Thanks to clueless for this cartoon.
When in history has a federal law ever been held hostage so the government wouldn’t be shut down?
The sheer hypocrisy of the House Republicans acting surprised that the government shut down. I hope everyone takes a good look at the seriousness of the actions of that crew. That’s why there are no exceptions. Rule of Law goes well with hardball.
“That’s why there are no exceptions.”
Respectfully, I am stunned by the lack of intellectual honesty in this statement. The administration has granted waivers and delayed implementation of parts of this law, while lacking the constitutional authority AND the congressional legislation to do so. Yet, when the House is actually following the constitution in both their responsibility and authority, they are branded “anarchists”, and worse. They are using the “power of the purse” they are granted in the constitution, and Congress has done so many, many times in the past. What is different this time is now we have a president who refuses to negotiate. He and the Senate Majority Leader have categorically refused to consider any compromise legislation offerred.
I have tried to stay out of this debate, as I believe that people are entitled to their own opinions. I understand that many of these opinions are influenced by the media we each choose to consume. However, some intellectual honesty would be refreshing.
I was referring to no exceptions when it comes to funding the government. You are right, it was an opinion. Nothing more. I don’t believe that we should open one monument while 800,000 people are out of work without pay.
I have not commented at all on the exceptions to the ACA as in who gets a waiver and who doesn’t.
Some historical background:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/shutdowns-have-been-frequent-tools-of-police-just-ask-reagan/2013/10/02/f5314936-2ae5-11e3-8ade-a1f23cda135e_story.html
“Rule of Law goes well with hardball.”
Yep… and that’s why the House is playing hardball. The lack of the The Rule of Law by Obama’s administration. If Obamacare stays…we will see more corruption than ever before.
Except the house isn’t even recognizing rule of law.
“We’re not going to be disrespected. We have to get something
out of this. And I don’t even know what that is.”
Rep. Martin Stutzman (R-Ind.)
Humm…
Need health insurance? The Obama administration has you covered. Simply dial 1-800-FUCKYO to reach the next available health-care provider.
Far from being a mistype, that’s the official number that Dept. of Health and Human Services wants Americans to dial when seeking Obamacare’s national call center — its number as 1-800-318-2596. Even I could not believe it — so I called. With thid kind of incompetence I think perhaps the delay, to say nothing of treating us all equally and cancelling the special political favoritism waivers, is a minimum requirement.
Also, this came from a friend of a friend. More and more people are checking it out – when the system is working and not liking what they find.. Scary stuff …………………………………
“I actually made it through this morning at 8:00 A.M. I have a preexisting condition (Type 1 Diabetes) and my income base was 45K-55K annually I chose tier 2 “Silver Plan” and my monthly premiums came out to $597.00 with $13,988 yearly deductible!!! There is NO POSSIBLE way that I can afford this so I “opt-out” and chose to continue along with no insurance. I received an email tonight at 5:00 P.M. informing me that my fine would be $4,037 and could be attached to my yearly income tax return. Then you make it to the “REPERCUSSIONS PORTION” for “non-payment” of yearly fine. First, your drivers license will be suspended until paid, and if you go 24 consecutive months with “Non-Payment” and you happen to be a home owner, you will have a federal tax lien placed on your home. You can agree to give your bank information so that they can easy “Automatically withdraw” your “penalties” weekly, bi-weekly or monthly! This by no means is “Free” or even “Affordable.”
And the democrats are willing to shut down the government to prevent any corrections to any of this. Why, because as speaker Pelosi made clear, they needed to pass it before anybody could read it – and this is why – it would have pushed the election the other way..
@Cargosquid
What do you mean “if Obama stays?” Do you think he is going somewhere?
@Steve Thomas
I don’t recall laws being used to barter with. Bills yes, laws no. I might have been too busy back then momming and working and all those other things to have noticed. Of course, back then I had voted for the President.
@blue
@Blue
I am not sure I believe any of that scenario. In fact, I don’t believe any of it.
Let’s say that scenario is true. Obviously that would be an example of where tweaking was needed.
