While noting budget complaints, AP ignored GOP's failure to pass spending bills in '06
In a February 1 Associated Press article on the passage of a $463.5 billion spending bill in the House of Representatives, staff writer Andrew Taylor reported that there were "hard feelings" among congressional Republicans "over how Democrats powered the bill through the House: just an hour of debate time, no amendments allowed." But the article ignored the reason why the stopgap measure was necessary: prior to the close of the 109th Congress in 2006, the Republican congressional majority decided not to deal with nine spending bills -- a fact that Taylor himself reported at the time and that Democrats repeatedly cited in response to Republican complaints about the budget process.
Following the Democratic victories in the 2006 midterm elections, congressional Republicans declined to pass the nine remaining government spending bills for fiscal year 2007 (which began on October 1, 2006), placing the burden on the incoming Democratic majority. In a November 20, 2006, AP article, Taylor himself covered this GOP decision:
Republicans vacating the Capitol are dumping a big spring cleaning job on Democrats moving in. GOP leaders have opted to leave behind almost a half-trillion-dollar clutter of unfinished spending bills[.]
There's also no guarantee that Republicans will pass a multibillion-dollar measure to prevent a cut in fees to doctors treating Medicare patients.
The bulging workload that a Republican-led Congress was supposed to complete this year but is instead punting to 2007 promises to consume time and energy that Democrats had hoped to devote to their own agenda upon taking control of Congress in January for the first time in a dozen years.
Taylor went on to note in that article that many Republicans believed the unfinished budget work would impede the Democratic agenda:
Driving the decision to quit and go home rather than finish the remaining budget work is a determined effort by a group of conservative Republicans to prevent putting a GOP stamp on spending bills covering 13 Cabinet Departments -- and loaded with thousands of homestate projects derided as "pork" by critics.
[...]
Some Republicans also look forward to using unfinished budget work to gum up an early Democratic agenda that includes raising the minimum wage, negotiating lower drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries, cutting interest rates on college loans and repealing some tax breaks for oil companies.
"Other stuff may get pushed off the table," said GOP lobbyist Hazen Marshall, a former longtime Capitol Hill aide. "It kills (Democrats') message."
On January 29, House Democrats introduced a continuing resolution appropriating $463.5 billion to keep the government running for the remainder of fiscal 2007. Without this measure, the lack of funding would have caused a partial government shutdown as soon as February 15. The Democratic leadership allowed an hour of debate on the measure and barred Republican amendments to it, causing an uproar from GOP lawmakers. Speaking on the House floor on January 31, House Appropriations Committee chairman David Obey (D-WI) responded to these complaints by noting that Republicans had themselves failed "to deal with the most basic responsibility of a legislative body, which is to pass the Federal budget":
OBEY: Let me simply say that the majority had 8 months to deal with the most basic responsibility of a legislative body, which is to pass the Federal budget. They were in the majority. They now are not. Now they are in the minority.
We are trying to clean up their spilt milk, and they can squawk all they want about how we did it. The fact is, there are no new issues here. Virtually every single issue that will be debated today was already debated when we passed the appropriation bills. These are the bills that the House passed last summer in the previous session of the Congress. We had hundreds of amendments to these bills.
[...]
OBEY: You may not like the choices we have made, but, in contrast to the last Congress which ducked its responsibility to make these choices, at least we have made the choices. At least we have made them, and we are going to vote on this today. We are going to send it to the Senate so that when the President submits his new budget on February 5, he has a clean slate and so do we, and that is the way it ought to be.
The continuing resolution subsequently passed the House by a vote of 286-140 on January 31. But in his February 1 AP article, Taylor reported the Republicans' complaints regarding the Democrats' handling of the bill, while failing to inform readers why the measure was necessary in the first place:
A must-pass bill covering about one-sixth of the federal budget swept through the House on Wednesday. A sizable chunk of Republicans joined virtually all Democrats in approving spending increases for education, veterans and the AIDS battle in Africa.
