Well, we voted for the status quo — and by golly, we’re getting the status quo. Do Senate Democrats, perhaps, have any intention of undergoing the proper and legally required process of crafting a budget anytime soon? …Meh. It’s been well over three years; why get into a tizzy over it now? From The Hill:

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) confirmed Thursday that she will seek the chairmanship of the Senate Budget Committee next year…

This past year, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said a budget was not necessary because the top-line spending number for appropriations was set in the August 2011 debt-ceiling deal.

Murray said that an agreement to avoid the “fiscal cliff,” the looming $600 billion in tax increases and spending cuts set to strike in January, could preclude having to pass a Senate budget next year.

“I am committed to working with our committee and with our Congress to put a budget in place but there are a lot of questions in front of us: What happens in the next two weeks, six weeks, year? Does the White House and the leadership come together on some solution to the budget that we have right now that precludes a budget being written next year?” she said. “I have no idea.”

You can see where their priorities are. Sorry, Democrats, but the fundamental irresponsibility of your spending plans doesn’t excuse you from writing them down — hence their eagerness to get those tax hikes passed. If they just keep saying that these tax hikes really are more than a piddling measure to bring down the deficit, maybe it’ll actually come true. Or, at least they can perhaps convince everyone that it’s true and just keep pointing fingers at Republicans when it goes badly.

On Wednesday, we were treated to Rep. Nancy Pelosi telling us that should does indeed intend to stick around as the Democrats’ House leader (oh, goody) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made it clear that he has no desire to address the ever-accumulating entitlement crisis forcefully driving our national debt into oblivion, ’cause his main priority is also (shocker) raising taxes on the “richest of the rich.” Because that’s certainly a “balanced approach” if ever there was one. (The Social Security crisis is just a boogeyman Republicans have drummed up, by the way — or didn’t you know?) So, Democrats don’t really want to compromise or make any substantive moves in the direction of balancing the budget — nothing new to see here.

I really am baffled as to what it is about President Obama’s proposed tax hikes that isn’t coming in clear here. When the government takes more of people’s money, that’s money that isn’t being spent in the private sector — and since the private sector unfailing spends money more productively than the federal government, more taxes come at the opportunity cost of greater economic growth, which in turn is what creates jobs, wealth, and innovation. Government does not bring about these things. Sure, you must have some level of taxation/not anarchy to create the various infrastructure upon which society functions — but we shot way past the point of diminishing returns a long ago. How is more government spending going to get us out of this mess?

Nutshell version: Democrats are continuing to apply the term “balanced approach” to what they’re actually shooting for, which is an uncompromising fiscal band-aid that can further delay us amending our unsustainable ways. Forward!

Oops: Typo on Reid’s job title — fixed!