John Florez: Democracy is not sandlot ball

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Oct. 7, 2013 10:57 p.m.

    All I can say to John Florez is that wealth redistribution is NOT the answer. Sorry John but that is called socialism ...even Communism. Giving some free stuff while hurting others is NOT America- never has been. Making large numbers of middle income hard working Americans suffer with sky high premiums while giving the "sit of their rump do nothing" group free health care is NOT America...never has been. The answer is to lift all Americans - poor to rich - like a rising tide and the ONLY way to achieve that is robust free market economy NOT based on the federal government hand outs.

  • Utah_1 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 7, 2013 7:20 a.m.

    So when the US House recently passed a compromise, backed also by Rep. Matheson, that wouldn't have defunded ObamaCare, but delayed implementing part of it, and Sen. Harry Reid refused to even let it be heard, that was the GOP's fault?

    When the House passed a bill to keep the parks open, and Sen. Reid wouldn't let it be heard, that was the Republican's fault?

    When, instead of calling a meeting with the House and Senate leaders of both parties to solve the impasse, the President scheduled the meeting to see how to get a "clean CR" without dealing with any of the problems of implementing ObamaCare, which even Rep. Matheson's office said was would not get anywhere as soon as the meeting notice arrived, that was the Republican's fault?

    Who hasn't had even one budget passed during his entire time as US President, when even his own party wouldn't buy in to his proposed budgets?

    OK, there are people on both sides that aren't being smart, but the majority of the problem has been with the US Senate Democratic Majority Leader and our current US President .

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Oct. 6, 2013 9:47 p.m.

    Well said Mr. Florez.

    I tried posting a comment yesterday, but it was denied as being "duplicate." Do you see my other comment on your article?

    No? I don't see it either.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 6, 2013 4:41 p.m.

    This is one of Florez' best articles.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Oct. 6, 2013 2:47 p.m.


    Precisely where in the constitution is the methodology you outline?

    Should we have done it that way in the days of Reagan?

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Oct. 6, 2013 2:08 p.m.

    @Twin Lights:
    "wrz, Please. Read the constitution.... Clearly it is a process that involves the deliberation and concurrence of both houses of Congress and the President."

    True, but the president and the Democrats in the Senate think they rule and that the Repubs in the (People's) House should be kicked aside. If there's disagreement, the differences should be resolved in conference. But, Democrats refuse to budge an inch. They won't even vote to open some segments of government, like the nation's memorials and parks. So, who's shutting down government?

    Furthermore, it seems the majority should rule. So, let's see who's in the majority...

    If you count noses (elected officials) in the House, Senate, and white House you'll find the Republicans outnumber the Democrats by more than 5 members. That's even counting Independents as Democrats. Of course that's not counting the Media who are 80 to 90 percent Democrat... and they seem to have a vote.

    So, me thinks you just got your lights punched out. :)

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Oct. 6, 2013 12:59 p.m.


    Please. Read the constitution. It says:

    "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. Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it."

    Clearly it is a process that involves the deliberation and concurrence of both houses of Congress and the President. I recall the days of Reagan when he faced a Democratic Congress and Republicans wanted the President to have more authority in the process. The constitution is meant for generations and all types of "mixes" in the various branches of govt.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Oct. 6, 2013 12:40 a.m.

    @Twin Lights:
    "Obama did not promise to shutdown the govt."

    True, he didn't promise... He actually did shut the government down. Remember, the House decides government funding, not the president. If the president refuses to accept the House's budget he's responsible for what happens thereafter.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Oct. 5, 2013 9:00 p.m.


    Obama did not promise to shutdown the govt.


    I have little use for parties even though I consider myself an old school Republican. I don't believe this will be the end of the Republican Party. But I do believe the responsibility for this mess needs to be visited upon the heads of those who promised it - the Tea Partiers. They promised it, they delivered it, and now we need to show our "appreciation" at the next election.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Oct. 5, 2013 8:18 p.m.

