ObamaCare and Healthcare.gov

[JPG]

Actually, they call their decisions "opinions." http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/opinions.aspx

Oh my! So that is why 'they' have handed down all these ridiculous 'things' lately. They were opinionated!

I think the 'process' has been 'hijacked' like some threads here!:rolleyes:

[Ed in Tampa]

OCTOBER 4, 2013

Who Shut Down the Government?
Thomas Sowell
10/4/2013 12:01:00 AM - Thomas Sowell

Even when it comes to something as basic, and apparently as simple and straightforward, as the question of who shut down the federal government, there are diametrically opposite answers, depending on whether you talk to Democrats or to Republicans.

There is really nothing complicated about the facts. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted all the money required to keep all government activities going -- except for ObamaCare.

This is not a matter of opinion. You can check the Congressional Record.

As for the House of Representatives' right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either. You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity.

Whether ObamaCare is good, bad or indifferent is a matter of opinion. But it is a matter of fact that members of the House of Representatives have a right to make spending decisions based on their opinion.

ObamaCare is indeed "the law of the land," as its supporters keep saying, and the Supreme Court has upheld its Constitutionality.

But the whole point of having a division of powers within the federal government is that each branch can decide independently what it wants to do or not do, regardless of what the other branches do, when exercising the powers specifically granted to that branch by the Constitution.

The hundreds of thousands of government workers who have been laid off are not idle because the House of Representatives did not vote enough money to pay their salaries or the other expenses of their agencies -- unless they are in an agency that would administer ObamaCare.

Since we cannot read minds, we cannot say who -- if anybody -- "wants to shut down the government." But we do know who had the option to keep the government running and chose not to. The money voted by the House of Representatives covered everything that the government does, except for ObamaCare.

The Senate chose not to vote to authorize that money to be spent, because it did not include money for ObamaCare. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that he wants a "clean" bill from the House of Representatives, and some in the media keep repeating the word "clean" like a mantra. But what is unclean about not giving Harry Reid everything he wants?

If Senator Reid and President Obama refuse to accept the money required to run the government, because it leaves out the money they want to run ObamaCare, that is their right. But that is also their responsibility.

You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want. And it is a fraud to blame them when you refuse to use the money they did vote, even when it is ample to pay for everything else in the government.

When Barack Obama keeps claiming that it is some new outrage for those who control the money to try to change government policy by granting or withholding money, that is simply a bald-faced lie. You can check the history of other examples of "legislation by appropriation" as it used to be called.

Whether legislation by appropriation is a good idea or a bad idea is a matter of opinion. But whether it is both legal and not unprecedented is a matter of fact.

Perhaps the biggest of the big lies is that the government will not be able to pay what it owes on the national debt, creating a danger of default. Tax money keeps coming into the Treasury during the shutdown, and it vastly exceeds the interest that has to be paid on the national debt.

Even if the debt ceiling is not lifted, that only means that government is not allowed to run up new debt. But that does not mean that it is unable to pay the interest on existing debt.

None of this is rocket science. But unless the Republicans get their side of the story out -- and articulation has never been their strong suit -- the lies will win. More important, the whole country will lose.

[fredsheldon]

How did ObamaCare become "The law of the land" unless both the House and Senate passed it and the President signed it into law?

[heathicus]

How did ObamaCare become "The law of the land" unless both the House and Senate passed it and the President signed it into law?

The US Constitution lays out a two-step process for a law to be enacted. First, the measure has to be passed by both the House and the Senate and signed by the president. That's the first step. The second step is for it to be paid for by Congress.

It was intentionally designed this way so that a Congress today doesn't have to pay for legislation that a Congress years ago passed - whether it's bad legislation, we don't have the money for it, or whatever.

To simply say, "it's the law of the land, you have to pay for it" is nonsense. The Constitution says they don't have to pay for anything they don't want.

[fredsheldon]

The US Constitution lays out a two-step process for a law to be enacted. First, the measure has to be passed by both the House and the Senate and signed by the president. That's the first step. The second step is for it to be paid for by Congress.

It was intentionally designed this way so that a Congress today doesn't have to pay for legislation that a Congress years ago passed - whether it's bad legislation, we don't have the money for it, or whatever.

