Another Ridiculous Budget

According to the Washington Times, Pres. Obama submitted to Congress a federal budget on Monday. The President's budget has two outstanding items for consideration. He proposes to increase the size of the federal government by increasing the employment of civilian employees by 100,000 over the next two years. The addition of civilian employees to the federal workforce would be a cost increase for salaries and various support items, such as office space, benefits, etc.
More directly on the monetary side, the President proposes to spend $500-$600 billion each year over what he expects will be collected in revenues. This will raise the national debt from $11 trillion in $2014 to $17 trillion in 2025.

Let's take a look at what all this means. First, it is apparent that spending more than one receives in income is a recipe for bankruptcy. Bankruptcy means you eventually don't have enough money to pay your bills and those persons who have extended you credit lose faith in your integrity and will no longer extend you credit. The federal government is not exempt from this basic monetary rule. While it has the power to coin more money, the money which he coins is obviously of less value and creditors are not deceived by this action.
We should also note that the President's budget is only a suggestion to Congress, particularly the House of Representatives from which all money bills originate. Spending of money is controlled by law and the president's proposed budget has no significance, unless it is supported by congressional law and then signed by the President.
The President's budget message, presented with the budget itself, did not threaten Congress, but according to the Washington Times, the President has separately told Congress that he will not accept a balanced budget, meaning to not spend more than the government takes in from taxes and various other minor revenues.
The spending law, which would supply the funds to make the President' s spending program real, must originate in the Congress. If the Congress prepares a separate balanced and submits it to the President for signing into law, Congress can override a veto by standard procedure which is a two thirds vote override in the House, followed by a two thirds vote override in the Senate. If either the House or the Senate cannot obtain the two thirds vote override, the bill is stymied. There is then no money allocated for any government operations and in effect, the government shuts down. We've seen this executed several times before to a minor degree. Previous operations have been partial shutdowns, where nobody seems to be hurt. However, for some unfathomable reason the Republicans have previously taken the blame for the shutdown when the blame could have just as easily been placed on the Democrats who voted separately not to override the veto.
We will have to see how this plays out, but I expect it will be as before. The Republican-controlled House and Senate will likely back down and give Pres. Obama another blank check to grease the road for the government's eventual bankruptcy. The rationalization will be that the various members will be out of office or dead by that time. Only our grandchildren and their grandchildren will need to wrestle with a financially bankrupt government.