Quote of note:
On Tuesday, Senate Republican staff members floated a possible compromise: If the Republican hold-outs would accept a budget framework negotiated with the House, the Republican leaders would support a separate pay-as-you-go rule that would only apply to the Senate.
But that idea vanished before Republican leaders had even proposed it, apparently because some Senate Republicans viewed it as a capitulation to opponents of the tax cuts.
Of course, the REAL reason it should never have even been raised is, it's empty nonsense. I mean, how would it work? The Senate bills must be the "pay as you go" type while House bills can be free-wheeling wastrels?
And who REALLY believes they'd pass that second rule anyway?
Republicans Ponder Not Adopting a Budget This Year
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
WASHINGTON, June 2 - They have tried sweet-talk and dire warnings, insults and bluffing tactics. None of it has worked, which is why a growing number of Republicans are beginning to despair about agreeing on a budget plan for next year.
Embarrassing as that would be for the party that controls both houses of Congress, many Republicans are concluding they would be better off with no budget plan than with one that would require them to pay the cost of permanently extending last year's tax cuts.
Senate Republican leaders, back from their Memorial Day recess, showed little sign on Wednesday of persuading a small band of rebels within their own party to drop their insistence on "pay as you go" rules.
The four Republican dissenters, joined by most Democrats, are demanding rules that would force Congress to pay the cost of any new tax cuts either with spending cuts or tax increases in other areas.
The impasse has already undermined President Bush's top domestic goal, which is to make the tax cuts permanent, and it will apparently postpone major budget decisions until after the elections.
It has also exposed a rift over Republican priorities: Is it more important to cut taxes or to prevent the budget deficit from expanding beyond its current level of about $400 billion?
The White House and House Republicans have staunchly opposed any such restrictions, because permanently extending Mr. Bush's tax cuts would cost about $1.7 trillion over the next 10 years.
