Changes

:I am sure you sincerely believe your answer, but it is not true.  My personal opinion (which I will leave out of the articles) is that the Senate and the House cannot agree on "special instructions" so the Senate Republicans use a filibuster threat to prevent the full Senate from debating and voting on the annual budget resolution.  The budget resolution, as you have agreed, is just a joint resolution of Congress.  It is the appropriation bills that actually count, and the Senate Republicans have filibustered those as well, even when they pass the committee on a bipartisan 30-0. You are confusing cause and effect.  The cause is politics, not the structure of spending authority.  Government is so large that Congress should focus on what is important.  The Army base restocking the PX with merchandise is not important and does not affect the budget and should be on "auto-pilot". Please don't confuse a concept with the bad results from it being possibly misapplied. Please don't confuse turf fights between the appropriations committees and the authorization committees with policy debates on the size of government. Write the article so that it is true at both the state and federal level, and if applicable the world. Now, how about lifting the protection on "spending authority"? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:23, 13 January 2013 (EST)

:I am sure you sincerely believe your answer, but it is not true.  My personal opinion (which I will leave out of the articles) is that the Senate and the House cannot agree on "special instructions" so the Senate Republicans use a filibuster threat to prevent the full Senate from debating and voting on the annual budget resolution.  The budget resolution, as you have agreed, is just a joint resolution of Congress.  It is the appropriation bills that actually count, and the Senate Republicans have filibustered those as well, even when they pass the committee on a bipartisan 30-0. You are confusing cause and effect.  The cause is politics, not the structure of spending authority.  Government is so large that Congress should focus on what is important.  The Army base restocking the PX with merchandise is not important and does not affect the budget and should be on "auto-pilot". Please don't confuse a concept with the bad results from it being possibly misapplied. Please don't confuse turf fights between the appropriations committees and the authorization committees with policy debates on the size of government. Write the article so that it is true at both the state and federal level, and if applicable the world. Now, how about lifting the protection on "spending authority"? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:23, 13 January 2013 (EST)

::Wrong. [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 The Budget cannot be filibustered]. The ''Washington Post'' Fact Checker awarded Treasury Secretary-nominee Jack Lew its top award of four Pinocchios for fibbing on this canard.  Also, while a PX operating at a loss or legislative pay raises may impact somewhere like New Zealand's operating deficit, I doubt if these items approximate .00001% of the US federal budget. It should not be too hard to check. But repeated references to such lame, miniscule, and obscure items show you haven't grasped even the broad outlines of the magnitude of the problem. I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but examine the numbers, and examine the facts seriously, for a moment. Thank you.  [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 14:21, 13 January 2013 (EST)

::Wrong. [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 The Budget cannot be filibustered]. The ''Washington Post'' Fact Checker awarded Treasury Secretary-nominee Jack Lew its top award of four Pinocchios for fibbing on this canard.  Also, while a PX operating at a loss or legislative pay raises may impact somewhere like New Zealand's operating deficit, I doubt if these items approximate .00001% of the US federal budget. It should not be too hard to check. But repeated references to such lame, miniscule, and obscure items show you haven't grasped even the broad outlines of the magnitude of the problem. I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but examine the numbers, and examine the facts seriously, for a moment. Thank you.  [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 14:21, 13 January 2013 (EST)