The government shouldn’t be shut down while the tweaking happened.
@Moon-howler
Moon, I don’t want to believe any of it either – it is worse than incompetency – its fraud. But then I did / do not want to believe that the NPS is acting under the direction, as reported, from the WH to close down things that will impact the public (as was done for the sequester.)
Do you really believe that the Senate or the Pres would agree to any tweeking in the absence of the shutdown or default. So far they have been willing to accept the shutdown rather than allow any tweeks. Promises promises.
The ACA has nothing to do with funding the government.
I suggest let giving enough time to actually see what needs to be tweaked and then start working on it, independent of any hostage taking.
I believe if there are flaws in ACA affecting Americans that there would be an attempt to fix those flaws.
No, Blue, they have not been willing to accept the shutdown rather than allow tweaks. The Senate and the President are simply not going to allow the ACA to be held hostage to keep the government going. That isn’t the way to solve problems. For all we know, tweaks might very well be bipartisan.
@Moon-howler
I don’t recall a law, passed on a 100% partisan vote by the same party as the president charged with executing/implementing said law, ever being abused by said president, as this one. Why I can’t recall is because it has never happened before, as my rather extensive research would indicate.
The waivers and exclusions for many specific special interest groups who have received them are not provided for under the AHCA. The 1 year delay on the employer mandate granted by the President is not provided for under the law. This is why the arguments being posited by the likes of Jon Stewart, Harry Reid, and the President himself, “it’s the law” are laughable on their face, and tragically hypocritical in their delivery. The selective outrage of the media is just downright nauseating.
If it were up to me, I’d have the law fully implemented. The President would be compelled to do so. Any waivers that the administration granted (unlawfully) revoked, the employer mandate delay rescinded, and all the other mandates, taxes, fees, etc. etc. to be put into effect. Let the people experience the impacts, positive and negative, of their electoral actions. Let the law stand or fail based on its “value to the public good”. Don’t let the admin cherrypick the “benefits”, while hiding and delaying the “drawbacks”. In a democracy, we deserve the government that we get. The best lessons are often the most painful.
I wasn’t talking about those exceptions. I was referring to the exceptions about what closes and what doesn’t. I think any exceptions to closure based on emotional appeal are wrong. Of course, I think the entire non-funding of the government is dead wrong. Now, then and in the future.
How can we say 800,000 furloughed with no pay is a good thing and more important than tourists getting to go to the monuments? How can we claim that the WIC program is less important than monuments or NIH? some of the government jobs across the nation in more remote areas can’t sustain like the Washignton, DC area. That is MY point.
I have seen no proof that waivers to ACA have been made inappropriately. I am sure those corporations listed compelling evidence. I haven’t actually seen a list. I haven’t looked either because it is what it is. Seriously, do you think that President Obama’s administration is the first one to look out for a few friends and family? Unfortunately, that one is as old as the country…even older.
I don’t know if the ACA will ultimately be a curse or the salvation of the middle and under classes. Time will tell and I understanding that tweaking will always be necessary with new things. So far it has addressed a lot of national problems with health care in our country. I remain optimistic. Meanwhile, I am just not going to comment on the waivers to comply with ACA.
s
@Moon-howler
I said…if OBAMACARE stays….not Obama.
@blue
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/10/02/shutdown-white-house-ordering-privately-run-privately-funded-parks-to-close/
They are shutting down things that pay INTO the feds, that use no federal resources.
@Steve Thomas
“If it were up to me, I’d have the law fully implemented.”
I completely agree. If the House fails, they should put a bill into the Senate doing this immediately.
If people want this…they should have it…good and hard.
Moon,
Sorry, but unlike the president manufacturing executive powers in direct contradiction to the constitution, the House is operating well within the powers granted to it under the Appropriations clause in the constitution. Specifically, since implementation and administration of the Affordable Healthcare Act requires the government to appropriate funds, Congress has the power, and more importantly the AUTHORITY to do exactly what they are doing.
Regarding your assertion that the “power of the purse” is being improperly used in this case, James Madison would disagree with you:
“The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of the government. They, in a word, hold the purse—that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.”
