50-vote-senate

Budget reconciliation is a procedure created in 1974 as a way of making changes in federal policy to meet fiscal guidelines set by  Congress. Because the process includes a limit of 20 hours of debate, reconciliation bills cannot be blocked by filibuster in the Senate and need only a simple majority to pass.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/congress/budget_reconciliation/index.html

[bigdog]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/02/parliamentary-procedure


"It's true that you cannot filibuster a budget resolution in the Senate, because the Budget Act provides special rules for consideration of a budget resolution, including a time limit on debate. So the Senate can pass a resolution with only a majority vote.  However, the resolution does not take effect when the Senate passes it.  It takes effect in one of two ways: if the House and Senate pass an identical resolution, usually in the form of a conference report; or if the Senate passes a separate Senate Resolution (as opposed to a concurrent resolution, which is what a budget resolution is) that says the House is “deemed” to have agreed to the budget resolution passed by the Senate.
But there are no special procedures for the simple Senate Resolution required by this second, “deeming” process, so it is subject to the unlimited debate allowed on almost everything in the Senate.  If you do not have the support of 60 Senators to invoke cloture and end a filibuster, or prevent a filibuster from even starting (because everyone knows  60 Senators support cloture), you cannot pass such a deeming resolution in the Senate.
Because its rules are different, the House with a simple majority can pass a resolution deeming that the House and Senate have agreed to the House resolution so that it can take effect. This means the allocations in the resolution, such as for appropriations, are in effect in the House and anybody can raise a point-of-order against legislation that would cause a committee to exceed its allocation.
But this is for purposes of enforcement in the House only. What the House does has no effect whatsoever on the Senate or its budget enforcement.  And vice versa, if the Senate deems that its budget resolution has been agreed to."

The point is cloture. The implicit assumption is that GOP senator(s) will filibuster.

I believe you cannot filibuster a budget bill under current Senate rules.


"Budget bills are governed under special rules called "reconciliation" which do not allow filibusters."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_Rules_of_the_United_States_Senate

Under reconciliation, bills cannot be filibustered and can thus pass the Senate by majority vote.
http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2009/04/20-budget-mann

The reconciliation process, by contrast, limits debate to 20 hours and bypasses the filibuster altogether. It was instituted to ensure that minority obstruction couldn't block important business like passing a budget or reducing the deficit.
http://prospect.org/article/50-vote-senate

Budget reconciliation is a procedure created in 1974 as a way of making changes in federal policy to meet fiscal guidelines set by  Congress. Because the process includes a limit of 20 hours of debate, reconciliation bills cannot be blocked by filibuster in the Senate and need only a simple majority to pass.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/congress/budget_reconciliation/index.html

[bigdog]

Total first person pronouns used in his eulogy of Sen Inouye: 63.  So we know he knows how to use them.

"... will not have another debate with this Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills that they've already racked up through the laws that they passed."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324081704578231542240171394.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLESecond


What did Harry Truman say?  The buck stops ... ... over there!?

[bigdog]

Ummm , , , the fact is that under the Constitution the Congress must pass spending that originates in the House.  The Reps control the House.  They lack the testicles to stand erect.

[bigdog]

, , , the fact is that under the Constitution the Congress must pass spending that originates in the House...

All the Senate needs to do is pick up a House bill, change the amounts until they can pass it in good faith under the terms of the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act that created CBO and most of the current process.  The House has passed a budget every year.  The Senate has not passed a budget other than "continuing resolutions" since April 2009, roughly 5 trillion dollars of debt ago.  It cannot be filibustered under  Senate rules in effect since 1974.

Crafty, yours is not the reason that Lew gave.  He gave a false reason for why they haven't passed a budget, putting blame on Republicans in the Democratic controlled chamber.  It is a lie and a deception.  As an expert on the process (OMB Director under two Presidents!), he knew that was false.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/145259-house-passes-republican-budget-for-fy-2011-in-x-y-vote
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/30/us/politics/house-passes-ryan-budget-blueprint-along-party-lines.html?_r=0
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-02/u-s-house-passes-budget-bill-averts-most-tax-increases.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/jack-lews-misleading-claim-about-the-senates-failure-to-pass-a-budget-resolution/2012/02/12/gIQAs11z8Q_blog.html?wprss=fact-checker
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021012-600854-democrats-refusal-to-pass-budget-is-illegal.htm
http://www.dailypaul.com/269094/the-law-requires-congress-to-pass-a-budget-every-america-hasnt-had-since-2009

It's true that you cannot filibuster a budget resolution in the Senate, because the Budget Act provides special rules for consideration of a budget resolution, including a time limit on debate. So the Senate can pass a resolution with only a majority vote. 
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/02/parliamentary-procedure

Budget resolutions are not subject to a filibuster.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/206309-gop-well-pass-budget-every-year-#ixzz2HcHcSPvT

“But we also need to be honest. You can’t pass a budget in the Senate of the United States without 60 votes and you can’t get 60 votes without bipartisan support. So unless Republicans are willing to work with Democrats in the Senate, Harry Reid is not going to be able to get a budget passed. And I think he was reflecting the reality of that that could be a challenge.”

--White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew, on CNN, Feb. 12. 2012 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/jack-lews-misleading-claim-about-the-senates-failure-to-pass-a-budget-resolution/2012/02/12/gIQAs11z8Q_blog.html?wprss=fact-checker
"Four Pinocchios"

"We wavered between three and four Pinocchios, in part because the budget resolution is only a blueprint, not a law, but ultimately decided a two-time budget director really should know better."  - The hard-right Washington Post