Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Partisan mess

Comments

Return To Article
  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Oct. 12, 2013 5:08 p.m.

    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).

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Oct. 12, 2013 10:19 a.m.

    "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...

  • Unreconstructed Reb Chantilly, VA
    Oct. 12, 2013 8:26 a.m.

    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.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 12, 2013 8:12 a.m.

    The root cause of the mess, the tea party will be uprooted soon.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Oct. 12, 2013 7:25 a.m.

    @Twin Lights
    Louisville, KY

    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.
    1:08 p.m. Oct. 11, 2013

    ============

    Agreed.
    Rebellion seems to be common factor with those who are evil.

    D&C 87:1

    Verily, 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 problems.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Oct. 12, 2013 6:49 a.m.

    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 Act).”

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Oct. 11, 2013 10:44 p.m.

    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 Phoenix, AZ
    Oct. 11, 2013 9:22 p.m.

    @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.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Oct. 11, 2013 9:18 p.m.

    @Linguist
    Silver Spring, MD

    AMEN!

    The most well reasoned comment posted I have ever read.

    Thank You!

  • Linguist Silver Spring, MD
    Oct. 11, 2013 8:28 p.m.

    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.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 6:29 p.m.

    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.

    10CC,
    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.

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

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 6:28 p.m.

    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.

    ECR,
    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.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 4:29 p.m.

    Atl134...

    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.

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    Oct. 11, 2013 3:54 p.m.

    @ 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"

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 3:33 p.m.

    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.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 1:39 p.m.

    @Confused
    "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.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 1:36 p.m.

    @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).

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Oct. 11, 2013 1:33 p.m.

    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.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Oct. 11, 2013 1:08 p.m.

    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.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 12:53 p.m.

    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...

  • Unreconstructed Reb Chantilly, VA
    Oct. 11, 2013 12:00 p.m.

    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.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Oct. 11, 2013 11:46 a.m.

    @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.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 11:35 a.m.

    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.

  • Unreconstructed Reb Chantilly, VA
    Oct. 11, 2013 11:26 a.m.

    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.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 11:21 a.m.

    10CC,
    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.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 11:02 a.m.

    ECR,
    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.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 10:58 a.m.

    Another person duped by the democrat machine owned media.

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

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 10:54 a.m.

    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.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 10:42 a.m.

    Happy2beHere:

    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?

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Oct. 11, 2013 10:37 a.m.

    "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?

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 10:21 a.m.

    What Republicans are failing to see here is danger in the precedent being set.

    The next time there is a GOP President, a GOP House, and a GOP Senate - but Republicans hold less than 60 seats, the amount needed to stop filibusters - the new precedent incentivizes the minority portion of the Senate to grind *everything* to a halt, and they'll be able to do so.

    This is the new reality. If you don't win at the polls, don't worry, you can punish everyone, become a hero, and if enough of your consituents drink the kool-aid you peddle, you'll have zero negative repercussions for doing so, and will be rewarded handsomely for it.

    The US is disintegrating from within. We used to be one nation. Now we have different tribes, mixed in a combustible geographic blend, with increasingly divergent realities, and the technological means to ideologically segregate ourselves so we don't need to really interact with or acknowledge each other, except on the street or at the store.

  • Unreconstructed Reb Chantilly, VA
    Oct. 11, 2013 10:19 a.m.

    Mike R. - "Those who care more about politics than the Supreme Law of the Land will tell us that Harry Reid presented a budget that originated in the Senate and tried to get the House to accept that budget. Illiteracy among the good Senators must be at an all time high. The Constitution clearly states that all revenue bills must originate in the House."

    Mike, an appropriations bill is not understood to be a revenue bill. It is a SPENDING bill that doesn't involve the Origination Clause. The debate over interpretation of the Origination Clause has to do with whether a bill is primarily designed to raise revenue or if any revenue raised is incidental to the bill's intended purpose. Neither issue is on point for debating appropriations spending.

    By tradition appropriations bills originate in the House, but the Senate isn't constitutionally required to adhere to tradition, or else the House would be using THAT as its primary argument over the Senate's insistence on funding ACA.

    Given how broken the appropriations process has been for several years, especially the last month, your insistence on this line of argument doesn't move the outrage meter one iota.