    Twin Lights: Read Mike Richards comments, then re-read mine. Then,get another light bulb turned on, which will tell you why neither party is about doing what's best for the country. People like you, and there are many, keep saying that this will spell the end of the Republican party, just as there are those who will say the same thing about the Democratic party. Now, take note of what will really change this country. It isn't Obamacare, and it isn't Crony capitalism, or war, but it is about change, not from government control or power, nor from the interests of big business. It's about you and I--just look in the mirror! Definitely not toward either party.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Oct. 5, 2013 6:10 p.m.

    @Twin Lights:
    "Now we need to seriously look at anyone who is so irresponsible and assess whether they should hold their office."

    We've long known Obama shouldn't hold office. Fortunately, he has but three years left. But, of course, he can do alotta damage to our economy and government in three years. Especially with buddies like Harry Reid in the Senate and Nancy Peloci in the House.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Oct. 5, 2013 5:03 p.m.

    The ping pong game continues; First its the hateful Democrats, then the hateful Republicans; then the President and vice-versa etc., etc. It all depends on who is in power. Let me propose a question. If the Democrats got all they wanted and there were still the voice of the Republicans not being heard, would the same article come out grieving over the unheard voices of the Republicans? No. In the end the voices of ordinary Americans won't be heard by either party. Democrats routinely trot across the stage someone with cancer, etc., as if all Republicans or Tea party members are saying, 'Yea, we want that man to suffer!' How absurd. That isn't the problem; the problem is always about how can the government do something that it doesn't have the money to do. If it spends money it doesn't have, everyone suffers. I'm not a Republican or Democrat or Tea party member, and I'm all for helping the catastrophic health care issues, but that isn't what this is about! Let me hear a voice that doesn't blame, Republican or Democrat

  • Nonconlib Happy Valley, UT
    Oct. 5, 2013 11:12 a.m.


    When the ACA passed, the majority were in favor. This shifted afterward, but largely because many on the left feel that it did not go far enough. Which is true. The ACA is a gift to the insurance industry. Of course, it's better than what the GOP is offering.

    You say "Not one Republican voted for the bill." True. Not one Republican has voted for much of anything in the past four years. The previous Congress was the most unproductive since the Civil War. This Congress is on pace to obliterate that record.

    And yet, if Boehner put the clean Senate funding bill up for a vote, he knows that enough Republicans would vote for it that the government shutdown would end. Which is why he refuses to put it to a vote. He knows he would lose his speakership. His job security is more important to him than the jobs of hundreds of thousands of furloughed federal workers. Hypocrite.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Oct. 5, 2013 8:57 a.m.

    When Mr. Florez has total access to the Deseret New's archives, I'm surprized that he would write such a misleading article. The fact is that 59% of the people told Congress to NOT pass ObamaCare. The Democrats mocked us by offering bribes and kickbacks until they almost had enough votes to pass ObamaCare regardless of the wishes of the people. They THEY, the Democrats, changed the rules so that they could pass that bill. Look it up. It's history. It's something that the Democrats cannot hide. They changed the Senate rules and then quickly voted on that bill.

    Not one Republican voted for that bill. It was passed over our objections and over the objection of every Republican in Congress. The Democrats decided that they, not the people were in charge. Read Pelosi's famous words.

    Well, there's been another election and the Democrats were fired. The People got rid of some of those politicians who mocked the citizens. The majority of the People and the majority of the States still do not want ObamaCare. This time at least the House is listening to its constituents. The Senate is mocking the States. Obama mocks us all.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Oct. 5, 2013 7:57 a.m.

    Agreed. Irrespective of whether you love or hate the ACA/Obamacare, this is not the way to "debate" it.

    Here is where we were stupid. Politicians promised to shutdown govt. and we didn't believe them. We thought they could not be serious. That they were just using hyperbole.

    We were wrong. Now we need to seriously look at anyone who is so irresponsible and assess whether they should hold their office.