fbpx

The Constitution Wants Obama and Democrats to Negotiate

Here’s my hot sports (politics) opinion: Barack Obama is being absolutely ridiculous by refusing to negotiate with Republicans on the government shutdown (and soon the debt ceiling as well).

As most of you know, I’m a libertarian and I strongly dislike the policies of almost every president and congressmen that has been elected in my lifetime. I don’t pick sides between Republicans and Democrats because I think both parties support terrible policies.

obama
photo credit: jamesomalley

I’m not going to get into the specific policy disagreements (aspects of Obamacare) that are preventing the two sides from coming to an agreement. I want to address how the president of the United States refuses to engage in political negotiations to end the government shutdown. A lot of websites give slanted views on things, so I like to link you directly to the source. Here is Obama talking about the negotiations.

My summary is this: Obama and Democrats are willing to negotiate only after the budget is passed and the debt ceiling is raised.

So basically, Democrats are only willing to negotiate after Republicans have nothing to negotiate with.

Let’s talk about history for a moment. Government shutdowns are not new. In fact, the government shut down many times when Ronald Reagan was president and the speaker of the house was a Democrat. In each of those shutdowns, Reagan and the Democrats engaged in good faith negotiations and came to a deal everyone agreed on.

Someone might say, “Just because this has happened before doesn’t mean it’s right.” I would refer these people to the United States Constitution as opposed to some commentary by Chris Matthews or Sean Hannity.

This Debate Was Planned over 200 Years Ago

Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution states, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law”.

As you can see, the law of the land gives Congress (the branch that makes the laws) the explicit power over deciding how the federal government spends money. This is NOT the power of the president, the supreme court, or commentators on MSNBC or Fox News.

A government shutdown is not some unintended consequence of a poorly thought out system of government; it is an important and essential part of ensuring the government represents the interests of the people.

If our founders wanted any law that was passed to be automatically funded, they could have easily placed that into the Constitution. They did not. Passing a law is one action. Passing an appropriations bill to authorize the government to pay for that law is an entirely separate action. This was all intentional.

And if current lawmakers think appropriations bills are unnecessary they can amend the Constitution. They haven’t done that yet, so they need to abide by the document that they swore an oath to uphold.

Obama and the Democrats Need to Grow Up

Our government was founded on the principle that we have a debate over which laws deserve to be funded. Congress and the president should do their jobs, negotiate in good faith, and get the job done.

Every one of the politicians in Washington took an oath to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution demands that an appropriations bill is passed, and passing any bill requires negotiation. Refusal to negotiate is refusal to do your job.

You can blame both Republicans and Democrats for eventually passing a really crappy appropriations bill that will increase our national debt by another $1 trillion or so next year. But you can blame Democrats and Barack Obama for not getting it done sooner due to their refusal to negotiate.

Readers: Who do you blame the shutdown on?

39 thoughts on “The Constitution Wants Obama and Democrats to Negotiate”

  1. I think that Obama would negotiate, but he’s not willing to negotiate on what to negotiate on. Let me explain: My understanding is that the Republicans want to talk about Obamacare as part of the shutdown and debt ceiling issues. Obama’s take is that Obamacare already got voted on and passed, so to link that to the budget discussion would be tying one thing to another for no reason. And I see his point. I’m not a fan of Obama at all, but I think the Republicans trying to make this about something it isn’t puts the blame on them.

    1. Money Beagle,

      The intent of the ACA has always been to slowly transition to a single-payer, european-socialism-style healthcare system. This will come at a huge financial cost to our nation. This is why the debate over the ACA and the debate over the exorbitant debt we continue to accumulate are closely related. Please research this issue more so that you can make more informed posts.

      1. The intent of the ACA is to transition to a single payer system? (I also noted that you HAD to throw in the obligatory “socialism” adjective, well played)

        I also love this: “Please research this issue more so that you can make more informed posts”, because you clearly provided facts and data supporting your assertion.

      2. Sarah, guess what?
        I am one of these immigrant that came from these european-socialist country, namely France.
        I could go forever on to explain what is socialism, what is a single-payer healthcare, the benefit, and finally you could also do your homework, and find plenty of research that state that :
        1) life expectancy is longer, and general population health is better than in the US (and France is not the best, try any european countries)
        2) the total cost of healthcare is half than in US.

        One question Sarah, if you dare to answer: why the corn industry is subsidized in an almost communistic way in the US? Check your number! And also look at the resulting obesity and diabet consequence of dirt cheap high fructose corn syrup! ON YOUR TAX-DOLLAR!!!

  2. The republicans want to kill the ACA.which is the law of the land, it passed and was approved by the Supreme Court. THERE IS NOTHING LEFT FOR THEM TO NEGOTIATE ABOUT. Tge debt ceiling always gets raised, republicans are just throwing a temper tantrum and using that as their argument this week, I’m sure by next week it will be negotiating about something else. I hope the president stays strong and refuses to “negotiate” with these whiny overgrown babies. Really wish people who write finance blogs would go back to writing about finance instead of their misguided attempts at preaching on government policy.

    1. Tara,

      Please do not forget that the DEBT CEILING is also the “law of the land.” Obama would like to alter THIS law regarding our nation’s crippling debt levels, but he is refusing to make concessions on delaying the ACA. This is an inconsistent approach to governance, and the President’s actions demonstrate that he is out of touch with the will of the American people. I request that you please stick to the facts of the matter and avoid labels and name-calling in future postings.

      -David

  3. Honestly, the ACA and how to afford the health insurance under it is apart of the finance world. I know for myself that this is going to have to start being put into my budget because my employer does not offer health insurance. Also, the longer the government stays shut down the higher prices are going to be. I don’t care whether you are Republican or Democrat or whatever. We elected this officials to do a job. Instead of cutting funding for monuments and that the thing would be is to not pay them because if any of us did what they are doing we would be fired on the spot.

    1. “Also, the longer the government stays shut down the higher prices are going to be.” -Amanda

      Amanda, please explain to me the connection between the length of the government shutdown, and the prices of health insurance. I fail to see the logic in your statement. -James

      1. James,

        I was not relating the two. Tara stated that finance bloggers should write about finance not politics. I am pointing out that some people, like myself, will have to budget to have healthcare. We also will have to budget the higher costs of goods while the government is shut down. Like I stated, they should grow up and do their jobs FOR the American people and stop being so fussy.

        Amanda

        1. Amanda,

          You have not addressed my question. Either you misunderstand what I am asking, or you are dodging the question. I ask again: Why will the government shutdown increase the prices of ‘goods’ or healthcare coverage? You have neglected to explain your rationale for making such a statement.

          Also, finance bloggers have a unique perspective on this issue. At present, the US government borrows more than 42 cents out of every dollar it spends. This debt is the biggest threat to our way of life and our national sovereignty. I welcome any voice of reason (even personal finance bloggers) who wishes to convey his or her frustration over this lack of common sense.

          -James

  4. Very well written article, Kevin. People can argue about policy, but the facts support your assertion: The Republican-controlled congress is not doing anything inappropriate by its refusal to fund Obamacare. As you detailed above, the Constitution affords this power to the congress precisely so that politicians will come to the bargaining table… If I was a Democrat, I would be embarrassed that the President is refusing to show more leadership on this issue…. …leadership is not refusing to negotiate with your lawfully-appointed governing counterparts.

  5. I am very appreciative of Senator Ted Cruz for spearheading this effort… Finally, a Republican who comes to Washington and doesn’t immediately forget everything he promised he would do while campaigning. He represents the feelings of such a huge portion of the American population, but you wouldn’t realize that just by watching the biased network TV news. Say what you will about him, the man certainly has principles.

    1. That’s one way to look at Cruz. The other is to see him as self serving and only interested in furthering himself, including members of his own party!

