Comments about ‘Letter: Partisan mess’

Return to article »

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

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Silver Spring, MD

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.


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.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

Silver Spring, MD


The most well reasoned comment posted I have ever read.

Thank You!

Phoenix, AZ

@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.

Phoenix, AZ

"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.'

"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.'

Far East USA, SC


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).”

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

@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


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.

[i.e, hard heartedness, stiffneckedness, not getting your way so you throw a temper tantrum]
where the evil reigns and causes the problems.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

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

Unreconstructed Reb
Chantilly, VA

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.

Phoenix, AZ

"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...

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY


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).

to comment

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