Last night, as the clock struck midnight, I was the first member to speak on the floor of the House.
The fact is, the GOP owns this shutdown. The Senate agreed to their beloved sequester funding levels, but they wanted more. This is a failure of leadership.
Please share widely!
if we could only clone Jim McGovern.
Since the election Americans across the country are finding how Obamacare affects them including here in Massuschetts. All the national polls are saying Americans do not want Obamacare. The unions even want out. Take the long shoreman as an example. They left the AFL-CIO because of Obamacare.Companies across the country are cutting hours, even placing employees in a part time status, and cutting benefits to workers families, all because of Obamacare.
The Republicans are listening and acting. It’s Democrats like Markey and Warren and Harry Reid who are led around by the nose by Obama who are refusing to listen to the American taxpayers. Reid is dictating to the Senate and House Democrats, to vote against this, or we’ll see what happens to you if you don’t follow the party line. Hell, Harry Reid was refusing to sign off on paying our military personnel before he got a call from Obama. The ball is in the Democrats court and,come election time, they will pay the price for refusing to listen to the American people.
So elections do have consequences. As far as the repercussions of Obamacare, that has already been highlighted and dismissed by the Democrats, in other words, they choose to ignore what is happening.
We wouldn’t even have a govt shutdown if Ted Cruz hadn’t laid a smackdown on Dick Durbin on the Senate Floor. After that skirmish, the Republicans found their mojo and decided to delay Obamacare. Even Chris Matthews admitted Obama met his match with Ted Cruz.
Thanks for your service…
The GOP posture is political terrorism.
When the GOP passes a clean continuing resolution, and removes the gun from the head of the congress, the president, and every American, then — and only then — I’ll resume a discussion about the Affordable Care Act.
That’s on the Democrats.
If the GOP is willing to advance piecemeal bills to fund individual agencies without worrying about Obamacare, there’s no logical argument why they shouldn’t fund the whole government.
Other than than by doing so, they would be releasing too many hostages without having their demands met. And blackmailers don’t like to do that.
Not this “bring it on” posture. I look at some of the people that could be hurt by this shutdown as victims and must be adverted. But “no compromise” only invites more gridlock. Hoping that the other side takes the fall, is assigned blame, but after the economy takes a dive, is not leadership either.
The Republicans are making totally unprecedented demands here. Never before has any party demanded that the law of the land be nullified as a condition for issuing the budget or paying the debt that they incurred in past budgets. If they succeed in any fashion, then they have absolutely no reason not to pull the same extortion trick time after time after time.
If the Democrats wanted to play the Republicans infantile game, they could easily slap on similarly ridiculous amendments to the bill. The “compromise” would then be a clean bill. Instead they have acted like grownups.
I would like to see the Senate Dems send a bill with their compromise like a minimum wage hike. Make it $11.00 hour, see what the Republicans say.
Is that better, the Republicans are not terrorist, they are simply acting like terrorist. Is that better, Mr. “I am not a Republican, I am an independant”. Enabler much?
Have you been paying any attention to Republican rhetoric these days? Calling them “terrorists” isn’t really all that extreme by their own standards.
I really don’t think it is all that extreme a metaphor to suggest that a small minority of politicians threatening to shut down crucial government services and potentially default on debt payments in return for undoing a law they do not like is a akin to the kinds of unreasonable demands we have seen from various terrorist groups.
And is partial implementation of Obamacare worth all the hurt a shutdown can and will cause? Just a one year extension does not equal full repeal. Dems can’t extract a concession in return and keep everything else funded?
You catch more bees with honey than with vinegar.
This is pure bullshit. The ACA passed. It was declared constitutional by a hostile Supreme Court. There was an intervening Presidential election and the guy opposing it (who did the same thing here in 2006) lost.
The Senate has passed a clean CR. The President is ready to sign it. The House should pass a clean bill and be done with it. End of discussion. None of this crap of “we’ll let the government run only if we can kill your kid, but tell you what, we’ll buy your other kid a baseball mitt.” I know, given their success in past hostage-taking, how hard it must be for them to get that it’s not going to work this time. Or that it shouldn’t.
What’s next? No funding bill next year unless they repeal what’s left of the Voting Rights Act? How about the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Should Democrats agree to outlaw the Democratic Party itself to get a continuing resolution on funding? I’m sure you’d take the Democrats’ side if they said “no CR until you put Glass-Steagall back in” or “no CR until we get single payer.”
If the Democrats give an inch, the Republicans can just repeatedly pull this stunt in return for keeping the government going for another couple of weeks. If you give an extortionist $1000 so that he won’t burn down your business, then it won’t be long before he comes back for $5000.
The fact is that there is not negotiation to be made here. The Republicans are offering absolutely nothing on their side other than to do the job that they are already Constitutionally required to do.
