Unhappily, no vote.
What I saw was so disgusting, so disturbing, so infuriating that I've been emailing, posting, etc. since.
Today, about half an hour ago, ad of this writing, I read that Republican Representative Rob Portman of Ohio has expressed the opinion that the shutdown will be ended by Thursday. He also expressed the opinion that "Obamacare", the Affordable Care Act (PPACA) should be repealed because most of the country doesn't want it.
I'm afraid I think he's completely deluded. It's a law. I will post the text of the email I sent him below.
It's interesting that those opposed to the PPACA are continuing this "fight" now that implementation is underway. I believe that it's just symptomatic of the central focus of the GOP to obstruct anything and everything that the President proposes, for no other reason that to do so.
Anyone who thinks that a law that has been passed by both houses, signed by the President, been reviewed by the Supreme Court, should be repealed before it is implemented is severely stupid and irresponsibility. It was passed. It needs to be given at least 3 years from implementation to give it sufficient time to work out bugs, etc. before any action to repeal it is taken. But, this isn't about the PPACA, it's about trying to prevent the President from succeeding in making a positive contribution while in office. Why would anyone want to do that? It's not just about party politics. Think. What have they been trying to say about the President all along.
This is about some ugly, dirty agenda that certain members of our Congress have - but I'll get back to that.
Here's what I saw yesterday: First I have to say that I'm a terrible citizen and do not know the details of how our government works as well as I, and you, should. After all, if our government is supposed to be of, by and for us, then we should be actively involved and informed to ensure our "representatives" our representing us.
I saw someone officiating, not Representative Boehner. I'm sorry to say, I don't know how that procedure is handled. Someone was yielding his time to various members of the House, all of which seemed to be House Democrats asking for unanimous consent to move a vote to end the shutdown. I do know a little Parliamentary procedure, having worked for a number of public boards and sitting on several public committees and having been a member of various organizations. I did have to look up unanimous consent, however. These members were simply asking the House to vote to end the shutdown without objection to the vote.
Now what's so strange or bad about that? Well, the vote to end the shut down involves passing the C.R., continuing resolution. Continuing resolutions become necessary when the annual spending bill is NOT passed. The federal budget calendar runs from October 1 to September 30, so if a new annual budget is not passed by September 30, the government risks shutdown unless C.R.s, continuing resolutions are passed by Congress (the House). The C.R. generally means continuing the budget, as appropriated, per department, for a particular period of time. However, this House, at this time, refused to pass the budget, or the C.R. unless and until the PPACA is defunded.
Remember the PPACA was enacted into law. It has begun implementation, though shakily. Now, Congress wants to defund it. Does that seem intelligent or kosher or prudent? Not to me.
These calls for a vote were met with the identical response each time, that "... that request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance." This means that the call for a vote was not being allowed because it did not have the appropriate clearance, according to House Rules. There was clearly no intention of letting the vote happen, regardless of the fact that the law had been enacted and monies had been spend toward the implementation.
In the midst of this appeal for a vote, there was a break and a delegation of House Democrats appeared to say that they were bringing a petition to the floor, hoping to get enough signatures, from both parties to force the vote. I haven't read the House Rules on this procedure but they assured the viewing public that it was an acceptable procedure.
After the break, a member of the House posed a Parliamentary question, as I understood it, regarding a question of privilege (meaning the rights of members of the House), in that the requests for unanimous consent to call for a vote to end the shutdown were being denied. The speaker brought enlargements of Rule XXII, and section 4 of that rule which states: "When the stage of disagreement has been reached on a bill or resolution with House or Senate amendments, a motion to dispose of any amendment shall be privileged." I believe the disagreement referred to is on the amendment to defund PPACA.
At this point, the revelation occurred that said House Rule XXII, Section 4 had been changed as of October 1, 2013. Privilege, as I understand it, in this case, means that any member of the house may bring the motion to dispose of said amendment and call for a vote to end the shutdown. However, the change made on October 1 was that ONLY the Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, or his designee, could bring such a motion to the floor of the House. He was, of course, absent, and no designee was apparently present or made. [which is more than irresponsible]. This was the meaning that the requests for a vote could "not be entertained absent appropriate clearance", meaning ONLY Eric Cantor could approve such a motion. One man had been given complete control of this decision -- completely undemocratic.
Now, I was unable to find the action enacting this change and I was unable to find an up-to-date edition, online, of the House Rules reflecting this change. This is an unacceptable situation. As a citizen, I expect government documents to be available. I don't know how these changes are made and will probably not make the time to discover that process.
