Give Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid some credit for “consistency” — of a sort.
After failing to pass a budget for three years, he announced last week that he won’t be passing most appropriations bills by the end of the fiscal year, Sept. 30.
That means that most federal departments won’t be funded, except under stopgap “continuing resolutions,” until Congress returns for a post-election lame-duck session — when, inevitably, a cumbersome, hugely expensive “omnibus” bill will be rammed through.
It’s not the first time Congress has done this, but it’s still a major black eye for Reid, who seems a “leader” in name only.
After all, it was virtually unheard-of for the Senate to fail to pass a budget resolution; but Reid’s Democrats have, again, ducked that basic governing responsibility for three straight years.
And now this.
Which raises an important question: Why can’t Reid’s Democrats fulfill the basics of government?
Perhaps it’s because they don’t want the American people — voters — to actually see their spending priorities.
Another important question: If Democrats can’t fulfill the basics, why keep sending them to the Senate?
The latter question has some special relevance here in New York.
For one, the state’s senior senator, Chuck Schumer, is No. 3 in the Senate leadership heirarchy — and practically Reid’s right-hand man when it comes to setting policy.
So maybe Schumer can explain why Democrats can’t pass budgets?
And then there’s Kirsten Gillibrand — Schumer’s Mini-Me, who’s running for a full Senate term in November.
It’s more than fair for her GOP challenger Wendy Long to ask, “What’s Sen. Gillibrand done to get the nation’s business done and pass a budget — or make sure bills are passed in a timely manner?”
If Harry Reid’s Democrats can’t hack it in the majority, perhaps it’s time to replace them and give Republicans a shot at getting the Senate’s trains to run on time.
Something New Yorkers should think about as they head to the polls this year.