  • SonOfLiberty West Jordan, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 10:14 a.m.

    House Republicans first voted to fund all of government -- except Obamacare. Obama refused to negotiate and Senate Democrats refused to pass it. Then the Republicans voted to fully fund the government, but merely delay the implementation of Obamacare for one year. Obama refused to negotiate and Senate Democrats refused to pass it. 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. So as you can see, Republicans are the big holdup here. ... The only reason the government is shut down right now is that Democrats refuse to fund the government if they are required to live under Obamacare. That's how good it is!

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Oct. 11, 2013 10:10 a.m.

    The silver lining in all this is the American people are not fooled. All the polls consistently show the vast majority of citizens lay the blame where it belongs… at the foot of radical tea party conservatives. Even among Republicans, and depending on which poll you look at, at least 50% (more in most polls) are blaming the tea party faction.

    So despite a relentless campaign of right-wing media brainwashing that would make Goebbels proud, at least half of their audience is not buying it (I would love to see an IQ sample of this audience).

    How many more times will the right-wing echo chamber get it wrong before even the most conservative minded viewer says, “no facts/reality here” and permanently remove the fact-free fear drip IV?

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Oct. 11, 2013 10:08 a.m.

    ECR. Thanks for providing that exchange with Boehner.

    It offers irrefutable proof as to what is happening.

    One must either challenge the validity of the interview that you posted (hard to do as it is easily authenticated) or accept that the GOP is holding the debt ceiling hostage over the ACA.

    It cannot get any plainer than that.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 9:52 a.m.

    @Hamath
    The Democrats compromised by agreeing to the House spending levels for the rest of gov't, this maintains the sequestration cuts and is so low in discretionary spending it's below the original Ryan budget.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Oct. 11, 2013 9:37 a.m.

    2 bits said,

    "Re: "The Republicans are the only ones responsible for the government shutdown"...

    "It's absolutist statements like that that turn my interest off. When I see absolutes like that I read no further. There's no use. They just lost their credibility with me. "

    But then you said nothing about Mike Richardson saying,

    "Obama and Reid are the problem. The House has passed a budget."

    Do I see a double standard here?

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Oct. 11, 2013 9:18 a.m.

    @Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    "The Constitution clearly states that all revenue bills must originate in the House."

    ========

    All partisan garbage aside --

    That House has also passed the ACA bill,
    [as did the Senate, the POTUS, and the SCOTUS.]
    and NOW refuses to fund it.

    The Senate rejected that, and sent it back to the House.

    But, the Senate does not have to blindly rubber stamp any and all rubbish the House sends it.

    They can and do make proposals [called Senate Budget proposals] to the House that suggest -- We'll sign it if it has this this and this - per the Constitution.

    The President's "proposal" [called President's Budget proposals] does the same thing - I'll sign it if it has that, that and that - per the Constitution.

    AND --

    If the President still won't sign what Congress has agreed to,
    The House and the Senate [with enough votes] can simply OVER-ride the President.

    Follow the Constitution Mike, and stop trampling it.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 9:18 a.m.

    Matt you just are not looking at the whole picture, as I notice many posters like you arn't. There are 5 entities involved in this whole thing. The House Republicans, and House Democrats. The Senate Republicans and the Senate Democrats. And of course the President. All of these players are in part the cause of the shutdown. Trying to place blame on one group in particular is a chicken or egg question. Of course if you follow only one media outlet, which today are little more than partisan talking points, one might think this is all the fault of only one group. And as Hamath pointed out. This problem hardly began with the current crop of politicians in D.C. today. If you want to really understand where it all began you'd probably have to go all the way back to President Roosevelt. Or at least Johnson.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 9:15 a.m.

    Re: "The Republicans are the only ones responsible for the government shutdown"...

    It's absolutist statements like that that turn my interest off. When I see absolutes like that I read no further. There's no use. They just lost their credibility with me.

    People who see things in black and white absolutes are not looking for solutions, they are looking only arguments, and for blame (which solves nothing). It's very rare that you can blame a problem totally and absolutely on just ONE party. Political standoffs are rarely that simple. It takes two to have a standoff like this.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Oct. 11, 2013 8:56 a.m.