I think it’s time we realize that the American people voted for a divided government (after previously choosing to concentrate 2/3s of the power with one party, and then another). Governing under such conditions requires negotiation and compromise. Part of any negotiation is you start out from your strongest position first, and negotiate from there. From where I am sitting the president and Senate Majority Leader have refused to negotiate with the House…who holds the power of the purse. Not smart.
@blue Blue: who pays for your health care now ?
@Moon-howler
“I have seen no proof that waivers to ACA have been made inappropriately. I am sure those corporations listed compelling evidence. I haven’t actually seen a list. I haven’t looked either because it is what it is.”
Umm…all of them, unless specifically legislated upon by the Congress, are illegal. The executive branch has no authority to grant them, under the law. His delaying the implementation of the Employer mandate, also not authorized under the law. This has undermined the legitimacy of the “law”, and the arguments made by proponents of the law, who called the House’s proposed 1 year delay of the individual mandate “unreasonable”. The main issue I have is you can call it “unreasonable”, and yet it is lawful. The president’s actions to-date have been “unlawful”, because there is not provision under the law for his expemptions and delays. Only Congress can make changes to the law.
@Steve Thomas
Well stated, Steve. It seems that Madison understood human nature and the tendency of government to encroach individual rights. I am constantly amazed by the continued relevance of the writings by the founders.
What is sad is the only waiver/exception that has been granted thus far, is the congressional exemption they gave themselves, signed into law by the President. House, Senate and President are equally accountable on this one.
Should read “What is sad is the only LAWFUL waiver/exception that has been granted thus far, is the congressional exemption they gave themselves, signed into law by the President.”
Blue: I repeat… who pays for your health costs now ?
Moon…for some reason I’m in moderation.
@ Steve Thomas: why are you so certain that HHS cannot set monetary limits on mini-med phase-out programs? I can seen an argument that HHS’s regulatory authority to set limits may be bounded at some point, and I can see that those arguments may succeed in a court challenge. But it seems to fall in a very clouded area and have very little constitutional import.
@Scout
@Scout,
I made no such assertion. What I have asserted is the Adimistration has no authority to grant carve-outs and special exemptions under the law, as these constitute a change to the law. While you may hold a different interpretation regarding exemptions and waivers, the law as written does not provide the authority to the executive to delay implementation of the employer mandate, and this is exactly what the administration did. Regardless of whether or not is was the “right thing to do”, this action was unlawful. My point is, the House is being excoriated by the press, the administration, and the Senate Majority Leader for doing thing the right way, using powers clearly spelled out under the ACA and the Appropriations clause of the constitution. Maybe you don’t believe it is the “right thing to do”, but their actions are lawful. How can the side that permits the performance of unlawful acts make the argument “It’s the F**KING LAW” regarding the ACA and the GOP’s efforts to follow Constitutional process in trying to delay or ammend what is turning out to be a poorly written, poorly executied law, and have even the tiniest shred of credibility and intellectual honesty.
As I stated previously on this thread: I believe the GOP should stop trying to delay the inevitable, and instead demand full implementation of the law. I believe each and every waiver granted by the administration should be reviewed and if found to have been unlawfully or improperly granted, it should be rescinded. I believe the delay of the employer mandate should be rescinded as well. Let’s put the Democrats claims to the test, since they passed this law 100% on their own. Let’s honestly score the costs and benefits and report it to the American people. If all these “Tweeks” need to be made, let’s make them using the process called for under the US Constitution. Most importantly, let the people experience for better or for worse the consequences of their electoral choices. “We the People” need to face the music.
I have no problem with tweaking the law. I have no problem taking a long look at the waivers and exceptions. I have no problem revisiting any law. Many of them need revisiting. I do have a huge problem with not funding the government and with tying the ACA to anything to do with funding the government.
