The House started consideration of its annual budget resolution Wednesday, as Senate debate on the 2009 fiscal blueprint dragged. Republicans warned that votes could last well into Friday.

"Looks to me like this is going to be a very long, very, very long, maybe historically long vote-a-rama with the way things are going," said Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, referring to the series of votes that concludes the process each year.

"They are doing side-by-sides on every amendment we offer," Gregg said of the Democrats. "To point out the obvious, they wrote the budget, they have the document, when we offer an amendment it's to the budget ... but they have to have the last word."

No roll-call votes have been scheduled yet as Democrats try to arrange for their presidential candidates -- Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York -- to take part.

Debate in both chambers has focused on tax policy, but despite the rhetoric, the resolution is non-binding and does not directly affect tax law.

The budget resolution projects government spending and tax revenues over five years and serves more as a policy document outlining the majority party's position on future tax and spending decisions.

Legislative decisions directly affecting the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts (PL 107-16, PL 108-27), which currently are scheduled to expire in 2010, will almost certainly not be made until the next Congress.

The Democrats' budget resolutions (S Con Res 70, H Con Res 312) assume that some tax cuts will expire in 2010, while others would be extended but offset. Republicans argue that would lead to massive tax increases for some Americans.

Democrats counter that decisions on tax cuts can wait and that, if extended, they should not add to the deficit.

"Let's check the record. Did we increase taxes, as [Gregg] asserted would happen last year, by $1 trillion? No," said Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D.

Senate Republicans are focusing on amendments, while House Republicans have released their own plan, which will likely be voted on Thursday.

The House GOP plan would produce a surplus by fiscal 2012, while extending the tax cuts. To achieve this balance, the budget would require Congress to make major cutbacks to entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, while dedicating almost all discretionary spending increases to defense and veterans' programs.

In the Senate, both parties are offering amendments intended to score points with voters on taxes. Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., has offered a proposal to extend what Democrats call "middle-class" tax cuts, such as the 10 percent tax bracket, the $1,000 child tax credit and so-called marriage penalty relief to prevent couples from paying more in taxes than if they filed individually.

The Baucus amendment also proposes to freeze the estate tax at 2009 levels: a 45 percent rate and $3.5 million exemption. In addition it includes some tax breaks for veterans and service members. To pay for tax cut extensions, the amendment calls for drawing down much of the $336 billion in surpluses projected for fiscal 2012 and 2013 under the plan.

The amendment allows Democrats to go on the record in favor of extending certain tax cuts even if Congress actually does not change tax law this year.

Gregg derided it as a "shell game."

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans have proposed amendments that call for extending the Bush tax cuts, repealing the alternative minimum tax and setting the estate tax rate at 35 percent with a $5 million exemption. They do not propose offsetting any of these proposals.

On Wednesday, the Concord Coalition, a budget watchdog group, put out an analysis saying the budgets put forward by Democrats and the president rely on "unduly optimistic" assumptions to achieve balance over five years.

"There is a distinct sense of déjà vu about these budget plans," the coalition's statement reads. "For the most part, the main points of contention between Democrats and Republicans are identical to last year's budget debate and, if possible, the parties seem even more dug in."

The Senate will face a key vote this week on whether to adopt an amendment offered by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., that would create a point of order -- which would require a two-thirds vote to waive -- against bills with fiscal 2009 earmarks.

All three presidential candidates have endorsed the proposal. It has 14 co-sponsors, but faces resistance from senators on both sides of the aisle, including many appropropriators. If the amendment were ruled non-germane to the budget resolution, it would require 60 votes to be adopted.

House Republicans also have proposed a moratorium on earmarks for the rest of the 110th Congress. They also would reduce total discretionary spending by $14.8 billion, which they say is the total cost of earmarks in fiscal 2008 bills. Because earmarks typically are carved out of accounts for agencies -- money that would be appropriated regardless -- eliminating them does not typically reduce overall spending.

House leaders, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, are considering including no earmarks in fiscal 2009 spending bills in part to counter criticism of the process from House Republicans.

On Wednesday, another House Democrat, Rep. Jim Cooper of Tennessee, announced he would not ask for earmarks this year. Reps. Henry A. Waxman of California, Ron Kind of Wisconsin and Mark Udall of Utah also have said they will not seek earmarks this year.

Meanwhile, in separate bickering over earmarks, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, introduced a privileged resolution Wednesday charging that House Appropriations Chairman David R. Obey, D-Wis., violated House rules last week when he sent a letter to Republicans asking if they favored an earmark ban.

In the letter, not sent to Democrats, Obey asked members to inform his committee whether they want to bar the practice or keep providing "responsible earmarks."

The letter ended with: "I will assume that any member not returning this form [by March 19] wishes to see congressional earmarks discontinued and will therefore be submitting no requests for fiscal 2009."

Boehner's resolution, defeated along party lines, 219-193, called for an investigation by the Standards of Official Conduct Committee, commonly known as the Ethics panel. "This is further proof that the Democratic Majority is not willing to follow its own rules," said Boehner. "It's irresponsible, and Chairman Obey should be held accountable for this latest transgression."

Source: CQ Today