Tag Archives: national debt

Obama’s Refusal to Negotiate with Congress

I don’t know about you, but I get so tired of all the finger-pointing in Washington DC. Right now, they’re blaming everyone but themselves on the government shut down. It’s ridiculous how our federal government is going out of it’s way to make it more painful than necessary in order to get a large public outcry. Whether that’s by orders of the President or other heads of Departments should be investigated and punished in order of its priority.

This morning I woke up to the mantra on the news being that the President refuses to sit down & negotiate with Congress. My knee-jerk reaction was that, instead of negotiating a budget, they should start Impeachment proceedings.

Then before noon today, Boehner and a few other Republicans held a press conference for the sole purpose of very publicly stating that accusation. Mere minutes after this press conference, there was a news “alert” that President Obama called Speaker Boehner, only to reiterate that he will not negotiate linking the government shut down to the  debt ceiling increase.

Makes for a very boring piece of political theater, but positioned with the pictures from last week with a bunch of Republicans sitting around the negotiation table waiting on the no-show Democrats, this makes it that much more difficult for anyone to continue pointing the finger at the Republicans.

But after walking away for a little stretch break, I realized that it’s not the President’s job to negotiate with Congress.

The US Constitution states very clearly that it is Congress’s job to propose a budget. That budget gets sent to the other House of Congress for consideration, during which they can debate, edit, and either vote against, or vote for with changes, that are then sent back to the originating House for either ratification, farther changes, or elimination.

A Bill's path to Law

A Bill’s path to Law

IF the budget gets approved by both Houses of Congress, it then goes to the President to either Sign into Law, or Veto. His action at this point is the only action with which he can be held responsible. It’s not until after a budget is made Law that the President has any responsibility, and that is how he, as head of the Executive Branch, determines how his share of the budget will be distributed within that Branch.

IF the President Vetos  the budget Bill, Congress can Override it by a two-thirds (2/3) vote. With the massive number of Democrats in the Senate, that would be a major feat indeed. How many of his lap-dogs would be willing to vote against him?

Therefore… it’s Congress’ job to hammer out the budget and the President’s job to either Sign or Veto. The President plays no role in this, therefore his presence is NOT required. I understand, though, wanting him there for the negotiations. It would potentially make shorter work knowing up front what the President would approve or veto.

The Democrats, led by Harry Reid, are very publicly stating, “Give us a clean Continuing Resolution and a clean Debt Limit Increase, THEN we’ll negotiate.”

REALLY?!?!?!?!? Isn’t this exactly what the Democrats have promised for years? “Give us what we want and we’ll negotiate later?” The problem is, “later” never comes. That’s a deal the Republicans are wise to reject, knowing full well that that rug would be pulled out from under them after the CR & debt increase go into effect.

Our Nation keeps doing the same extremely stupid things that every household knows is detrimental for our future! We (us as individuals and the US as a nation) HAS to live within our means. We cannot continue to live on a deficit, and we have to be wise in our use of personal and public funds. That’s the platform of the Tea Party, and they’re being vilified for having the guts to stand on principle for what’s right and best for this country.

What’s really funny is that it was leaked on the news last night that there were a few members of Congress who were negotiating behind closed doors.

I sure wish someone could explain the need for all this political theater. Just do your job and history will bestow all the accolades due you!

Since When is Health Insurance an Inalienable Right?

For over a month now, that question has been screaming in my head. Because of that, I’ve been working on this post little by little. Then I saw this morning that Neal Boortz wrote a blog post saying the same thing! lol

Ok, so maybe he’s smarter and a faster writer than me, but I’m glad that I’m not the only one trying to shout that message from the roof tops!

So, I’ll share with you what I’d already written, then send you over to Neal’s post – since he’s so much better with words than I.

The Issue is NOT About Access to Health Care

This is NOT an “access to health care” issue – everyone has access to care. The issue is who pays for it. So this is really an “access to health insurance” issue. But the last time I checked health care was NOT an inalienable right. This is more of Obama’s “spread the wealth” Marxism, and not about making our health care system more efficient and inexpensive.

Government Run = Failure

It’s a proven fact that government run ANYTHING doesn’t work well. More so has it been proven that socialized medicine doesn’t work. Go look at the numbers in Europe and Canada. Health care cost more, is a major tax burden on the citizenry, and doesn’t improve care at all. As a matter of fact, it rations care to such a point that people actually DO die due to lack of access!! Talk about a real “access to health care” issue.

Seek the Right Care

The deadbeats who mooch off our system are one of the reasons health care costs so much. Instead of taking care of themselves to ensure better health, and going to a doctor’s office or the local health department when they do become sick, they insist on going to the hospital – which costs more! Obama care will only create more of these deadbeats. Especially when people start loosing the insurance they already have (and are happy with) as a result of the new regulations.

Conflict of Inerest

There is a MAJOR conflict of interest for one entity (the government) to be both regulator AND competitor.

Let the Free Market Work Out Its Own Solutions

By making the government a competitor in the market place, Obama care will also stifle the free market system that is ALREADY seeking its own solutions. More and more doctors are opting out of insurance plans and are taking patients on a fee only basis instead. Not only is this their way of reducing their own costs, but it is also a means of reducing the increasing government interference into the personal and private relationship between patient and doctor – stifling best-care practices.

Stop the Out of Control Spending!!!

Obama has already tripled the national debt with no plan to pay for it! While every household in America is tightening the belt, our government is out of control. The Obama Administration and the Democrat Congress has already admitted that this will cost much more than everyone originally thought – which was already much more than most were willing to approve. And they still have no idea how this will be paid for!!!! When is enough enough? STOP THE SPENDING ALREADY!!!

Well… you can see that I’ve not fleshed out some of my points. But in the interest of time (Congress is voting on this already!!!), I think it’s best to “get it out there.”

Now, here’s the link I promised to Neal Boortz’s post: Healthcare is Not a Right.