The US House just finished it’s work on HR1, cleaning up after democrats who in 2010 abrogated yet another obligation when they found themselves incapable of writing the budget they really wanted right before an election.
The liberal-progressives wanted more spending but that was not politically advantageous. And since the single driving-force behind all Democrat decisions is politics the budget got relegated to the back of the bus, where the electorate’s short attention spans were meant to forget that democrats were never fiscally conscious representatives–they just tried to play them on the campaign trail.
But avoiding the high profile budget battle was more evidence that they had something to hide. The Democrat House majority was appropriately sedated and placed under observation, while the Senate saw minor adjustments but no change in leadership. So the process of changing our spending ways would still have to go through a Democrat controlled Senate and across the desk of a President who thinks the words "spending cuts" are just a rhetorical flourish used to provide cover for more spending.
Obama’s budget is proof enough of that.
But Obama only proposes a budget. The House is in charge of spending. So the new Republican congress went to the back seat of the Hopey-changey bus and picked up the budget obligations abandoned by the 111th congress. This wwas a free shot at changing the fiscal direction of the country before writing their own first official budget, which was not due until later in 2011. It was a gimme, a free throw, but one that had to survive the democrat Senate and the Spender in Chief.
So how did it turn out?
The New Hampshire House Judiciary Committee has come out against