This budget stand off was inevitable

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 5, 2013 7:18 p.m.

    They voted no or abstained. The law passed. Now they want to have a re vote by forcing a shutdown and defaulting the United States.

  • m.g. scott clearfield, UT
    Oct. 3, 2013 1:20 p.m.

    Yes having thought about it, the Obama Administration has no credibility in claiming the Republicans are not obeying the law of the land. Holder himself has shown that he will pick and choose what laws to enforce, and which ones to ignore. This is not good for our elected government from either side. Especially when every elected official takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. "In dangerous times we are." (Yoda).

  • a bit of reality Shawnee Mission, KS
    Oct. 2, 2013 7:19 a.m.


    In our past health insurance system, insurance companies were free to charge drastically higher rates to the sick, or deny the sick coverage all together. ObamaCare requires insurance companies to accept every aplication that comes in. The ONLY reason insurnace companies are willing to be in the insurance business with that rule is because of the individual mandate. If everybody has to buy insurance, healthy people will sign up to subsidize the sick. That's the only way the system can work.

    If you remove the individual mandate, private insurance companies will pull out of the market. If there are suddenly no insurance companies willing to offer health insurance, the government will take over with a single-payer system.

    Is that what you want?

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 2, 2013 12:00 a.m.

    last time I checked the House was elected just like Obama
    yet it is Obama that is ignoring the law and selectively/illegally delaying and modifying portions for political purposes and convenience

    leftists should not throw stones in glass houses

    listening to Obama rail against supposed right wing ideologues leaves one in a stupor of incredulousness at the hypocrisy

  • T. Party Pleasant Grove, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 11:03 p.m.

    @Tyler D "Who made this (straw man) assertion?"

    Roland Keyser says there's no legal option, and that it's illegal, illegitimate, and impossible. UtahBlueDevil says it's undoable. Ranch invoked a bogus phrase from some imaginary oath of office to make it appear unconstitutional. "one vote" called it disdain for the law. You called it the same thing.

    Standing in opposition to those assertions is reality: the Constitution allows the current Congress to defund legislation passed by a previous Congress. It is fairly commonplace. Think of the border fence, for one example, which is the law of the land, yet goes unfunded. There are many other examples.


    Yes. Correct. They can do all those things. The other thing they can do is defund Obamacare. I'm grateful to them for trying. Obamacare is a huge disaster.

  • VickieB SLC, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 9:10 p.m.

    They can point out how unfair it is to have a President void half of the law for business, without asking Congress.

    If business gets another year to work out problems, so do the people.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Oct. 1, 2013 6:00 p.m.

    T. Party:

    If Republicans want to overturn Obamacare, fine. They can convince the American public to give them a majority in the Senate and control of the Oval Office and then they can legally rewrite the law or just declare the ACA null and void.

    Otherwise, all they can is what they're doing now: throwing a massive tantrum.

    Oct. 1, 2013 4:52 p.m.

    The Budget Act is also the "law of the land."

  • VickieB SLC, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 4:40 p.m.

    Obama gave employers a delay until 2015 for the employer mandates. The House is asking that he do the same for citizens. It's only fair.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Oct. 1, 2013 4:24 p.m.

    @T. Party – “how stupid it would be if laws passed by one Congress could never be changed by a successive Congress?”

    Who made this (straw man) assertion?

    The question is how does Congress go about changing past laws? Do they do it by allowing one faction to refuse to do the people’s business unless a law they don’t like is changed?

    What would Hamilton say… what would Madison say… what does the Constitution say?

    The fact is your guys are showing their true colors – their utter disdain for the rule of law. I think we can drop all pretenses about the Tea Party being the upholders of the Constitution as we now see them for the petty tyrants they are.

    Can you imagine what they would do if they ran the entire government? Scary…

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 3:44 p.m.

    The worst part about Democrat's spending is.... the more they spend... the more they insure they stay in office.

    It's almost like buying votes (but not exactly). They aren't buying votes... they are buying control. When they control your wallet (IRS, welfare, SS, etc), and they control your access to healthcare...they got you where they want you. You have no choice but to vote for them. It's almost extortion. You take care of us (Democrats) or you will lose your income, your property, and your access to healthcare when you need it.

    Almost seems unfair. And the most insidious part is... now Republicans have no choice but to follow suit, or they have no chance of election.

    Congratulations Democrats... You won!

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 3:41 p.m.

    Tea party shows a remarkable disdain for law.

  • m.g. scott clearfield, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 3:15 p.m.


    You should know that passing a bill is one thing. Funding it, and how much to fund is another. The funding is subject to change on any bill or appropripation. Look at all the battles that happen every year with spending on any number of projects, like defense. This, and most every other argument that happens in Congress is indeed about the budget. Always has been, always will be.

