Obama and Senate shutdown government


Obama and Senate shutdown government

Contrary to the letter “Collateral damage” (Oct. 21), which mirrored Democrats’ talking points, it was not tea party Republicans Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Michelle Bachman (nor Cathy McMorris Rodgers) who temporarily shut down the government — it was President Barack Obama and the Democrat-controlled Senate. (By the way, Palin is not in Congress, so why include her name?)

The Republican-controlled House has constitutional responsibility for funding all government activities and several bills were offered to do that (except fund the ACA) so it was the executive branch (Obama) and the Senate that actually blocked government funding — then forced the House to cave in (which it did in order to keep government functioning).

Ironically, on page A6 of the same U-B edition it was pointed out that “Obama says it (the shutdown) showed just how many things, large and small, the government does to help people.”

Yes, and he did everything within his power to make that point by closing all federal parks, historic sites and monuments — including open areas that didn’t need to be closed. Anyone who doesn’t understand what he did and why must be blind ... or biased beyond reason.

Most egregious about the letter was playing the race card (that the House took action because Obama is the “first black American president.”) Is anyone else getting tired of this absurd canard being used against anyone who opposes Obama’s policies? Inserting racism where it doesn’t exist is contemptible.

“The tea party” is not an organized political party and most of them have three basic core values: fiscal responsibility, limited government and free market economy. Every tea party group supports the U.S. Constitution but insists our government abides by its constitutional limitations. They object to Obama’s end runs around those limitations. A single-payer, government-controlled socialized medicine system is not constitutional and that is the stated goal of Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and others.

Yes, America has a democratic system but is not a pure democracy — we have a constitutional republic.

The only way the Supreme Court could justify Obamacare is by labeling it a tax. Rest assured that our patience will be taxed as well, and when Obamacare turns out to be the monster that wrecked our economic health, costs huge numbers of jobs, hurts both large and small businesses, and degrade the finest medical care on Earth — at least the “tea party Republicans” will be on record as having tried to stop it.

Steve Singleton

Walla Walla



Igor says...

Great letter as always! Unfortunately, the Republicans seem to be getting the blame for the shutdown. Though I agree with the "Tea Party platform," i.e., fiscal responsibility, limited government and a free economy, none of these things are ever going to come to pass unless the Republicans can win elections. So though I agree with the Tea Party on almost everything, I also feel that their refusal to fund ObamaCare was a mistake from a political perspective. ObamaCare is going to implode on its own. Why ‘interfere with an enemy while he’s in the process of destroying himself?’

Posted 27 October 2013, 11:40 a.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

Great insight Steve. I also noticed that they didn't close the President's golf course either which I'm sure it is very essential to the handling of government issues.

Posted 27 October 2013, 3:18 p.m. Suggest removal

downhillracer says...

You just keep right-on-inside that bubble of information and deceit, Mr. Singleton. I presume you follow the same polling Karl Rove clung onto a short while back?


Posted 27 October 2013, 4:03 p.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

What is it with Republicans insisting that the House wasn't responsible for the shut down? It was their plan for weeks leading up to it. They drank toasts on the House floor when it happened. Then, when their tactic failed, Boehner allowed a House vote that restarted the government.

The House sent a bill to the Senate that they knew - everyone knew - had no chance of passing, because it left out the healthcare law. If the House sent the Senate a bill that left the military out of the budget, and the Senate refused to approve that budget, would the Senate be to blame for the lack of a budget? Of course not. Such silliness.

You played the game and lost. Own it. Be proud of your effort. Running from it looks ridiculous.

Posted 27 October 2013, 7:25 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

When you go to buy a house or car do you pay the price in the window? What happened to the 10th and 11th peices of Legislation that was sent to the Senate but the infamous Harry Reid would not even bring it to a vote? The shutdown was brought by the Senate refusing to negotiate on trying to control the debt but to give the President a blank signed check so that he could add another Trillion in debt on our children and future generations!

Posted 28 October 2013, 2:36 p.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

Namvet, first, when I sell a house I don't accept or even consider an offer that is below asking price and requires me to pay the power bill for the next ten years. The buyer would have to know I wouldn't accept such an offer. The House knew the Senate couldn't accept an offer that simply left out the healthcare law (see blue_streak's excellent comment below for a more detailed explanation as to why).

Second, this was not a shut down about the debt. The CBO says the ACA will lower the debt, not increase it. Republicans only shifted the conversation to the debt after they realized Obamacare was off the table. The budget they eventually passed was agreed upon earlier in the summer by the House and Senate leaders and represented significant cuts in spending growth. What president has a blank check? Budgets are passed by Congress, in which at least one chamber has been controlled by Republicans for 14 of the last 18 years. And you want to put in on Obama, who came in at the worst moment our economy has faced since 1929?

You are just spewing words.

Posted 28 October 2013, 3:58 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

Really? I would say it is negotiation. If this was the worst economy since 1929 when the President took over you might want to revisit some history. That's a joke!

It's a long way off to the 2014 elections.

