For the second year in a row President Obama’s much-ballyhooed budget failed to garner a single vote in its favor. That’s right, not a single one of the 191 Democrats in the House of Representatives could muster the courage to vote for their president’s budget. Could there be a more stunning indictment of the White House’s misplaced spending priorities? At this point Obama should take a hint from Senate Democrats and just give up on trying to write a budget at all.
The president’s budget was so unpopular within the ranks of his own party that it had to be offered on the House floor by a Republican. “Clearly, it must be [an] oversight. Clearly my colleagues meant to offer the President’s budget,” said Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) who was tasked with introducing Obama’s budget blueprint. “I thought I’d help my colleagues across the aisle out a little bit and offer the President’s budget. Which is exactly what this amendment is.”
“I would encourage the Democrats to embrace this landmark Democrat document and support it. Personally, I will be voting against it,” Mulvaney added.
Expectedly, no Democrats accepted Mulvaney’s challenge.
The Daily Caller reports:
By a stunning 0-414 tally Wednesday night, the House of Representatives voted down a budget proposal based on President Barack Obama’s 2013 recommendations. Congress hadn’t seen a budget vote that lopsided since last May, when the Senate voted down an Obama budget plan by a 0-97 margin.
That 2011 Senate slaughter came after minority leader Sen. Mitch McConnell insisted on a vote to demonstrate that Democrats would not endorse a budget with specific, targeted cuts.
Similarly, Wednesday evening’s vote saw South Carolina Republican Rep. Mick Mulvaney, a House freshman who came to Washington with grand budget-control promises, introducing Obama’s 2013 budget outline as an amendment to the bill being pieced together to fund the government next year.
If Democrats cannot muster the courage to vote for their own vision of government – one that raises taxes, increases spending, employs numerous budget gimmicks to hide its true cost, and never (as in ever) achieves balance – then how can they honestly expect Americans to support that vision?
This is the second year in a row that Obama has managed to pick up a single vote of support from Congressional Democrats. There are only two reasons I can come up with that would explain this outcome. First, Democrats are afraid that a vote in favor of a budget that never balances would be bad politics, opening them up to election-year attacks from conservatives. The second and more unlikely scenario is that Congressional Democrats honestly don’t approve of the President’s budgetary choices and would like less spending.
The first is cowardice, plain and simple. Prior to 2010 Democrats often chastised Republicans as the “Party of No,” for refusing to support any number of Democrat-endorsed legislation. But Democrats’ unwillingness to support even their own ideas makes them worse than the “Party of No,” because at least it takes guts to take a stand, it makes them the “Party of No Principles.”
The second would reveal a fundamental divide between the party in a crucial election year. “In parliamentary systems, that would be a vote of no confidence and the party would be looking for new leadership,” writes Ed Morrissey for HotAir. “Perhaps it’s time for the country to do what Democrat’s won’t do for themselves and look for leadership who can product rational numbers in budgets, or at least budgets that can win a vote from its own party.”
Regardless of the reason, whether it be cowardice or disagreement, Democrats are revealing their true colors: they are big spenders who don’t want to admit it to voters. At least not until the 2012 elections are over. It’s good politics above good policy, which is always a bad outcome for Americans.