Comments about ‘Letter: Partisan mess’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Oct. 11 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Far East USA, SC

"Finally, the Republicans voted to fully fund the government, but added a requirement that everyone (including Congress, the President, etc.) live under Obamacare. ... Obama refused to negotiate and Senate Democrats refused to pass it. "

Congress and their staff ARE required by law to get their healthcare coverage through the exchanges. That is written in the law. They are the ONLY Americans that must, by law, get their coverage through the ACA.

Their only "exemption" was made to allow the government to Continue, to subsidize their health care premiums as has always been done. The same way that most large employers pay a portion of their employees health care. Nothing more nothing less.

So, to continue to assert, as is done daily on Fox News, that congress has "exempted" itself and staff from the ACA is completely disingenuous. They were FORCED by law to join the exchanges. And they have.

Proving once again, that the hard right would rather rant about things that are not true, than to learn that what they are ranting about was false all along.

Can anyone prove that what I have written is not the complete truth?

Bountiful, UT


According to some of the conservatives I talk with, the problem goes back to the Civil War, and Lincoln, and the imbalance between federal and state government that came out of the post-Civil War amendments meant to "correct" things and prevent the breaking up of the Union the southern states embarked upon.

And, of course, the Civil War was based 90% on slavery, which was with us before the nation was formed to begin with.

Based on some of the "conversations" I see on some Tea Party message boards, the mentality that led to the Civil War are still very, very much with us. There is a sizable group on your side that are aching for redemption for what Lincoln did.

How far do we need to go back?

J Thompson

The Supreme Court ruled that ObamaCare is a TAX. A TAX is revenue to the government. ObamaCare is a revenue bill. It cannot be funded unless revenues are raised. Article 1, Section 7 clearly states: "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

The Senate has no authority to "originate" revenue bills. Harry Reid has chosen to ignore the law that he has sworn to uphold. Obama has chosen to ignore the law that he has swore to defend. Those who think that the Senate can originate revenue bills need to ask themselves why they are willing to tromp on the Constitution, because that is exactly what they are doing. The words of the Constitution are not difficult to understand. They are written in English. English has been our national language since this nation was founded. We are taught English in school. We have to know English before we can graduate.

A corrupt politician would distort the Constitution. No wonder the WWII monument is closed. Obama and Reid don't want us to remember those who died to protect our Constitution.

Murray, UT

Another person duped by the democrat machine owned media.

Matt, you have a lot of company, but not much truth.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

No, because I hadn't read his comment. I don't read all the comments, and I try not to read ANY before my first comment (because I want it to be about the letter, not the comments).

If I must comment on Mike Richards comment... He does point the finger at two people ignoring all others. I agree that shows he's not acknowledging the whole story, which lessens credibility of what's said in my mind. You will think this isn't fair, but he didn't say they are the "ONLY" ones responsible. I think he knows (and everybody knows) that Republicans have a part in this. That's kinda obvious.

But yah... if you think Republicans are the ONLY reason for this, or Democrats are the ONLY reason for it... you don't have a lot of credibility in my book. Obviously one side can't do it all alone.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

The Civil War was not 90% about slavery. It was 100% about "States Rights" (slavery was just one of the things they wanted to decide at a State level instead of being Federally mandated).

In the South... people felt the war was about States Rights. Another important question at the time was... "does a State have the right to leave the Union"?

A co-worker from the South opened my eyes on this long ago. It's a huge part of their heritage and their life down there (understanding the REAL reasons and the events and feelings leading up to the war). He was always quick to point out that most people think the Civil War was about slavery... but it wasn't. The actual decision to resort to war was based on States Rights. But slavery was a big issue.

When Slavery was addressed in the Constitution... It ceased to be an issue of States Rights. If they just would have done that first the war could have been avoided. But they didn't have the votes to amend the Constitution before the war.

Unreconstructed Reb
Chantilly, VA

J Thompson - "The Supreme Court ruled that ObamaCare is a TAX. A TAX is revenue to the government."

If this is aimed at my comment, you're forgetting that ACA is separately funded from the appropriations bill at issue. It doesn't matter that the Senate originated the funding bill that the House tried to use to defund ACA. The Origination Clause still isn't invoked by the bill. The *only* connection between the bill and ACA is an artificial one created by the House's amendment which defund ACAs using this particular bill with the shutdown as leverage.

Arguing the Origination Clause with respect to this bill is a complete and total non-starter unless you'd like to take up a entirely novel legal position that contradicts 200 years of historical legislative process and jurisprudence.

There is a separate legal challenge ongoing that is trying to overturn ACA on Origination Clause grounds. Most legal experts believe the courts will punt this as a legislative issue.

Bountiful, UT

2 bits:

A common myth on the right is the Civil War was all about states rights, not at all about slavery. It was about burdonsome tariffs, etc.

Except if you go back and read the actual articles of secession from each of the southern states, the word "tariffs" is nowhere to be found, and every single one of these documents references slavery, multiple times.

Beware of revisionist mythology.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@2 bits – “The Civil War was not 90% about slavery. It was 100% about "States Rights"

That’s what PC Southerners today still advocating the Lost Cause say, sure, but it was not what the Southerners of the 19th century were saying.

Or to be completely accurate, they (19th Century Southerners) knew it was 100% about slavery, but justified their right to secede as one of state’s rights. They argued for that “peculiar institution” for decades leading up to the war and all the North’s appeasements (Missouri Compromise, Fugitive Slave Law) did was embolden the South’s self-righteousness.