  • T. Party Pleasant Grove, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 3:14 p.m.


    You see...don't you? stupid it would be if laws passed by one Congress could never be changed by a successive Congress?

    If the Constitution says this, I would like you to show me where.


    Actually, the detractors of Obamacare are doing a much better job of obeying the law than its proponents. Obama has repeatedly ignored the law's provisions, including deadlines for implementation. He has offered tax credits for supporters and imposed penalties for states not offering exchanges (none of which is authorized by the law.)

    So what if Obamacare currently has a dedicated revenue stream? Congress has the power to dismantle that funding. I'm sorry that upsets you.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Oct. 1, 2013 2:42 p.m.

    " I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter."

    Those duties are enumerated in the constitution.... one of which is to uphold the constitution. If congress is exempt from upholding laws passed via constitutional processes, why would any of have to live by those laws... oath or not.

    The oath is not a job description. It no more details what is part of the congresspersons job anymore than the oath one takes when joining the military. It is a pledge to certain principles, not a job description, or an employment contract.

    If the basis for T. Party's argument.... boy can you now see why things have gone so sideways. Congress does not need to uphold the laws of the previous congress..... wow. The oath doesn't talk about parliamentary procedures either....

  • T. Party Pleasant Grove, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 2:25 p.m.


    The oath of office taken by members of Congress says this:

    "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

    Which makes my statement true, and yours false.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Oct. 1, 2013 2:07 p.m.

    How much money can Obama spend? Shall we give him an open check book with no limits, no accountability and no credit limit?

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 1:50 p.m.

    T Party: Obamacare is like Social Security and Medicare in that it has its own dedicated revenue stream. It is not funded through the domestic discretionary appropriations process. Attempts to defund it via that process are illegitimate, illegal, and impossible.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Oct. 1, 2013 1:50 p.m.

    So the Healthcare law, which is to the Right of what Nixon proposed (in response to what Ted Kennedy was pushing) and looks remarkably similar to what Bob Dole proposed (in response to Hilarycare) and what Mitt Romney passed in MA, did not get any input from Republicans… huh?

    The whole thing is a Republican brain-child, including most of the cost-cutting pilot programs and the on-line exchanges.

    Obama, in his naiveté, adopted a Republican model for solving many of our healthcare problems with the thought that Washington would join hands (amid verses of Kumbaya) and finally fix our broken system. Sadly, he drastically underestimated the Right’s hatred for him and anything he attached his name to.

    But he figured it out pretty fast – anyone remember the five hour Whitehouse roundtable where the ONLY thing Republicans ever proposed was scraping the entire bill – and decided to go forward anyway while he had the votes.

    And now it is the law of the land and we’re left watching the spectacle of deranged Republicans turning our Constitution and legislative history upside down in their mad quest for the “white whale.”

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 1:28 p.m.

    T. Party says:

    "There is nothing in the Constitution which obligates the present Congress to uphold the acts of previous Congresses."

    Actually, those "acts of previous congresses" which have been signed into law are the law and part of the oaths of office of the current Congress is that they will "uphold the law" which makes your statement false.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Oct. 1, 2013 12:45 p.m.

    Lets call a spade a spade. This isn't about the budget. Not one bit.

    This is about Obamacare. Pretending this is about anything else is delusional at best.

    After failing to repeal it, this is about defunding Obamacare.

    Lets just fix it... by its self. We have now wasted 4 years trying to do the undoable. So lets now focus on fixing the parts that are broken, and just maybe we can move forward.

  • T. Party Pleasant Grove, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 12:45 p.m.

    @Roland Keyser "Republicans are trying to nullify the results of our last two presidential elections."

    Obama was elected president, not dictator. There are three branches of government, and the power of the purse belongs constitutionally to Congress, and most especially to the House of Representatives, where revenue bills must originate. If they choose not to fund a giant expansion of the welfare state, they don't have to fund it.

    There is nothing in the Constitution which obligates the present Congress to uphold the acts of previous Congresses.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 12:26 p.m.


    Don't you realize that the DN's rules only apply to their opponents yet?

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 11:26 a.m.

    Very recently the Deseret News published and editorial in which they stated that losers in our democratic process have to accept that they lost, and not try to change the rules of our system following their loss. The author of this piece should have read that editorial.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 11:25 a.m.

    Republicans are trying to nullify the results of our last two presidential elections. There is no constitutional or legal option open to them to accomplish this. The GOP does not have the votes to repeal the law, and even if they did, the president would veto it. You'll have to try again in 2017 when we have a new president, but I'm fairly certain that President Hillary Clinton isn't going to go for it either.