The other thing that is unacceptable is that, apparently, the House Democrats seemed completely unaware that this change had been made. How is that possible? Are they not members of the House. Is the process such that members of the House are not aware of such changes that affect ALL members of the House? Certainly, the possibility that changes in House Rules can be made without ALL members participating in the decision to make such changes is COMPLETELY undemocratic and unacceptable and inexcusable -- even treasonous, in my book. If this change was made in a democratic manner, with the participation of ALL members of the House, then the House Democrats are completely remiss in not only not knowing about the change but in not anticipating its consequences and in participating and accepting the change.
So, here we are, the Rules have been fixed to prevent any action. The House is clearly holding the President hostage in order to repeal the PPACA which is not their job to do not their prerogative. In the midst of these antics, I heard individuals speaking outright lies. I heard palming off the blame on the President. I heard individuals espousing a form of fundamentalist "Christianity" as the end toward which they were moving. I heard grown men whining and baiting and cheating and acting like snotty children. I did NOT hear reason. I did NOT hear interest in the interests of the American people. I did NOT hear professionalism. I did NOT hear humility.
While individual House Representative are elected by constituents in their districts, once in office and voting and making decisions on national issues, they must understand that their actions affect ALL Americans, many who may not have their point of view. I have been sending messages to the Speaker of the House and other members of government over the past few days expressing my wishes and point of view. I feel quite strongly that the time for courtesy and deference toward our elected officials, on all levels, is over. They are our employees. They're not doing their jobs.
My email to Representative Rob Portman: "It doesn't matter that I'm not one of your "constituents" because, once any of you are in office and making decisions affecting the entire country, all of the rest of us have a right and a responsibility to contact you and weigh in. I'm 64, soon be be 65, never married, female, Independent, a mother and grandmother, a professional, highly intelligent, highly educated and completely disgusted with all of you in D.C.
Anyone who thinks that a law that has been passed by both houses, signed by the President, been reviewed by the Supreme Court, should be repealed before it is implemented is severely stupid and irresponsibility. It was passed. It needs to be given at least 3 years from implementation to give it sufficient time to work out bugs, etc. before any action to repeal it is taken. But, this isn't about the PPACA, it's about trying to prevent the President from succeeding in making a positive contribution while in office. Why would anyone want to do that? It's not just about party politics. Think. What have they been trying to say about the President all along.
This is about some ugly, dirty agenda that certain members of our Congress have - but I'll get back to that.
Here's what I saw yesterday: First I have to say that I'm a terrible citizen and do not know the details of how our government works as well as I, and you, should. After all, if our government is supposed to be of, by and for us, then we should be actively involved and informed to ensure our "representatives" our representing us.
I saw someone officiating, not Representative Boehner. I'm sorry to say, I don't know how that procedure is handled. Someone was yielding his time to various members of the House, all of which seemed to be House Democrats asking for unanimous consent to move a vote to end the shutdown. I do know a little Parliamentary procedure, having worked for a number of public boards and sitting on several public committees and having been a member of various organizations. I did have to look up unanimous consent, however. These members were simply asking the House to vote to end the shutdown without objection to the vote.
Now what's so strange or bad about that? Well, the vote to end the shut down involves passing the C.R., continuing resolution. Continuing resolutions become necessary when the annual spending bill is NOT passed. The federal budget calendar runs from October 1 to September 30, so if a new annual budget is not passed by September 30, the government risks shutdown unless C.R.s, continuing resolutions are passed by Congress (the House). The C.R. generally means continuing the budget, as appropriated, per department, for a particular period of time. However, this House, at this time, refused to pass the budget, or the C.R. unless and until the PPACA is defunded.
Remember the PPACA was enacted into law. It has begun implementation, though shakily. Now, Congress wants to defund it. Does that seem intelligent or kosher or prudent? Not to me.
These calls for a vote were met with the identical response each time, that "... that request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance." This means that the call for a vote was not being allowed because it did not have the appropriate clearance, according to House Rules. There was clearly no intention of letting the vote happen, regardless of the fact that the law had been enacted and monies had been spend toward the implementation.
In the midst of this appeal for a vote, there was a break and a delegation of House Democrats appeared to say that they were bringing a petition to the floor, hoping to get enough signatures, from both parties to force the vote. I haven't read the House Rules on this procedure but they assured the viewing public that it was an acceptable procedure.
After the break, a member of the House posed a Parliamentary question, as I understood it, regarding a question of privilege (meaning the rights of members of the House), in that the requests for unanimous consent to call for a vote to end the shutdown were being denied. The speaker brought enlargements of Rule XXII, and section 4 of that rule which states: "When the stage of disagreement has been reached on a bill or resolution with House or Senate amendments, a motion to dispose of any amendment shall be privileged." I believe the disagreement referred to is on the amendment to defund PPACA.
