After months of complaints by Republicans in the Congress, the Senate will vote Wednesday on five different budget plans, four from Republicans and one which represents the latest budget from President Obama.

The agreement for the votes was announced with little fanfare Tuesday evening on the Senate floor, coming just hours after another round of loud demands from GOP Senators for such action.

“Many of my constituents asked me, ‘How can you operate without a budget?’ said Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA), who joined a Republican chorus in ripping Democrats for not having a Senate debate on a budget resolution in three years.

"My answer is that no budget equals no discipline, and the result has been reckless federal spending and a $15 trillion national debt," Isakson added.

Isakson was part of yet another parade of GOP Senators on the floor, denouncing Democrats for not bringing a budget resolution up for a vote; Democrats argue that none is needed because of last year's bipartisan deal on the debt limit.

Still, the change of heart by Democrats was interesting in terms of inside-the-Capitol intrigue, because it represents the second straight day that Democrats have decided to allow Republicans to force a few votes on the Senate floor, without worrying that any GOP plan will actually pass.

That happened Tuesday on a bill to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank - last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was furious that Republicans wouldn't allow an immediate vote, as they asked for the chance to offer five amendments, something Reid rejected.

But after initially talking tough about getting rid of the filibuster, Reid suddenly remembered how he used to broker deals on the floor for votes, as he gave the GOP the five votes they wanted - and once all those GOP plans were defeated - then the Ex-Im bill was easily approved by the Senate.

It puzzles many of us in the Press Gallery that both parties spend so much energy in the Senate to prevent votes that the other party asks for - sometimes they are meant to cause political embarrassment, that is true (one might describe the vote on President Obama's budget that way.)

But for the most part, my experience has been that you can take the steam out of the minority party by giving them an hour for debate and then a vote - because they can't complain about the majority blocking their amendments.

From the Press Gallery, we have witnessed Majority Leaders in both parties who use every tool in the rule book to stop votes and amendments pushed by the minority - most of us would be hard pressed to remember the details of just one of those votes.

In other words, they seemed important at the time.

While two days doesn't make a trend, it will be interesting to see if this is a change in tactics by the Majority Leader, or if Reid is just trying to throw some curveballs at the GOP.

When Reid first made it into the leadership, he was very adept at brokering agreements on the floor for a quick debate and vote on different amendments.

Those kind of deals are what makes the Senate work.

Think of it this way:  If you won't give me the right to offer a few amendments to a bill, then I will filibuster that measure.

So, what happens is that the minority party blocks a bill, while the party in charge "fills the tree" to prevent the minority from offering any amendments.

In the Senate right now, Democrats "fill the tree" while Republicans filibuster.

A few years ago when the Republicans were in charge, they "filled the tree" while Democrats filibustered.

Sen. Reid may have made noise in recent days about "reforming the Senate" and limiting the use of the filibuster - but he knows if that happens, when his party returns to the minority one day, they would be unable to block GOP legislation.

And no matter what anyone says, that's what the Senate is all about - not letting the majority get something done easily.