There has been a lot said back and forth by many,
both in the know and some completely
out of the know, over the Federal
Government Shutdown and the ensuing Debt Limit crisis over the past six to
seven months.
The hub-bub started with Texas Senator Ted Cruz
stopping at nothing to remove ObamaCare
from the national psyche. Although the health care reform had been the law of
the land for some three years, passed by both houses of Congress, signed into
law by the President, upheld by the Supreme Court and further confirmed by the
re-election of Mr. Obama to the presidency.
These facts still had no impact on Mr. Cruz and his
Tea Party cronies.
A like argument comes to mind—I saw this in some
form the other day and establish no claim to the idea—concerning the 2nd
Amendment in relation to the right to
keep and bear arms.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State,
the right of the people
to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Just where would Mr. Cruz stand if some upstart
Democrat or far left-leaning Republican should have said they would stand against
some favored legislation unless all funding was withheld from the policing of
the public’s ability to keep and bear arms, buy weapons from authorized federal
firearms dealers or ammunition from the local hardware store around the corner?
The law of the land is the law of the land. The job
of congress is to see that these laws are carried out through the funding of
the branch of government responsible to do so. They cannot pick and choose
which they like and don’t like. That is not what we elected them to do.
There are established rules and procedures to tackle
laws and situations that might need repealing. Once a law is a law, the
responsibility to adhere to the law becomes paramount.
I keep hearing that the Health Care act is opposed
by the majority. I find this hard to believe or Mr. Obama would have not been
re-elected. However, this may be the case and the procedure to rectify the
situation is appropriately spelled out by the constitution and those opposing
the law have the right to follow the procedures just like those that put the
law forward did when the act was originally passed—like it or not.
Taking a stance that puts 880,000+ Americans out of
work (temporary or not, still out of work) is not appropriate and I believe will
backfire on those that adopted this strategy. Just as FDR has been credited
with dragging the country out of the Great Depression (while it was probably
the War and not the New Deal that did so), so should the Obama administration
gain credit to putting millions back to work after the Great Recession—this is
how it’s done in the credit game. So should Mr. Cruz gain credit for putting
the 880K out of work, even if temporary, for an ideology that was never going
to win and foolhardy at best—what goes around comes around.
While the battle may be over for now, it has really
only been kicked down the road and both questions will be revived in a couple
of months.
Congress passes the legislation and establishes the
funding for that legislation to be put into practice. Therefore, it is their
responsibility to insure the bills for what they have voted into being be paid
by the appropriate departments of the government carrying out the Congress’
wishes. Should Congress not want these liabilities to be generated, they have
complete authority to enact legislation reducing the size of government,
thereby reducing the outlay of funds. But funds that have been spent and bills
that continue to be generated have to be paid.
I saw several reports coming from Britain and European
journalists and they made the U. S. government look like the scum of the earth.
You cannot walk the Big Stick and not live up to the Big Stick Talk!
Totally agree with you Mr. Hatfield. Mr. Cruz has abused his office, at the very least.
ReplyDeleteThank you Carla. I appreciate your visit.
ReplyDelete