Harry Reid is not in the House. He is in the Senate.

Under Article I, section 7, the House has to bring the budget to the Senate before the Senate considers it. That is the standard procedure. I don't know why it is being changed.

The House is completely responsible for presenting a budget to the Senate. I don't believe anything has been passed in the House yet. Do you have a link to an article stating that the House has brought a budget bill to the floor and voted yea or nay?

I haven't seen that, but I have been out of town.

Thanks.

WASHINGTON — A divided House approved a $3.6 trillion Republican budget on Thursday recasting Medicare and imposing sweeping cuts in domestic programs, capping a battle that gave both political parties a campaign-season stage to spotlight their warring deficit-cutting priorities.

But the partisan divisions over the measure, which is dead on arrival in the Democratic-led Senate, also underscores how tough it will be for lawmakers to achieve the cooperation needed to contend with a tsunami of tax and spending decisions that will engulf Congress right after this fall's elections.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/29/paul-ryan-budget-passes-house_n_1389165.html



Senate Democratic leaders on Friday said they do not intend to bring a fiscal 2013 budget up for a floor vote.

"We do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year — it's done, we don't need to do it," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters on Friday.

Conrad's panel has released an analysis asserting that the deal reached in August to raise the debt ceiling was, for all intents and purposes, a budget.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/208593-reid-this-years-budget-is-done#ixzz2MW4LJvua
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Here is one dated February 2013.

Asserting that “the American people” are on his side, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told me during an exclusive interview for “This Week” that any that deal reached between Republicans and Democrats to avoid the looming sequester must — “without any question” – include revenue.

“The American people are on our side. The American people don’t believe in these austere things. We believe that the rich should contribute. We believe we should fill those tax loopholes — get rid of them, I should say. And that’s where we need to go,” Reid said. “And I’ve got a pretty good fan base for that: the American people. Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.”

Reid confirmed his position on revenue would apply to any deal put into place to avert a government shutdown or lift the debt ceiling as well. This puts him directly at odds with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, who said earlier this month on “This Week” that the ”tax issue is finished,”But Reid — invoking the GOP’s 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney — suggested a deal could include such things as the elimination of oil and gas subsidies, or what he called “low hanging fruit.” The Nevada senator also pushed back when I asked if he was sidelined during the so called “fiscal cliff” negotiations, telling me he played the “bad cop” during that period.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/02/sen-harry-reid-any-budget-deal-must-include-revenue/

The problem is that the Republicans are not producing a revenue bill pursuant to Article I, section 7.

So the sequestration bill is in force until the Republicans in the House bring a revenue bill. Congress passed the sequestration bill. It is up to the Republicans in the House to pass a replacement for it. It isn't up to the Senate to initiate an alternative.

I bet he could cut $85 billion per year...I highly doubt we would like it though.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/12/what-paul-ryans-budget-actually-cuts-and-by-how-much/

But if you talk to hospital doctors who deal with the families of the elderly, you will learn that children are very upset if their parents don't receive the best quality care.

We could make money stretch further in education and children's services if we did away with school administrators and their bloated salaries.

Otherwise health costs will eat into everything.

I see no way around it.

The French doctors were just great -- probably saved my life and that of my baby.

You don't get as many frills as some Americans (the fortunate who have deluxe healthcare coverage) get, but it is still a great system. One of the big advantages is that every woman receives prenatal care. That means so much for families. You never put of taking your child to the doctor because you want to save money. My parents had to do that.

I love single payer healthcare. I never had the sense that the government was interfering in my doctor's or my decisions about specific procedures or choices or the scope of my health care.

And even if we know that not all our parents can be seen at the Cleveland Clinic or by Mayo.

Medicare reimbursement is very low, much lower than private insurance reimbursement. Nonetheless, the cost of a medical education keeps going up.

I'm several years away from Medicare, which for me will be a blessing, but I'm afraid that the low reimbursement will mean that it will be difficult to find a primary care doctor.

There are areas where that is already a problem.

it involves your parents under a Paul Ryan type of plan. Either immediately or after they pass. If your parents were in a nursing home their children could end up having to help with the finances. There might not be anything to pass to the children. If they don't end up in a nursing home there may be other expenses that they can't pay on their own.

but my mother resists planning, so I'm going to be screwed unless she has a very short stay.