Although to be fair, the Bible was a huge source of their sanctimony as well.

Had not slavery not existed at the Founding there would have never been a war. Saying the war was not about slavery but state’s rights, is like calling the police during a home invasion and telling them “it’s not about the guy with the gun in my house it’s about the broken window he climbed in through.”

State's rights was a pretext, a cover... not what is was about.

Unreconstructed Reb
Chantilly, VA

2 bits - As my screen moniker might suggest, I have a passion for the Civil War. I'm immersed in it right here in the Confederacy's most populous state, its seat of government, and the location of a large portion of its battlefields. Yes, states' rights were at issue. But why were they invoked? To protect the right to own another human being.

Beware of the "Lost Cause" mythology that arose in the post-war generation regarding the primary motive behind secession. The mantra of "States Rights" cloaks a deep shame.

Sandy, UT

Wow again... two letters to the editors where the left and right winged people have clustered in their corners to make sure every sees that their views are the correct views...

What happened to people "Doing the right thing, because IT IS the right thing"? stop worrying about who is to blame... fix the problem... period...

If half the posters on this article really understood the process in creating revenue bills (ie funding the government) it would clear up a lot of misconceptions....

Yes the house is the originator of all revenue bills...
Yes the Senate can send a "budget" bill to the house to consider....
Yes the President can also submit a "budget" to Congress for consideration....
Then in process of doing the budget members from both parts of congress has meetings to hammer out the differences between what the Senate wants and the House wants.

What I see right now, is that the politicians (both parties) including our president is more worried about associating blame than solving the problem.

Harry Reid is the sticking point, the senate members needs to relieve him of his position.
That is how most budgets in the past has worked...

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

10CC, Tyler D, and Unreconstructed Bob,

Thank you. The history speaks clearly if we actually read it.

For those of you who are LDS, D&C 87 also outlines the (future) cause.

Phoenix, AZ

Democrats are snakes in the grass... Regardless of the circumstances, they continue to point the finger at the other guy.

Republicans are trying to get federal spending under control by connecting the debt limit increase to future budget reductions. Democrats are blaming Republicans for the resulting government shutdown from the impasse.. What have Democrats brought to the negotiating table? Nothing... except intransigence.

Salt Lake City, UT

@J Thompson
"Harry Reid has chosen to ignore the law that he has sworn to uphold. "

That's not true. He did exactly what your quoted section of the Constitution said by taking up the House bill and then proposed an amendment to it (which passed the senate restoring Obamacare funds). It then goes back to the House (where Boehner has done nothing with it because he knows it'd pass if voted on).

Salt Lake City, UT

"Harry Reid is the sticking point, the senate members needs to relieve him of his position."

Completely wrong. Boehner's the sticking point since he's refusing to bring up the Senate versions of the continuing resolution up for a vote. He should be fired, except he'd be replaced by a Tea Party loon... let's replace him with a competent speaker like Pelosi.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

If you think the Civil War had nothing to do with States Rights...

Alien and Sedition Acts

Which provide a classic statement in support of states' rights. According to this theory, the federal union is a voluntary association of states, and if the central government goes too far each state has the right to nullify that law. As Jefferson said in the Kentucky Resolutions:

Southern states were testing this doctrine (as it applies to their right to have slaves and maintain the way of life they were accustomed too).

Also read up on "Nullification Crisis of 1832"

Or google "Civil War States Rights" and read all about it.


Of course Slavery was the central issue. But it was the doctrine of States Rights that was being tested (to see if a State or group of States had the right to continue Slavery even after the Federal government told them to stop it).


Southern States were using States Rights doctrine to protect the practice of Slavery. So I guess you could say the war was over Slavery.

Basically... they didn't want to be part of the United States anymore... but because they wanted Slaves. So both are right.

Othello, WA

@ alt134

I'm all for changing Boehner as speaker, but you reveal a lot of embarrassing limits in your capacity when you claim that Pelosi is a "competent speaker"

Sandy, UT


Um who was that will not bring up a single Budget bill from the house for the past 6 years? Oh yea, Harry Reid....

The SENATE has not passed a budget in 6 years Alt134... SIX YEARS!....

That is not the House's fault (Boehner's) that is Reid's problem.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Just a couple facts, Matt and twin lights

The repubs have passed legislation to keep the government open. harry refused to vote on any of them and BO said he would veto them.

Don’t let little facts like that get in the way of misplacing the blame.

One vote,
The repub strategy was to defund obamacare; the dem strategy was to shut down the government to defend that unpopular law.

Don’t let little facts like that get in the way of misplacing the blame.

Why is stating fact “harsh”? many obamaphiles scream “it’s the law!!!!” but then they give BO a pass for not enforcing the employer mandate. How do you NOT see a double standard here?

Old man,
The repubs didn’t vote to keep the government open? Is it hate msnbc that gave you that erroneous message?

Irony guy,
BO has NEVER negotiated unless forced to with a fiscal cliff. Saying he will negotiate if a clean CR is passed is just a load of empty words.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Open? Minded
Since the house passed it, why does BO REFUSE to enforce the employer mandate. Enough of the “it’s the law” garbage until you demand BO enforce ALL of the law. He CANNOT pick and choose.

Tyler D
The grey cloud with no silver lining as the people ARE fooled.

I guess you are forgetting about the dozen or so times the dem congress shut down the government under Reagan. But dems ALWAYS apply a double standard.

Quoting the constitution to libs is like telling lions to eat bricks

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments