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.
Comment: Here is a small part of the reaction to this piece: you decide for yourself and please keep asking questions rather than just accepting-thank you
Khiya3 Wrote: Oct 10, 2013 7:13 PM
First, this is written by a senior fellow at the
Hoover Institute. It is a right wing think tank, so OF COURSE they would
blame it on Obama. Second, this piece does a non-existent job of
explaining the difference between mandatory spending and discretionary
spending. Yes, the House CAN take issue with discretionary
(appropriations) spending. The problem this author doesn't tell you is
this: The Affordable Care Act is considered an "entitlement" program,
therefore it is covered under MANDATORY spending! In other words, House
Republicans cannot "defund" it. If they can defund the ACA, they can
defund your social security, Medicaid, Medicare, etc., and believe me,
if they could defund those other programs, they would. It's time we all
used Google for what it was meant to be used for. INVESTIGATE, EDUCATE.
Stop falling for every piece that follows the narrative you prefer! This
author knows the difference in spending and what can be challenged and
what can't. This article obviously wasn't written to educate the masses,
it was written to dumb you down even further. Carry on.
Rebuttal:
davidanicholas Wrote: Oct 11, 2013 12:16 AM
Sorry Khiya3 but you're wrong. The ACA is not an
"entitlement" program covered under mandatory spending. It is, as we now
know from the Supreme Court ruling, a tax legislation. Consequently, it
was undeniably a “bill for raising revenue,” for which the Constitution
mandates compliance with the Origination Clause (Art. I, Sec. 7). The
Clause requires that tax bills must originate in the House of
Representatives. The ACA did not.
The problem is, the Senate presumed to add Affordable Care Act spending to the House CR bill. The Origination Clause means that not only tax bills but also government spending bills must originate in the House because the Clause was intended to vest the House with control over the “power of the purse.”
The Affordable Care Act, as the Supreme Court has held, was a straightforward tax bill, not an entitlement bill. No theorizing about mandatory entitlement spending, because it simply is not. It's constitution 101 that tax-raising measures must originate in the House.
The affordable care act originated in the Senate and was passed through reconciliation, a "tax bill" process which can avoid Senate filibusters and only needs 51 votes to pass. This was not passed as an "entitlement bill" like you say.
It was passed as a tax bill. Therefore the house DOES HAVE THE RIGHT to deny or authorize tax spending.
The problem is, the Senate presumed to add Affordable Care Act spending to the House CR bill. The Origination Clause means that not only tax bills but also government spending bills must originate in the House because the Clause was intended to vest the House with control over the “power of the purse.”
The Affordable Care Act, as the Supreme Court has held, was a straightforward tax bill, not an entitlement bill. No theorizing about mandatory entitlement spending, because it simply is not. It's constitution 101 that tax-raising measures must originate in the House.
The affordable care act originated in the Senate and was passed through reconciliation, a "tax bill" process which can avoid Senate filibusters and only needs 51 votes to pass. This was not passed as an "entitlement bill" like you say.
It was passed as a tax bill. Therefore the house DOES HAVE THE RIGHT to deny or authorize tax spending.
gfink2 Wrote: Oct 09, 2013 1:19 PM
kallies Wrote: Oct 10, 2013 8:52 AM
Sure, but it's irrelevant. Why? Because Boehner
isn't even allowing a vote, because the HOR would pass the bill as is if
he did.
Rebuttal:
And Harry Reid has not even taken up a single piece
of legislation since the 27th of September, so what is your point?