Obamacare is the law. Period. If the Republicans want to continue to repeal it through the normal mechansisms, or challenge it in the courts, that is just fine. Holding the appropriations process and even the debt payment hostage is indefensible.
There was plenty of negotiation over Obamacare at the time that bill itself was being debated, amended, etc. It is settled law! It is completely inappropriate to reopen those negotiations.
I love this “settled law” motto, yet you want to overturn Citizens United? That settled law too?
Is anyone threatening to default on the debt if Citizens United is not overturned? No.
Yes, a lot of us think that was a bad decision, but the way to fix it is through normal legal means, which unfortunately may mean a Constitutional amendment.
The Republicans are perfectly free to continue to challenge the ACA in the courts. I have no problem with that because it hurts only themselves.
We can expect that that is the ultimate Republican plan. They’ll send up a continuing resolution for everything but the safety net.
It’s like a tweet from Judd Legum h/t Democratic Underground:
All the polls I have seen suggest that the vast majority of Americans do not want to repeal Obamacare and most definitely do not want the government shut down over it. You are 100% wrong about that. It is going to be the Republicans who are going to continue to lose grounds at the polls, just like they already did in 2012.
And Republicans are not repealing it, they are delaying it for one year. That’s an important distinction.
http://www.rstreet.org/2013/10/01/cnn-poll-57-oppose-obamacare-gop-gets-blame-for-government-shutdown/
oppsies.
The Repubs did a great job telling lies and shitting on the Obamacare name. Gotta give them credit.
Jimmy Kimmel did an incredible thing recently where he asked people about whether they support Obamacare or the ACA. Obviously not scientific, but still pretty great, and likely reflective of the truth.
Also, polling for the individual elements of the law are through the roof – often 80-90%+. The only thing people really don’t like is the thing that makes it all work, but we can’t always have our cake and eat it too.
A one year delay is equivalent to a repeal. The Repubs know that and you know that. If they get the Dems to cave, they control what happens with this law. So it’s not an important distinction, it’s a distinction without a difference.
If you look at the poll, 11% oppose Obamacare because it is not liberal enough.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/09/30/rel10a.pdf
If you actually bother to read the poll results directly instead of a biased interpretation of it you can clearly see that only 39% oppose it for being “too liberal” (whatever that means). Many people would rather it went further than it does. The poll also very clearly shows that people overwhelmingly think that the Republicans approach to this problem is wrong and bad for the Country
It is also clear that opposition to the healthcare law is dropping over time. While Obamacare is far from perfect, I really expect people’s perceptions to change once they have had some actual experience with it rather than whatever lies they have been told on Fox News. This is why the Republicans are absolutely desperate to delay implementation. They know that once Americans get to try their “green eggs and ham”, a lot of them are going to end up liking it.
How about some reality-based dialogue here?
The Longshoremen considered leaving the AFl-CIO primarily because of frustration around jurisdictional issues. They also complained about the AFL-CIO not being liberal enough around immigration reform (e.g. accepting a path to citizenship that they see as “too long.”)
On Obamacare, a third tier issue for them, the Longshoremen are somewhat upset about the tax on “Cadillac health plans” but their primary complaint is that they wanted single-payer.
After nearly two pages on the jurisdictional issues, the Longshoreman’s letter states clearly that their political issues are complaints from the left: “The ILWU has also become increasingly frustrated with the Federation’s moderate, overly compromising policy positions on such important matters as immigration, labor law reform, healthcare reform, and international labor issues.” (http://www.scribd.com/doc/164542066/ILWU-Disaffiliation-8-29-2013 )
MOREOVER, the ILWU quickly changed it’s mind and decided to remain in the AFL-CIO!: http://www.ilaunion.org/news_support_council.html
So, you’re statement that “they’ve left the AFL-CIO because of Obamacare” is completely and 100% wrong. Don’t believe everything you read on the rightwing blogs.
Excactly. It’s a vote, with feet, for single-payer.
“On behalf of the millions of working men and women we represent and the families they support, we can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans.”
He mentioned the concerns that retired-vet mentioned. Why not delay the individual mandate for a year but allow those that want to sign up, let them. Now are you willing to compromise?
Do you really not understand the concept of insurance? Or are you just being argumentative?
Here’s the back-of-the-envelope reason why your idea is a terrible one. If you delay the mandate but otherwise put the law in place, healthy people won’t sign up, and sick people will. That means that premiums will go through the roof because insurers will have to pay for a lot of expensive procedures. And that will render health care unaffordable.
That, of course, is exactly what Republicans want, which is why they are pushing this “solution.”
As for James Hoffa, you’re of course completely wrong.
what they said at Townhall.com, David.
if they currently do not have it. I understand your point of just sick people signing up and driving up the costs even higher. But if businesses can be given a one year waiver, so can everyone else. It’s just a difference of opinion and I don’t believe we should tank the economy over this.
