There was a law that passed in 2010. It passed through two democratically elected houses of Congress, both House of Representatives and the Senate, and was signed by a democratically elected president. That is, of course, how laws are passed in this great republic. It was a controversial law, but it passed according to the Constitution of the United States, our supreme governing document. Further, this law was challenged and when heard by the United States Supreme Court, the law was indeed found constitutional, meaning that the entirety of our checks & balances apparatus found the law legally binding and appropriately passed.
Now, in 2013, after 41 or so failed attempts by the lower house of Congress to repeal this controversial law, the lower house of Congress has made the repeal or defunding of this law, often derided for its substantial page length, essentially a "policy rider" to a government funding bill. In other words, "either repeal THIS law, you upper house and you leader of the free world, or we'll shut this whole mutha-sucka DOWN!" So, the lower house of Congress alone is trying to overturn the decision of two houses, lower and upper, and the president, okayed explicitly by the Supreme Court. While this is technically constitutionally allowable, it seems to usurp everything that little bill on Capitol Hill sang to me on that famous episode of School House Rock. I mean, that song changed my LIFE! I highly doubt the majority in the lower house feels the same, though.
It is argued that the president and the majority in the upper house are just as much to blame as the majority in the lower house, all sides refusing to stop, collaborate, and/or listen. However, I must call it... I mean, this controversial law may need some tweaking, changing, delay, or what have you. But where are the recommendations from the lower house on what specifically to change? All I'm hearing are attempts to completely derail every part of that controversial law, even those parts widely accepted and penned by the same lower house majority trying desperately to repeal it. I mean, this law is essentially the same law and policy working in a single state within these United States, signed by the then governor of that state, who happens to be a member of the same party of the lower house majority. As the guy in the prior link states: politics trumping policy. And, speaking to the "politics trumps policy" idea again, it truly seems that the repeal of this controversial law is driven not by a virtuous desire to save our citizenry from a terrible mistake, but to simply stop it from working so the advancing party takes a political loss.
There is so much to say on this, and only so much even can be said when purposefully not naming the law, the party that passed it and the party that is trying to repeal it, and so on. I'm praying, so hard, that the American people can see this situation for what it is on its merit, without the stigma that certain labels carry, much like how the jury was instructed to picture all the horrors inflicted on Carl Lee Hailey's daughter inflicted upon a sweet little white girl instead.
But as of right now, over 800,000 federal employees who earn a living by going to do the work they were hired to do will not be working or earning wages while 534 people responsible for preventing this are still getting paid. Further, about 1.3 million civilian federal employees deemed "essential" are indeed sitting at work right now, doing the work of this country, and not getting paid, while the 534 people charged with preventing such an injustice, are failing and still getting paid. Oh, the injustice of it all! In AMERICA!!! I mean, when have we ever accepted that people who indeed go to work and do good work don't deserve to be compensated accordingly?! This is not the meritocracy that our country espouses, is it? I mean, this isn't even that lazy 47% that pays no income tax; I can just about guarantee that all of these "essential" employees are members of the other 53% and pay handsomely the dues to that club.
So, who's down for some calling of representatives of other states and districts? Who's down for voting out those who hold our economy hostage, at least with a primary candidate to replace that rep with a more reasonable candidate from your own preferred party? I honestly don't care about which party; I care only about reasonable, thinking people being entrusted to make such heavy decisions. Do we really believe that the architects of this shutdown are reasonable to usurp the explicitly expressed will of the people, as shown through the passing of a law through two houses and a president and the failure to reverse it in the same manner?
I will be fine with this controversial law being repealed, if replaced with an alternative that advances the health and financial stability of the American people, that is passed honestly through our checks and balances. Anything else is indeed political terrorism.
Eff terrorists.
Eff terrorists. I agree. One of the most frustrating things about this shutdown is the fact that the "controversial law" was passed, upheld, and the creator was reelected to office, yet over 3 years they still couldn't sit down and either come up with something better; Or at least try to modify and/or correct the flaws of the law. Instead, it's a terrorist hostage take over. The absolute worst part, is that they STILL get their direct deposit. This is shameful.
ReplyDelete