The 286-140 vote -- with 57 Republicans voting in favor -- was a pleasant surprise for Democrats who expected far less GOP support. The $463.5 billion spending bill had much to please the rank and file, including Republican moderates, even though it contained no pet projects for their districts.
"The content is a heck of a lot better than most expected we'd come up with," said the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. David Obey, D-Wis. He worked with his Senate counterpart, Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., to add money for initiatives popular with both Democrats and Republicans.
The winning vote would have been even higher had there not been such hard feelings over how Democrats powered the bill through the House: just an hour of debate time, no amendments allowed.
By contrast, on February 1, several other major print outlets pointed out that the Republicans had failed to pass the spending bills when they were in the majority.
From a Wall Street Journal article (subscription required):
House Democrats, in the strongest showing yet of their new legislative muscle, pushed through a $463.5 billion spending resolution to fill the gap left by the collapse of the budget process under Republican rule last fall.
With funding for the government running out Feb. 15, both parties and the White House are eager to resolve the fiscal crisis. But the new majority brought the bill to the floor with remarkable speed and no apologies to Republicans for denying them the chance to offer individual amendments.
"You forfeited any right to squawk about how we cleaned up your mess," said House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D., Wis.). "Somebody had to make the decisions, because you didn't."
From a New York Times article:
"Democrats promised this massive spending bill would be earmark-free, but then gave us a bill that includes hundreds of millions of dollars worth of funding for earmarked pork projects," said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader.
But Representative David R. Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat who is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, blamed the Republicans for failing to complete the 2007 spending bills, and for allowing the insertion of earmarks like the Iowa rain forest in the first place.
From a Washington Post article:
The measure had to be cobbled together because Congress did not finish its work last year and failed to pass nine of 11 spending bills. "Four months into fiscal 2007, we are cleaning up the Republican Party's budget mess," House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said during the floor debate.

















Hopefully, voters will remember this especially... in addition to everything else... for some time to come.
The Republicans up and left the Dems to clean up their mess. That's real commitment to our Government, their positions and their oath of office. Just another reason to never vote for another Republican. The proof is in their actions... or, in this case, their inaction.
good for the democrats. they didn't allow the republicans to add all kinds of useless earmarks and pork. not that there weren't some, i'm sure. we need the line item veto.
Do youreally want bush to possess the power of a line item veto? When one proves time and time again to be an incompetent power-hungry, trigger-happy lunatic of a public figure, the proper response is not to throw additional powers his way like petrol to a forest fire. That is one reason the republicans are now out on their butts and moping around the capital. A line item veto would make it much harder for democrats or republicans (if a time comes where republicans have to check a dangerous president during a hopefully far off majority). to force the presidents hand in signing legislation. Furthermore, it would give the president essentially legislative powers. WE are learning the hard way with Iran/Iraq what happens when congress gives away its power to the executive (ex: war powers). Can you imagine bush getting a bill which caps military troop numbers, maintains normal war funding, and calls for a deescalation and having a line item veto. I dont believe i have to say which of those he is vetoing. It gives the president too much power to decide which part of a bill he likes and which part he doesn't.
i was speaking more to spending bills, and i know that other things get attached to those. clinton did use the line item, but it was declared unconstitutional.
No the line item veto is a horrible idea.
And oddly enough the governors in my state have had the right and by and large have used it within reason, most of the time.
On a national level it gives the executive way too much power and should be shunned like the plague -- even if it is just for spending bills. If Bush had the option he would have bankrupt the nation more entirely than he has already done. The all or nothing veto works best on such a diverse nation or a horribly divided one -- as we are now -- as it makes the demand of compromise. We recently have seen the abuse of the legislative by the executive and the political operatives therein. A line item would have made that corruption of the Constitution complete. Everyone who loves this Nation and Republic should pray -- even the atheists -- that the day of the line item never comes.
i understand your misgivings. but when you say it could cause bush to further bankrupt the nation. he cannot initiate spending, only what the congress initiates.