Re: Barely Half Of Republican Americans Support This Shutdown Strategy
posted at 10/1/2013 2:58 PM EDT
In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:
So who said anyone was in favor of a shutdown? I think the shutdown happened because the Dems said no 4 times.
The latest CR just included language that said give the same ACA deal to all Americans; not just Congress and it's staffers, or government workers, or the waivers that Unions have or the waivers that hundreds of firms have received.
The GOP said just treat everyone the same...answer from Dirty Harry; no, no ,no, no
So who shut down the government why it was Harry and the Dem Senate the Party of No!
...the man who really counts in the world is the doer,... TR 1891
Seriously? Do you ever read anything other than echo chamber baloney?
Here's an explanation from the National Review Online.
If you dispute this article as another MSM then you really are more ideologically ignorant than I give you credit for:
The Obamacare Non-Exemption
Congressional employees aren’t receiving a “special handout.”
The dispute has its origin in the debate over the law in 2010. Republican senator Chuck Grassley suggested an amendment intended to make Democrats balk: Members of Congress and their staff would have to buy their insurance from the health-care exchanges. The amendment explicitly said that the federal government should continue making the same employer contributions. It was not designed to cut employees’ benefits, but rather to make sure they had a stake in the quality and efficiency of the exchanges. Democrats actually accepted it, and put it into the eventually passed bill...
Congressmen and their staff, then, are getting a questionable workaround from the law — but it’s from a provision of the law that treated them particularly badly rather than neutrally. The net result of the law and the workaround isn’t a “special handout” for congressional employees.
Senator David Vitter (R., La.) says that Congress should pass an amendment to do away with this supposed “exemption.” The law would actually layer another regulation onto Congress (and executive-branch appointees, too) that doesn’t apply to any other American, by preventing their employer from contributing to their health insurance.
The defense of the provision remaining as is — ending the federal contributions to Congress’s exchange premiums — relies on the idea that Congress (or literally almost all federal employees, as Cruz suggested) should suffer the worst possible effects of whatever federal law is passed. That’s a much more punitive intent than the original Grassley amendment had.
With the destructive effects of Obamacare looming, this punishment may sound appealing. But do we really approve of the idea in other circumstances? Do we believe that Congress and its staffers should pay the highest marginal tax rates, regardless of income; that every congressman must have served in the military to vote to declare war; that congressional offices have to carry out any and all reporting requirements and regulations they impose on a particular industry; and so on?