I respectfully disagree. To me, the House understands an uncomfortable truth - As a nation we are broke, and we can no longer afford a government that spends precious taxpayer dollars on promoting its agendas and rewarding its friends. And in 90 days all Americans will be facing continually increasing levels of government intervention into their relationships with doctors and healthcare providers, governed by over 2,000 pages in just one law, and eventually over 100,000 pages of regulations.
The shutdown has cost me dearly in a number of ways, so I examined the content of the House's legislation. In one case, they only asked that the Executive Branch be subject to the provisions of the Affordable Care Act, like all American citizens, and asked the government to give the American people a one-year exemption from the provisions of Obamacare, as the administration had done for over 2,500 corporations. Is it extreme to say that what is fair for one is fair for all?
I only wish that there was more media coverage of the details - about how money was spend to make websites inaccessible, vs. just leaving them up. About how the Park Service was ordered to spend money closing off scenic overlooks so citizens could not see Mt. Rushmore, and how they added boat patrols to keep boaters and fishermen out of federally-owned waters. And when a Park Service employee spoke on how his agency was ordered to make life as difficult as possible for citizens, why was this story only carried in the Washington Times?
This small hiccup created an "Aha!" moment for me. The incredible differences in political philosophies in our nation became clear. I will never again support the party and politicians who, when given a choice, decided to make life as difficult as possible for the average citizen. Nor should you.
More information about text formats