Hoffa can’t take back the letter nor his concerns, they are legit and now they are being thrown back in his face.
… why would they, under your purview, be LEGALLY REQUIRED to do so?
Either people are flocking by the bucketful to sign up for health insurance, and insurers are signing them up willy-nilly and, therefore, there is NO NEED for the law
OR…
…There is a clear NEED for people to COMPELLED to sign up and the Health Insurance companies NEED TO BE COMPELLED to accept them.
Do you really think there are 40 million uninsured simply because the Insurance companies don’t feel a compelling need to make a profit off of them…??? What other industry potentially involves every member of the 300 million plus population but willingly leaves 40 million of them out in the cold?
I would guess most Americans without insurance are on the low to middle class income levels. So before, insurance was too expensive. It’s too expensive for a family making good money, for that matter.
With the public exchanges, based on income, they get priced with assistance in most cases. So yeah, I do believe people will do the right thing where as before, they simply couldn’t afford to.
what you’re saying is that (a) the governors in the states that have refused to join in the Medicaid expansion (Rick Perry in TX, e.g.) are wrong and should join so that the maximum number of their lower income residents will get help with premiums; and (b) you actually like Obamacare.
Glad we’ve gotten that resolved.
And if other states are not participating, then what’s the big deal in delaying it for a year.
As for the “big deal,” we’ve been over that. It’s a huge deal. And it’s not going to happen.
Some have turned down Medicaid expansion, but they don’t have the right to turn down the ACA for their citizens. Delaying it for a year is a very big deal.
I make good money. My family health insurance plan is part and parcel with my employment. It has been this way my entire career… a career that has, so far, spanned more than 20 years.
Maybe the businesses you fear so much about shedding health insurance are only now doing so because they know Obamacare is there to catch their employees. Yeah, sure, there’s a few who are doing it, I’m certain, for purely mercenary reasons, but maybe the bulk of them are planning to vote, with their feet, for single payer… ?
I get priced with assistance right now, through my employer…
This is an implicit admission that the healthcare system doesn’t work: if there are over 40 million people uninsured… and the insurance companies refuse to go after them tooth and nail to sign them up, they are saying that those 40 million people will cost them more than they will bring in. Either those 40 million people represent a profit center of which only Croeseus could dream, or they are a drag on the insurers bottom line. Or… the insurance company executives are lazy idiots who only see one way to make a buck: sign up the healthy and discourage, or outright drop, the unhealthy… and the poor.
Yes, yes, we want to encourage businesses to continue to offer health coverage, and, in a healthy economy where there is a less of a surplus supply of workers, they will.
Nonetheless, one of the advantages of reining in and socializing health insurance costs is precisely to encourage the kinds of small businesses that cannot offer health coverage. A robust small business sector is excellent for innovation and economic growth and shifting the burden of health coverage in such a way that it is affordable outside of employer coverage is not a bad thing at all.
We have him unapologetically misusing sources for like the sixth time, and then asking mindless questions.
is just a tactic to stretch out the fight in hopes of killing it another day. Never agree to it.
Exhibit A why you don’t demand all or nothing. Harry was asked his question by Dana Bash of CNN. ” If this bill helps one child with cancer, should not you pass it”. Reid came across as cold as Dukakis did when asked about the death penalty for someone who raped and killed his wife.
How can anyone say no? This bill must be passed and funding restored to NIH. I would be on the side of the sick kids, how should Warren or Markey vote? More important, how would the CD-5 candidates have voted in the House? I guess Carl is a no. How about the others, their campaigns monitor this blog, would they stand with Pelosi, Reid, and Obama, or the sick kids?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/10/02/reid_to_cnns_dana_bash_why_would_we_want_to_help_one_kid_with_cancer.html
that it doesn’t take much effort to construct an answer to this question — unless one is really, really dumb.
“The bill would fund NIH, but otherwise transfer all wealth in the United States to Koch Industries and repeal the 15th Amendment. Our Dana Bash caught up with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: ‘Senator, if this bill helps one child with cancer, should not you pass it?'”
It’s incredibly unprofessional for a journalist even to have asked that question. Newsflash, Dana: a clean CR would fund NIH just as well.
Are the Republicans going to pass individual bills for every government service whose shutdown embarrasses them? Don’t be an idiot, Dan. This is %100 about face-saving for them.
In any case, it is not at all clear that anyone is actually being denied cancer treatment due to the shutdown. This is just a cheap stunt and shame on you for falling for it.
The fact is that the house already has the bi-partisan votes to pass a clean CR. The only person stopping it is the Speaker. Its all on him. That’s right. A minority of one is preventing an existing majority in both the House and Senate from funding the Government.
Really Dan you are outdoing yourself in stupidity today.