I am a senior, and I love it. They try to do everything very efficiently.

Annhiliating the republican party and the splinter groups allows achievement of everything

and President Obama is doing something never done.

A second term president is NOT going to be lameducked the last two years.

By using the strategy (10 steps ahead) that President Obama is using, it will insure that many great things can be done the entire 4 year term, AND the continuation for another 8 years afterwards.

President Obama is batting 1000% in everything he has done so far (IMHO) and winning big
in 2014 will insure EVERY OTHER THING that he wants will happen.

INCLUDING the ability should it soon arise, to get some great Supreme Court Justices on the court.

As of the moment with this republican party, it is going to be next to impossible, especially if the next opening is one of the 5 and will turn the court around.

Keep your eye on the prize longterm and a shortterm sacrifice is well worth it.

The republicans are playing a stupid game plan and daily it backfires.

Most democratic voters know this and are fine with this strategy.
Of course, the republican/tea/libertarians won't make it easy, but then they haven't from day one.

It is why Harry Reid's leadership in the Senate is a wonderful thing.
Because the 2014 election will be a once in history landslide for the democratic party and with it, the opposing party will be down to just about nothing at the best, and at the worst,
the total repudiation of the extremists.

He doesn't have that authority.
Actually the House has passed several Budgets. The Senate none, and the last several the President Has offered have gotten Zero votes in either House of Congress.
No Aye votes in the Senate.

He just has to wait until the House and Senate agree on a budget.

The House has to reconcile the budget with the Senate, but the president should not be involved other than to veto the bill or sign it. Sorry, but what you are suggesting does not follow the Constitution or the 1974 Act providing for reconciliation.

The current fight is based on posturing for the 2016 election.

No R in the House, where the districts are mostly gerrymandered, or in the Senate will move any closer to the middle because to do so will mean a primary challenge from the right.

The sequester will have to be. The alternatives would probably be worse. And our economy will probably stagnate or improve just a little.

But you impose some that are at odds with the way the budget's been prepared for, well, all of my lifetime. I'm over 50.

It goes something like this.

The president prepares a budget. It includes his priorities. He has legions of people in the Executive, each of which know the operating needs and demands of their departments, to assist in this.

It goes to the Congress. The House has a budget resolution. It's not spending authorization. It's a broad-brush document, looking at projected income and expenses. In principle, it's easy to rope things into the confines of that document. Since it's easy, a lot of Congressfolk hedge on the budget resolution. In some years there hasnt' been an actual resolution passed because nobody could agree on one.

With the resolution in hand, it's bargaining time. The president's priorities (or, more appropriately, the priorities of his departments as massaged and changed by him to match his own and that of his cabinet members) aren't holy. They get changed and eventually formulated as a budget allocation or spending bill. Sometimes the prez balks and refuses to sign. * usually signed whatever was presented. In his last year he grew a spine and said "no" to a few spending bills that didn't reflect his budget guidelines. That stalemate lasted until he left office--some of the larger spending bills in the 2009 Bush II budget weren't signed by Bush II.

This is a nifty compromise procedure, and one that is entirely acceptable given the general guidelines in the Constitution. Otherwise the House would make a budget and fight to work out a compromise with the Senate. When they were done, they'd have to get the President to sign on, but his priorities--sometimes whimsical, sometimes based on actual feet-on-the-ground needs--would be included as the last step. That's insane and counterproductive.

That is the legal procedure. The president can choose to recommend something, but it is not his duty or job under the Constitution to make such a recommendation. Just read the Constitution. Articles I and II.

I think we'll just see another continuing resolution, but there maybe another government shut down before it's all said and done.

probably next week.

Whether that will get through the Senate, I haven't heard.

Whether the President will sign it, I haven't heard.

Well, I'd think it would, but these days who knows?

With sequestration already in place I don't see Boehner requesting a CR with anything but "current levels", meaning FY12 levels like we're at now.

But current levels of spending may be too high for those facing re-election in conservative districts.

Boehner is looking for Dem votes and a few Reps.

Whether Reid can get 60 votes to bring it to the floor in the Senate hasn't been discussed in any article I've read.

I hadn't been paying attention to the CR with the on-going sequestration debacle.

I just wish that I had better and more complete news.

They shut down the Clinton administration. They love doing that. It's just childish fun for them. They are sick.