By meaningless, I mean it is non-binding, as in “it has no force of law”, as in, it is completely symbolic
(Fox News) An exhausted Senate approved its first budget in four years early Saturday, calling for almost $1 trillion in tax increases over the coming decade while sheltering safety net programs targeted by House Republicans.
While their victory was by a razor-thin 50-49, the vote let Democrats tout their priorities. Yet it doesn’t resolve the deep differences the two parties have over deficits and the size of government.
The nonbinding but politically symbolic measure caters to party stalwarts on the liberal edge of the spectrum just as the House GOP measure is crafted to appeal to more recent tea party arrivals.
Democrats in the Senate can finally say “we passed a budget”, a legal requirement which we’ve blown off for 4 years. Yeah us!
The Democratic budget envisions $975 billion in unspecified new taxes over the coming 10 years. There would be an equal amount of spending reductions coming chiefly from health programs, defense and reduced interest payments as deficits get smaller than previously anticipated.
Much like Obamacare, we have to pass the budget in order to find out what the taxes are. Dems really do not want to be put on record as saying what they really want to do with taxation.
They voted in favor of giving states more powers to collect sales taxes on online purchases their citizens make from out-of-state Internet companies, and to endorse the proposed Keystone XL pipeline that is to pump oil from Canada to Texas refineries.
They also approved amendments voicing support for eliminating the $2,500 annual cap on flexible spending account contributions imposed by Obama’s health care overhaul, and for charging regular postal rates for mailings by political parties, which currently qualify for the lower prices paid by non-profits.
Also
(The Hill) The House did accept three Democratic amendments, including two that had support from Republicans. They would allow Congress to pass a law protecting women against paycheck discrimination and protect lower-income Americans from tax hikes. The first one was approved by voice vote.
Approval of amendments, however, does not change U.S. law, as they are simply amendments to a non-binding budget resolution. Thus, Thursday’s approval of an amendment calling for an end to the medical device tax will not result in the actual repeal of that tax.
Funny how so many parts of Obamacare need to be changed because of the damage it does to American citizens. But, remember, non-binding, ie, no force of law, ie, worthless, except for politics.
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.
What an absolute waste of time, effort, and money. More political theatre from the jackasses just to say they passed a gigantic tax increase along party lines. I am of the opinion that these overpaid, pampered, prima donna bottom feeders do not deserve to serve any longer in public office; and like the waste they are, need be discarded in 14, more in 16, and the rest in 18.
This makes no sense. Congress put in an amendment to a BUDGET that would allow Congress to pass a law? WTF? And, isn’t discrimination already illegal? However, Why should Congress have authority over how much I choose to pay people that work for me!?!?!?!? Are men going to get this protection when the balance swings the other way?
And, I’m sorry, but.. “protect low income earners from tax hikes”??? SCREW EM!!
If everyone wants to be treated fairly, and to have people pay their fair share… then every paycheck earner should pay taxes and be eligible for tax increases or decreases.
I SO HATE THIS DAMNED CONGRESS!!
“Equal pay” has long been a cry of liberals despite the lack of evidence that women with the same education and experience are discriminated against.
There is also the problem that if there was truth to the accusation women are paid less, businesses would hire more women to save money.
But that isn’t the case.
The bottom line is that these cases are being driven by the legal lobby who not only wants the law, but for the law to require the business prove it did not discriminate rather than the accusor proving they did.
It is more money for lawyers.