@Moon-howler
I have a problem with these Omnibus spending bills, especially when we’ve been operating without a budget for 7 years. Look at how government used to be run. The Whitehouse and Congress worked (and fought) to produce a budget. That budget was funded through a series of appropriations bills. Sometimes parts of the government were shut down if a particular appropriations bill took a bit longer to pass, but only those parts covered under the particular bill were effected. Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, all had operated under this, and it worked. There was a budget. Appropriations were handled in a deliberative fashion.
We haven’t had a budget since 2006. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi didn’t bother to pass one during their tenures, even when one party controlled both the Whitehouse and Senate from 2008-2010. Now things are done with these “All or Nothing” spending bills. What do we expect? ACA has appropriations tied to it. When it’s lumped into an Omnibus CR and we’re operating without a budget, of course any disagreement over funding this will impact everything else.
The ACA has been funded, as I understand it.
People in the past fought like dogs during the day and drank like friends in the evenings. They didn’t really hate each other like they do now.
Those appropriation bills weren’t added when the entire government was shut down. It was more like everything but ….rather than nothing except.
I can’t deal with tea party crazy. It offends every sense of my being as a moderate.
@Moon-howler
The funds must be appropriated, and that is what this fight is all about. Under a CR, you can only spend money that has been previously appropriated. Really, the entire budget/appropriations system is broken, which is why we have runaway deficits, and a ballooning debt. At least the House has passed a budget, even though the Senate refused to take it up. The Senate also refused to consider the President’s proposed budget. While the President can advocate for additional spending, he can only spend the money the Congress appropriates. If you ask me where the problem lies, it is the Senate. Not the House, and as much as it pains me to say, not with the Whitehouse.
@Steve, I understood that last sentence hurt a lot. [
]
I think that the funding for the ACA went through at a different time, probably when it was passed.
The fight is really about the tea party people in the house wanting to shut down the ACA and they painted themselves in a corner. That’s a fight that can be had without shutting down the government. I remember taking the same people taking this to the brink back in July/August of 2011 and I remember how much money I lost by their foolishness.
The ballooning debt isn’t just because of no budget. The debt goes back a long way and wasn’t helped by all those years of unfunded wars either that costs us a billion a week or some outrageous sum like that.
When people come in with the attitude of all or nothing like those tea party people, it shuts down all discussion. Most of them have bad manners and feom what I have heard, a limited understanding of how things work.
Things will work better if they take the aCA out of their sights as a hostage. Nothing saying it can’t be tweaked but they didn’t want to tweak it. Many of them had vowed to destroy it.
When you talk about “waivers”, ST, you are primarily talking about the mini-med threshold amounts. That’s where the so-called “waivers” have primarily taken place. I’m not sure where you get the idea that, absent an explicit, in haec verba, exemption authority. I’ll acknowledge that it’s not a crystalline area, but HHS does have the authority to adjust those limits. I certainly don’t see that it’s a stark constitutional issue.
@Scout
Like I said Scout, if you read the “gray area” and see that HHS has the authority to grant the waivers, to specific companies, unions, etc. then I can’t change your mind. However, I noticed that you haven’t once asserted that the president has the authority to delay implementation of the employer mandate. This isn’t a “gray area”. It’s a big huge red area.
That seems like one of those shiny objects from where we started off which was about the government not being funded because Boehner got hoodwinked into listening to the tea party extremists. They want rid of Obamacare. That’s pretty much the nuts and bolts of it.
All this other stuff is just shiny objects to take the focus off the main issue.
Then there is the debt ceiling. What shiny objects will be used for that?
The “employer mandate” is precisely the mini-med issue.
@Steve Thomas
“and have even the tiniest shred of credibility and intellectual honesty.”
Take a look at the current Democratic party. Really? That is a feature of the current party. They don’t care about any of that as long as they get their way.
Surely you are kidding. Stop. Your current ‘heroes’ are some of the most disingenuous characters in history. I certainly don’t think any of them have any claims to intellectual honest. I at least wouldn’t expect them to trump the current Democrats. They are politicians. I have never found politicians, especially at that level, to be exceptionally endowed with those traits–either party.
@Scout
We’ll see soon enough. A suit has been filed in Federal court by a Florida dentist.