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.
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.
Oh, Matt, you're going to take some hate on this one.
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
Though I agree that hard line Tea Partiers are the principle problem here, I do
not think they are totally alone in bearing responsibility.
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.
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.
So many opinions based on false information. Those hate radio voices are like
hauntings from the other side of sanity.
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.
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
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.
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.
@Mike RichardsSouth 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.
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?
@HamathThe 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. 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.
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
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!
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
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.
"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?
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?
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.
Another person duped by the democrat machine owned media.Matt, you
have a lot of company, but not much truth.
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.
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
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: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.
@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.
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.
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
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.
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.
@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).
@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
If you think the Civil War had nothing to do with States Rights... Alien and Sedition ActsWhich 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.
@ alt134I'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
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.
Just a couple facts, Matt and twin lightsThe 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.
Open? MindedSince 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 DThe 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
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).