At this point, the revelation occurred that said House Rule XXII, Section 4 had been changed as of October 1, 2013. Privilege, as I understand it, in this case, means that any member of the house may bring the motion to dispose of said amendment and call for a vote to end the shutdown. However, the change made on October 1 was that ONLY the Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, or his designee, could bring such a motion to the floor of the House. He was, of course, absent, and no designee was apparently present or made. [which is more than irresponsible]. This was the meaning that the requests for a vote could "not be entertained absent appropriate clearance", meaning ONLY Eric Cantor could approve such a motion. One man had been given complete control of this decision -- completely undemocratic.
Now, I was unable to find the action enacting this change and I was unable to find an up-to-date edition, online, of the House Rules reflecting this change. This is an unacceptable situation. As a citizen, I expect government documents to be available. I don't know how these changes are made and will probably not make the time to discover that process.
The other thing that is unacceptable is that, apparently, the House Democrats seemed completely unaware that this change had been made. How is that possible? Are they not members of the House. Is the process such that members of the House are not aware of such changes that affect ALL members of the House? Certainly, the possibility that changes in House Rules can be made without ALL members participating in the decision to make such changes is COMPLETELY undemocratic and unacceptable and inexcusable -- even treasonous, in my book. If this change was made in a democratic manner, with the participation of ALL members of the House, then the House Democrats are completely remiss in not only not knowing about the change but in not anticipating its consequences and in participating and accepting the change.
So, here we are, the Rules have been fixed to prevent any action. The House is clearly holding the President hostage in order to repeal the PPACA which is not their job to do not their prerogative. In the midst of these antics, I heard individuals speaking outright lies. I heard palming off the blame on the President. I heard individuals espousing a form of fundamentalist "Christianity" as the end toward which they were moving. I heard grown men whining and baiting and cheating and acting like snotty children. I did NOT hear reason. I did NOT hear interest in the interests of the American people. I did NOT hear professionalism. I did NOT hear humility.
While individual House Representative are elected by constituents in their districts, once in office and voting and making decisions on national issues, they must understand that their actions affect ALL Americans, many who may not have their point of view. I have been sending messages to the Speaker of the House and other members of government over the past few days expressing my wishes and point of view. I feel quite strongly that the time for courtesy and deference toward our elected officials, on all levels, is over. They are our employees. They're not doing their jobs.
My email to Representative Rob Portman: "It doesn't matter that I'm not one of your "constituents" because, once any of you are in office and making decisions affecting the entire country, all of the rest of us have a right and a responsibility to contact you and weigh in. I'm 64, soon be be 65, never married, female, Independent, a mother and grandmother, a professional, highly intelligent, highly educated and completely disgusted with all of you in D.C.
I've just read that you believe that there will be an
agreement about the debt ceiling that the shutdown by Thursday. I certainly hope so. This NEVER should have happened in the first
place. This is NOT about the Affordable
Care Act, this is about the irresponsible reneging on our fiscal obligations
and trying to blame that action on the President's refusal to
"negotiate" about a law that was passed and about to be
implemented. We The People owe what you
the federal government en masse have obligated us to, regardless of what the
GOP and the disgusting Tea Partiers think about the Affordable Care Act.
You are absolutely incorrect that the majority of the
country is NOT in favor of the Affordable Care Act. The only people who are against it are the ignorant,
delusional and those living in the past, before we had a black president.
I expect a CLEAN C.R. resolution to be passed ASAP. And, having been responsible for many public
budgets; this is no way to operate a budget or run anything. You've ALL forgotten what you're there for -
not to force fundamentalist "Christian" values down our throats; not
to tell us spend all your time and our money obstructing a president that the
GOP doesn't approve of; not to try to WIN the 2 party playoffs (I wish both parties
would disappear); you're all there to work to make our lives as comfortable, as
INDIVIDUAL citizens with our own values, our own agendas, our own beliefs, our
own aims. I, for one, don't need any of
you to make any decisions for me, I'm only stuck with all of you. I'm smarter, kinder, more generous, more
understanding, more inclusive than any of you that I've witnessed so far,
particularly members of the GOP. Your
values fall away in the face of defeat.
I watched Republican members of the House outright lie, in public, on
national television to the American People to maintain this idiocy. I watched in amazement revelation of the
change to Rule XXII that the House Dems seemed to be unaware of, that blocks any
democratic functioning of the House, then to find that I can't find the passage
of that change anywhere online, including on the House web site or in the 2
clearly outdated, online editions of the House Rules. It's treasonous.
You're not there to legislate an ideology, and while I'm not
in your electing district, if you don't see that in your votes on national
issues, you have a clear responsibility to me, you shouldn't be in any public office."
Looks like I have some lapses in the text but that's OK, he'll get the idea.
The GOP, specifically the Tea Party agenda, as I see it, to come....
No comments:
Post a Comment