To simply say, "it's the law of the land, you have to pay for it" is nonsense. The Constitution says they don't have to pay for anything they don't want.

So, paying for it has passed the Senate and if a vote were to be taken today it would pass the House and the President would sign it. I don't see the problem That would be saying that the majority want it, wouldn't it? I rest my case your honor.

[joshh]

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

Withholding any funding from ANY law is unconstitutional per the 14th amendment. Defaulting is also directly forbidden. If they want to withhold funding...they have to change the law.

There is absolutely NO argument they can make that trumps our constitution. Sorry you don't like it...but the LAW passed through all 3 branches of government.

[heathicus]

So, paying for it has passed the Senate and if a vote were to be taken today it would pass the House and the President would sign it. I don't see the problem That would be saying that the majority want it, wouldn't it? I rest my case your honor.

To my knowledge, "Paying for it" has not passed the Senate because the House has not passed an appropriations bill for it to give to the Senate. All spending measures have to originate in the House.

Plus, we're not a democracy. It's not majority rule. We're a republic, with the minority given tools like this specifically designed to protect from tyranny of the majority.

According to law, and in simple terms, the way the budget process is supposed to work is this: The House drafts a general budget plan and sends it to the Senate. If the Senate makes any changes, those changes go back to the House until they all agree. Then it gets sent to the President to sign or veto. Following that passage of a general budget plan, separate and specific appropriations bills authorizing specific levels of spending on specific programs are brought up. Again, the House drafts them, the Senate modifies, and they work together to work out their differences.

That process that the law says Congress has to go through every year, has not happened since 2009. The House side of Congress has done their job, presenting multiple budgets to the Senate. The Senate side of Congress, regardless of the reasons and who does or doesn't agree with them, has not done their job in violation of the law. So, instead of having an actual budget and accompanying appropriations bills, they've passed a series of continuing resolutions to keep things going.

Regarding our current "crisis." Yes, there is a valid point that ACA has been passed into law by both houses of Congress, signed by the President, upheld by the Supreme Court, and given a mandate by the voters and Republicans that don't like it are pitching a hissy fit by forcing the shutdown in an effort to defund it. There's also a valid point that the way the Republicans are trying to fund government now, a piece at a time through specific appropriations bills, is the way it's actually supposed to be done according to law. And on that point, it's the Democrats pitching a hissy fit that they want it all or nothing so THEY are the ones forcing the shutdown. Then, we've got Obama intentionally trying to make the "shutdown" as painful and disruptive as possible, spending more money to erect barriers to keep veterans out of open air monuments, erecting traffic cones blocking roadside stopping areas so people can't see Mt. Rushmore, trying to shut down parks that receive no federal funding, etc.,

So the only conclusion I can draw is that both Republicans and Democrats are acting like a bunch of spoiled kids who would rather take their toys and go home than play nice with their friends. Then we have President Stompy Foot acting like a petty, petulant, vindictive, cold-hearted child man who wants to be dictator.

[heathicus]

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

Withholding any funding from ANY law is unconstitutional per the 14th amendment. Defaulting is also directly forbidden. If they want to withhold funding...they have to change the law.

There is absolutely NO argument they can make that trumps our constitution. Sorry you don't like it...but the LAW passed through all 3 branches of government.

A passed law is not debt. Promised spending is not debt. Money borrowed is debt. Debt is the money we borrow to pay for this proposed spending because we don't have the money. And defaulting on our debt is a whole other issue that is being tied to the debt ceiling, not Obamacare.

Even with the government "shutdown," the Treasury brings in more than enough money to cover all of the mandated spending ($250 billion in tax revenue every month) - including our payments on our debt (the debt payment is about $30 billion). The mandated spending includes the interest on the debt, social security, medicaid, military pay, etc.

If the debt ceiling is not raised, it means we'd have to have a balanced budget. It means we can't borrow additional money to pay for all the discretionary spending that we don't have money to spend on. It absolutely does NOT mean we'll default on our debt payment. Any politician saying so is a lying liar engaging in scare tactics.

If we default, it's specifically because President Stompy Foot wants to hurt us because he didn't get his way.

[fredsheldon]

I can't find the "I surrender" Smilie Face

[heathicus]

I can't find the "I surrender" Smilie Face

That's ok. Obama can't either.