    Pres. Obama is doing the right thing by refusing to deal. No one party should be able to hold the entire US gov't hostage, much less a minority of the minority party. The speaker of the House won't even allow a vote. When did the speaker get that kind of authority? Nowhere in the Constitution, that's for sure.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Oct. 11, 2013 8:49 a.m.

    Mike Richards and Sal,

    First, Section 7 of the Constitution clearly outlines a give and take process between the House, Senate, and President.

    If you believe that origination means the President should just accept then were you in favor of a line item veto for Reagan?

    Also, should a president be allowed submit any name for Senate confirmation (such as a Supreme Court Justice) and the Senate just rollover and approve?

    The political process given to us keeps a balance of powers.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 8:46 a.m.

    So many opinions based on false information. Those hate radio voices are like hauntings from the other side of sanity.

  • Sal Provo, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 8:23 a.m.

    The House passed many bills to fund the government and keep it open. Senate Democrats refused to bring those bills up for a vote. The liberal media blame Republicans for the shut down even though Republicans voted to keep it open.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Oct. 11, 2013 8:05 a.m.

    Those who care more about politics than the Supreme Law of the Land will tell us that Harry Reid presented a budget that originated in the Senate and tried to get the House to accept that budget. Illiteracy among the good Senators must be at an all time high. The Constitution clearly states that all revenue bills must originate in the House. There's a reason for that. The Senate represents the States. The House represents the People. The States do not pay income taxes to the Federal Government. If the Senate were allowed to originate revenue bills, the States could indirectly tax the citizens to pay for State "pork" projects. Because the House must originate revenue bills, that is minimized.

    The House does not care that Reid will negotiate after he gets what he wants. Reid is acting the part of a dictator who will hold you and me and every other citizen hostage until he gets what he wants. No sane person would negotiate with Reid on Reid's terms. If Reid wants to negotiate, he will have no pre-conditions.

    Obama and Reid are the problem. The House has passed a budget.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Oct. 11, 2013 7:31 a.m.

    Though I agree that hard line Tea Partiers are the principle problem here, I do not think they are totally alone in bearing responsibility.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Oct. 11, 2013 6:43 a.m.

    Thanks for your letter Matt. I hope those opposed to your point of view aren't too harsh in their comments to follow.

    I'm amused by the constant accusation of the right that the President and the Democrats in the Senate aren't willing to negotiate. A simple click on the computer will get you to the video evidence that John Boehner admitted to George Stephanopoulos that the Democrats negotiated and that the Republicans didn't hold up their end of the bargain.

    STEPHANOPOULOS: But Mr. Speaker, he (Harry Reid) says -- and he said it publicly on many occasions, that you came to him back in July and offered to pass a clean government funding resolution, no Obamacare amendments, that was $70 billion below what the Senate wanted. They accepted it. And now, you've reneged on that offer.

    BOEHNER: No, clearly there was a conversation about doing this...But I and my members decided the threat of Obamacare and what was happening was so important that it was time for us to take a stand. And we took a stand.

    Thank you Speaker Boehner for setting the record straight about who caused the shutdown.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 6:41 a.m.

    Oh, Matt, you're going to take some hate on this one.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 6:09 a.m.

    Politics would not be so partisan if people looked into the facts and did not just listen to the spin. The entire shutdown the government movement to defund the ACA was built on spin that did not recognize it was already funded by law.Even if you do not like something, you need to consider the consequences of a desperate symbolic act. Politicians like Senator Lee must consider the effect this will have on people that just listen to the spin.

  • Hamath Omaha, NE
    Oct. 11, 2013 5:16 a.m.

    Matt,

    The problem with your argument is the facts. The facts are that the Republicans have now said that they won't hold the ACA reform as part of the changes they are looking for. All along they said let's fix the budget more... let's get the deficit more under control. Now they are saying that still and not worrying about the ACA... so that wasn't there most important motivation.

    If the current Democrat leadership won't negotiate to improve the deficit and out of control spending... then they will be as guilty as the Bush administration was in their out of control spending, as guilty as the Clinton administration was for part of it's regime, and as guilty as the Carter/Ford/Reagan/Johnson/Bush Sr. admins were before them.

    Fix the problem.

    Learn simple math. Spend less or the same as what you earn. Pretty simple.