It is a reasonable approach to ask that everyone be treated equal under the law, is it not? This is what Conservatives in the House are asking for. The President has arbitrarily and selectively already given exemptions to big business, some unions, and Congress. Why not us?
Every argument presented by Democrats failed in many ways but most obviously it failed the fairness test.
Peter DeFazio representing the 4th District of Oregon seems to need a lesson in the US Constitution and some help in adding up the numbers, not to mention, but I am mentioning it, help with logic and fairness.
His points, more succinctly stated are, “Fund ACA because it’s already a law.”
Then, perhaps in anticipation of an obvious objection to his comment, he sites Gerrymandering as the illegitimate reason for Republicans being elected. If that was the case, how did they get in office in the first place to practice Gerrymandering?
Gerrymandering, like many other provisions and strategies in politics are there because BOTH political parties have decided that it is beneficial. It is as often used, if not more often used, by Democrats as by Republicans. This argument is a Red Herring.
More relevant however is the claim that the ACA is already a law.
The ACA barely passed with not one Republican voting for it and 34 Democrats voting against it. Later 22 Democrats voted to delay it.
As soon as the ACA passed the 2012 elections that followed removed many of those who voted for it. They were replaced by Representatives who could be counted on to not fund it.
These Representatives are doing the job they were elected to do, which as to mitigate the damages to be done by the ACA and to not fund it. In other words, they are representing their constituency.
Furthermore, it is by design of the Constitution that the House that holds the purse strings.
Following the Constitutional requirements at this time has left Harry Reid and the Executive Branch with a shut-down as the only cards to play.
Clearly, the House is not in favor of a shut-down in spite of not having a budget. They are passing Continuing Resolutions (CRs) to fund the functions being shut-down and in danger of shut-down by this Administration. However, these CRs are not getting approved by the Senate or sanctioned by the President. The Administration, in keeping with Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, continues to make shut-downs and life as uncomfortable as possible for anyone whom the President sees fit. He closes open air, no cost, low cost parks, but instead he funds his favorite golf course which is a high maintenance facility.
Interestingly, the House’s passing of single issue CRs to fund specific operations and functions is a kind of de facto “line-item-veto” legislation.
It has long been argued that “line-item-veto” is needed in order to remove “pork barrel” and excessive special interest spending. Obviously, and consequently, “line-item-veto” has not gotten much traction with politicians. It reduces opportunity for their personal gain.
The House Conservatives, perhaps inadvertently, are on an equitable course of funding as needed, without padding the budget.
Now, what about fairness? Why would DeFazio think he is above the American people and not be subject to ACA?
This law is directly and clearly in opposition to the principles set forth by the Federalist Papers 57(5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._57 .
Additionally, any Congressman who is voting to exempt himself from laws, to which we must submit, is obviously in office to benefit himself. He is not representing his constituency. Such a person should be recalled immediately.
Unfortunately, there is no 28th Amendment, but there should be and we should be calling for it with our Congressmen.