Published: Friday, Oct. 11 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
We have two main parties in this country:One party hates government,
claims that government "isn't the solution to the problem; government
is the problem"; seeks to reduce government till it can be "drowned in a
bathtub"; has demonized the current president as wanting people to get
"addicted" to government. And it has been talking for months about
defunding parts of the government and even shutting it down.The
other party believes that government can play a constructive role in solving the
problems in our society; that government workers are basically middle class
Americans who show up to work and do their jobs to the best of their abilities;
and rejects the notion that everything should be farmed out to for-profit
companies.So....Which of these two parties do you think
we should blame for shutting down government? Which of these two parties do we
think is trying to create a government so bad and so dysfunctional that no one
will trust it ever again?Should we really believe that the GOP have
suddenly become defenders of government programs and government workers?
Really?I find that extremely unlikely.
@LinguistSilver Spring, MDAMEN!The most well
reasoned comment posted I have ever read.Thank You!
@Unreconstructed Reb:"By tradition appropriations bills originate in
the House, but the Senate isn't constitutionally required to adhere to
tradition..."It's not about tradition. It's about
what's in the Constitution... "All bills for raising Revenue shall
originate in the House of Representatives...' (Article 1.7)Technically 'revenue raising' would involve taxation, and other
revenue sources, which are already law. The annual budget is not about the
raising of revenue. But, article 1.7 is intended to ensure that the power of
the purse (funding government operations) is possessed by the legislative body
most responsive to the people... which would be the House of Representatives.
So, call it appropriation, budget, origination clause, or whatever, the House
should have the upper hand. "...or else the House would be
using THAT as its primary argument over the Senate's insistence on funding
ACA."Obamacare has already been 'funded'... the law
was passed three years ago.
JoeBlow"Congress and staff ARE required by law to get their healthcare
coverage through the exchanges."Not so. Because Obama promised,
'you can keep the health insurance you currently have.' That would
apply to the Congress. Even Harry Reid would not entertain a House bill to move
Congress under Obamacare.@Unreconstructed Reb:"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."If the courts punt, they will be doing the
American people a major disservice. Obamacare raised NEW revenue, i.e., a
'penalty' that the Supreme Court ruled could be called a
'tax.'@Confused:"Yes the President can also
submit a 'budget' to Congress for consideration...."Of
course he can. The president knows what funding he needs for his Executive
Branch. Congress uses that input to finalize funding."The
SENATE has not passed a budget in 6 years Alt134... SIX YEARS!...."Au contraire mon ami... The government would stop without a budget...
sometimes its called a 'Continuing Resolution' (CR) which simply means
'use spending rates in the last budget passed.'
WRZ. You prove my point perfectly. I heard it again on Fox News
last night. They rant daily about Congress exempting themselves. It is
not true. And it is easily and clearly demonstrable.Do a google
search about "is congress exempt from Obamacare" Here is the
Exact wording. Do you find this ambiguous? Or will you continue to keep the
fact from changing your opinion?Quote - This IS IN the ACA law.
plain and simple - and pretty clear cut."Notwithstanding any
other provision of the law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only
health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of
Congress and Congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of
Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are — (I)
created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or (II) offered
through an Exchange established under this Act (or an Amendment made by this
@Twin LightsLouisville, KYThank 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.1:08 p.m. Oct. 11, 2013============ Agreed.Rebellion seems to be common factor with
those who are evil.D&C 87:1Verily, thus saith the
Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the
rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and
misery of many souls;Might I also suggest additional readings Moses 4: 3,4 3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled...I caused
that he should be cast down; 4 And he became Satan, yea, even the
devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them
captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice.========= It appears that having an idea or opinion is not even
issues, One can have an opinion - deep seeded opinion.But, it
is the REBELLIOUSNESS [i.e, hard heartedness, stiffneckedness, not getting
your way so you throw a temper tantrum] where the evil reigns and causes
The root cause of the mess, the tea party will be uprooted soon.
wrz - "So, call it appropriation, budget, origination clause, or whatever,
the House should have the upper hand."Except that a literalist
interpretation of the Constitution -- the very approach advocated by
conservatives -- says nothing of the kind. Appropriations =/= revenue. Not by
the Constitution, not by 200 years of actual legislative practice, not by any
court's interpretation of the Origination Clause. You are, notwithstanding
protests to the contrary, still arguing from non-binding tradition. "Obamacare has already been 'funded'... the law was passed three
years ago."That's precisely my point. Commenters above
argue that since the present bill originated in the Senate, it's invalid
under the Origination Clause. That's simply untrue. If it were true, the
House would be using that argument to invalidate the Senate's attempts to
strip the House's version of the ACA defunding amendment. Some of the
above commenters aren't aware that ACA and the appropriations bill are
separate items artificially connected by the House, and the bill by itself has
zilch to do with funding ACA. "If the courts punt, they will
be doing the American people a major disservice."Take it up with
SCOTUS when the case gets there.
"The Republicans are the only ones responsible for the government
shutdown."Whoa, Matt! The Democrats run the government's
Executive Branch, not the Republicans. Haven't you heard? Obama is who
called the Parks Department, the NIH, etc., and said shut'er down. John
Boehner didn't. "The Affordable Care Act may well need
revision, but the Republicans failing to pass a budget..."Where
you getting this? The Republicans did pass a budget. And it was sent to the
Democrat Harry Reid in the Democrat controlled Senate who rejected it...
wouldn't even vote on it. You say you're not a Democrat...
I think you need to re-examine. If it walks like a duck...
wrz,They passed a budget with a poison pill. Only a fool would
think it would pass the Senate or the President (the Constitutional chain
necessary to make a budget bill into law).
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments