Very interesting. What if president Obama is a lame duck? He could refuse to sign tax reforms out of spite, and allow the calamitous tax increases to take place while he enjoys his last few weeks in the White House.

****** The last time the Senate passed a budget was April 29, 2009************ Passing a yearly budget for the federal government is a fundamental responsibility of Congress. Lawmakers do not have to spend their time naming post offices or passing health care reform. But they do have to pass a budget. In 2010, neither the House nor the Senate did so. In 2010, still without a budget.****2012- still NO BUDGET***** We have a Senate controlled by the Democrats and a House controlled by the Republicans, most of them have been there MANY YEARS. ****This is not working folks.*****While I have never approved of term limits in the past, the idea is looking better and better.This was never meant to be a career. The senators and reps are staying too long and getting entrenched, more worried about staying than in actually being part of the solutions.

Even when the House change to Republican control after 2010, it has passed a budget every year. The Senate which had been under Democratic control since 2006 (may be earlier?) had not pass one since 2009. In order for Congress to work, both chambers must have budgets which can then go to conference committee where differences can be iron out. That's not possible as Harry Reid block it on a yearly basis. Obama just keep on submitting budgets that increase spending. The Democrats don't want anything to happen. They need the inactivity to keep on blaming the Republicans for being obstructionists. Frankly, I am sick of hearing "main stream" media and Democrats keep on blaming the Republicans. The Democrats still control the senate and the Presidency.

I love all the "Dislikes" when the no budget dems are brought up. Love to have one of the people who "dislike" facts state what it is that they object to

Let's hear it for the zombies! "Taxmageddon"? Talk about fear-mongering. This is just more lies and propaganda aimed at protecting the wealthy 1% and the corporate oligarchy. The only solution that makes sense is to balance tax revenues with spending cuts. And this clown thinks that's a bad thing? Note how the Commentary from the brain-washed idiocracy bleats and whines about liberal/progressive attempts to counter "conservative" fiscal policies that would be contrary to their own best interests. Joshua Green: today's Worst Person In The World!

Too funny. It is the RNC who is orchestrating Do-Nothing-Republicans to do nothing this year other than stall, thwart, and obstruct, as their number one priority is setting up their eventual nominee to run against Obama ("Our single biggest political goal is to give our nominee for president the maximum opportunity to be successful."--Mitch McConnell, 2009). This very do-nothing Congress is the result of a Republican strategy to manufacture campaign arguments against the President based on their obstruction of progress. If conservative commenters here had any stones, they'd condemn this tactic and the Republican Party of Party Over Country, but, no, conservative commenters will be a player in the Republican Party of Party Over Country's continued destruction of Our Country, the pieces to be inherited by a second-term Obama who--despite GOP obstruction-- will be given at least 100% of the blame for anything that goes wrong in the next four years. Indeed, the last three years has seen nothing but wailing on news sites like this one, despite Obama inheriting one of the weakest economies ever from six years of unchallenged Republican policies. Leader lead. Gutless Republican politicians obstruct meaningful debate and action, instead spewing ugly and nasty rhetoric that divides us. Conservative commenters who support this approach are nothing but desperate foot-soldiers under the RNC's command.

Who would have predicted that the republican nominee in 2012 would be a zombie?

There is no "constitutional" requirement for a budget. So the moaning regarding the lack of one while politically cute means absolutely nothing. But that matters little to anyone except the congressional types who know it isn't necessary. I could submit a budget get it passed and it wouldn't matter. Each appropriating committee would do exactly as it pleased. So the lack of a Senate budget or the existence of a House budget really doesn't matter. What the government currently spends is based upon what the House and Senate agreed upon during the past year. So if you are something besides a mouthpiece for your favorite political party whichever it is, I would suggest finding out who the head of the appropriation committees are in the House and Senate and complain to them. The President any President merely proposes the Congress disposes. So if you have a beef take it up with the right person. That is exactly what Mr. Cooper is saying, blame the Congress the entire Congress.

It is required by LAW