How Bush isn't responsible for the FY 2009 budget

Lets talk about the United States budget for Fiscal Year 2009.

The left has tried repeatedly to blame Bush for the FY 2009 budget, and most of the time, this would be completely legitimate.  After all, when Obama came into office, it was in the middle of FY 2009.  So logic would dictate that whatever budget was in place when he came into office, he had no say over.  Moreover, one would think that the previous president had his voice in the FY 2009 budget.

But then you'd be wrong.
Let me explain.  As soon as the Democrats came into office, they started ignoring Bush's budget.  By the time Bush turned in his FY 2009 suggestion, it was dead on arrival.
Then the Democrats proposed their budget.

They loved their budget compared to the president's budget, because it didn't involve cuts:


When the Democrats proposed their budget, Bush similiarly declared it dead. This is from Feb 2009,  Bloomberg:

Democrats postponed work on the appropriations bills last year after they were unable to reach an agreement with former President George W. Bush on how much to spend on domestic programs. Bush had demanded lawmakers freeze most domestic spending. Most federal agencies, except those related to defense, have been funded by a stopgap measure that expires March 6.

Democrats did vote on the "idea" of the budget in March of 2008.  However, it was a non binding budget... meaning, it meant nothing.  According to USA today:

Democrats gave final approval on Thursday of a budget blueprint for 2009 that rewards domestic agencies and the Pentagon with generous budget increases while leaving wrenching decisions about curbing Medicare costs and increasing taxes to the next president.

The House approved the $3.1 trillion budget plan by a 214-210 vote; senators passed the measure Wednesday. The nonbinding measure does not go to President Bush but instead sets guidelines for future action by Congress.

The House-Senate compromise relies on questionable assumptions to predict a small budget surplus by 2012 after seven years of deficits under the Republican president.

Wait... what was that?

The next president actually will inherit a deficit in the $400 billion range, or higher, under current estimates. Some Wall Street economists fear record deficits of up to $500 billion.

Republicans lamented the lost opportunity to tackle the biggest budget challenge: the rapidly spiraling cost of Medicare, Social Security and the Medicaid health care program for the poor. The Democratic plan would not impose any cost-cutting on them.

Democrats are generous, however, in the near term with the annual spending bills passed by Congress. Over the five years of the Democratic plan, appropriated spending would rise $241 billion. In line for large increases are education, energy and public works.

Huh.   Okay.
Here's the vote in the house:

	Yeas	Nays	PRES	NV
Democratic	214	14		7
Republican		196		3
Independent
TOTALS	214	210		10

It appears as though the Republicans were solidly against the Dems non-binding budget proposal.
And of course, the vote in the Senate:
Where you'll find that only 2 Republicans voted for it.

So instead of freezing spending, Democrats passed parts of the budget piecemeal in order to keep the government going.  But that's not all.  Democrats waited until Obama got into office, and then passed the final portion of FY 2009 under him... in March 2009!  Again, via Bloomberg:

The U.S. Congress gave final approval to a $410 billion spending bill that includes an overall 8 percent budget increase for some federal agencies and thousands of congressional pet projects.

The Senate approved the so-called omnibus measure on a voice vote, sending it to President Barack Obama for his signature. Moments earlier, the bill cleared a procedural vote 62 to 35. The House approved the plan Feb. 25.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said before passage that he was “very” surprised at how long it took lawmakers to reach agreement on the legislation. He said the bill will provide needed funding increases for federal agencies that saw too many lean budgets during former President George W. Bush’s administration.

Please note that Harry Reid wrote that there were "too many lean" budgets under GWB.  Now, with Obama in charge, he was much happier, and fatter.

HR 1105 caused a little bit of a ruckus over the pork laden in it.
But you might wonder who actually voted for it?
Well, here's the roll call of the House:

	Yeas	Nays	PRES	NV
Democratic	229	20		4
Republican	16	158		4
Independent
TOTALS	245	178		8

Huh.  Seems kinda lopsided.  Like.... like there were a ton of Republicans voting against it.
But maybe that was just the house?

Here's the final cloture bill in the Senate:

Of the 62 "Yeas", only 8 were Republicans.
Which means this bill swept through, despite Republican opposition.

If you say that either Bush or Republicans were responsible for the FY2009 budget, you are beyond wrong.  You're in that special category of dishonesty or ignorance.

Pick one.