Posted 28 October 2013, 4:46 p.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

Love that phrase, "cuts in spending growth". Our spending is wildly out of control, and it's a point of pride with Democrats that they plan to bring it down to only grossly out of control.

Posted 29 October 2013, 8:31 a.m. Suggest removal

blue_streak says...

The “power of the purse” does not give the House of Representatives the right to unilaterally impose its will on the rest of our government. That would require a Constitutional amendment abolishing the US Senate and eliminating the presidential veto. It’s an arduous process to amend the Constitution, but please proceed if that’s what you really want -- and we'll see how far you get.

Alternatively, you could win some elections.

There have been five opportunities for Republicans and the Tea Party to convince the American people to support them, the Senate elections in 2008, 2010, and 2012, and the presidential elections of 2008 and 2012. If so-called conservatives had won even one of those five elections, we wouldn’t be having this conversation, because Obamacare would not be the law of the land.

Obamacare IS the law because conservatives failed to win a single one of those elections. Threatening to destroy the credit of the United States and create another worldwide Great Depression in order to overturn the results of those elections is a direct violation of the oath of office members of Congress take to support and defend the Constitution.

Posted 28 October 2013, 2:53 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

In the same respect to your post the President and the Senate Majority does not have the right to drive the US into Socialism.

Posted 28 October 2013, 4:48 p.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

blue_streak is absolutely right. Democracy is about elections, and it is inevitable that once a substantial part of the electorate has figured out it can vote itself other people's money, a downward spiral has begun that will eventually take the society down. I have no long-term solution to offer: As Winston Churchill remarked, "Democracy is the worst form of government there is, except for all the rest."

That's not to say that delaying actions are pointless. Delaying full-scale government seizure of the health care field from the mid-90s when Hillary proposed it until the mid-2020s (by which time "single-payer" socialized medicine will have arrived), will have allowed three decades of medical innovations that would otherwise have been lost, among other benefits.

Posted 29 October 2013, 8:42 a.m. Suggest removal

barracuda says...


If Obamacare is the law of the land, How come Obama can change the rules of Obamacare and exempt certain people from its use?

Is it not supposed to take all three parties to change laws etc?

Posted 28 October 2013, 5:51 p.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

Can you provide a link to a summary of what you are referring to?

Posted 28 October 2013, 11:07 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

I'm sure barracuda has his own but here's a couple for you to dispute:



I really don't know why you continue to ask for links because you mis-interpret the content and try to turn it to your liking? I guess it fits right in. Within a short period of time the Affordable Care Act will implode and what will your response be then?

Posted 29 October 2013, 1:40 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

I would say this is part of collateral damage that the Democrats don't want to brag about!


Rather pathetic the trillions that have been wasted on this Administrations mistakes.

Posted 29 October 2013, 3:09 p.m. Suggest removal

downhillracer says...

Nice use of selective observation to cobble together your narrative. You really should stick to sitting on a porch and yelling at passer-bys: economics -let alone critical thinking - really isn't your strong suit.

Posted 29 October 2013, 5:50 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

And "Where would one find an "informed" post of yours?

Posted 30 October 2013, 9:37 a.m. Suggest removal

tpeacock says...

'I really don't know why you continue to ask for links because you mis-interpret the content and try to turn it to your liking'
Unfortunately, these comment sections are fraught with "Internet Researchers" that cobble together their facts from sources that are dubious, politically slanted, or which say what the searcher wants to hear regardless of truth and/or fact.
I continue to say that anyone party vested, will never speak facts, they will go along with what their adored party heads push for an agenda, buy into what their talk show hosts spout, regardless of truth and/or fact, and resort to name calling and putting down any and all who disagree with them.
Seems they also have a propensity to know more about what our Founding documents say and mean than anyone else on the planet! If we don't think and act like certain folks think we should, this makes us less than human, dumber than a box of rocks, and beneath any dignity a simple person should merit. This is not exclusive to any one particular party, though there are many who would argue that point.

Posted 4 November 2013, 10:54 a.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

Understanding that a person is born with the faculties to navigate, evaluate and determine what decisions are best for that individual. Some individuals don't care to take that extra step to be able to conclude what is in there best interests are waiting for the nanny state to take over. Others enjoy the luxury to be able to surf the sites and come to there own conclusions and oft times become labeled because of there beliefs. Those that label people are often negligent in there own findings to be able to conclude what would be best for there own lifestyle. A lot of the labeling is a falsehood without actually knowing who you are labeling.

Obviously this is an Opinion Section.

Posted 5 November 2013, 10:28 a.m. Suggest removal

downhillracer says...

And there you have it: "Critical Thinking 101" by the ubiquitous namvet. It all sort of makes sense now.

Posted 5 November 2013, 9:07 p.m. Suggest removal

chicoli says...

This "Critical Thinking 101" paragraph is another gobbledygook cut and pasted from a recent Senator Paul's speech...wait, wait...was it lifted from one given by that elocuent patrician, past president Bush? Maybe it is a combination of both!

Posted 6 November 2013, 11 a.m. Suggest removal

Log in to comment