      You appreciate Senator Cruz going to Washington and doesn’t immediately forget everything he promised to do? You realize that Cruz can and will never “repeal every last word of Obamacare” as he promised to do? So he continues to make a promise he can never deliver? Some principles!

      Also, what portion of the population does he represent? A “huge portion”? Is 50% a huge portion, is 75%? A “huge portion” of America also thinks that shutting down the government and defaulting in order to get your way is wrong. Clearly that’s no the portion that you must be talking about.

      1. Mr. Tom,

        1. If Ted Cruz is going against the Democrats, his fellow Republicans, AND the will of the American people (as you seem to suggest), then how exactly is he “furthering himself?”

        2. I am not aware that Ted Cruz promised that he would single-handedly repeal Obamacare. The only thing I expected Ted Cruz to do was to try his absolute hardest to repeal the ACA, and so far he has been standing upon this promise. So yeah, I would absolutely say that the man has principles.

        3. A slight majority of the population would like to repeal Obamacare. If 50% of the USA would like to repeal Obamacare, then this equates to more than 150,000,000 people… In my book, 150 Million people does constitute a “huge” portion of the population. You might disagree on what “huge” means, but I’m not really interested in discussing semantics. The law has so many unnecessary components and it really won’t be good for the economy, the nation, or even the field of healthcare.

        4. Like most people, I agree that a Government shutdown is regrettable. However, if a government shutdown is what it will take to reign in just a little bit of our reckless spending, then unfortunately that is what should happen.

        Please respond, Tom. I would like to hear more about what you have to say.

        -Lars

        1. 1. He’s furthering himself by playing into a very well funded base and constituency in order to further his political career. Of course he isn’t the only one in Congress and the Senate to do this, all politicians do it, but to claim he’s a man of principles is a tough sell. His 21 hour “filibuster” did nothing except give him an extra 21 hours of media coverage and make a name for himself. Why else would you stand up there for that long, wasting the country’s time and money, reading Dr. Suess? What type of principles are those? You probably saw the video of Rand Paul and McConnell talking strategy on CNN… same deal for Cruz, it’s all about him, not us (yes, I realize the fallacy here).

          2. Ted Cruz promising to repeal every word if elected:

          http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/03/ted-cruz-at-redstate-we-are-winning-this-fight/

          3. Semantics, true, my point is that half the American population is in favor, so when you are split down the middle, do you repeal every single word? Where do you draw the line? Republicans want it defunded, now they want to negotiate, and all of this back and forth is costing money and impacting lives. I blame both sides, but I put more blame on the Republicans and Cruz for starting down this path. It was a failing strategy to begin with, and they knew it, but still went ahead with it.

          4. It is regrettable and questionable if it will accomplish anything at all. Given there was absolutely no chance of defunding the law, why hold the government hostage? Why put 800,000 people out of work for a week, and then turn around and pay them for not working? It’s unclear if it will even reign in any reckless spending. The debt ceiling deal, on the other hand, might yield some cost cutting results, hopefully without causing us to default.

  6. I originally thought that Obamacare was a great idea when they were talking about it a few years ago. I even had a bumper sticker on my refrigerator supporting it! However, after reading about all the details after they passed the law, I am scared to death about the future of healthcare in this country! My premiums have increased SIGNIFICANTLY over the past 18 months or so, and just a few weeks ago I received a letter from my healthcare provider saying that our current healthcare coverage plan was no longer acceptable under the ACA. This means that I have to pay even MORE money to buy a plan that I DO NOT WANT OR NEED! This issue has caused me to wake up considerably to what is going on in this country. I feel like I have lost all faith in Mr. Obama over this and other issues…

    1. You realize that over the past 18 months, Obamacare wasn’t even in full effect?

      Your provider was raising prices because they wanted to, it had very little to do with Obamacare.

      1. This is an incorrect statement, Tom. I work for one of the larger HMOs in the Northeast Region, and Obamacare has been changing the way we do business since about 6 months after it was signed into law. It is true that the ACA is only now up and running at the CONSUMER LEVEL, but the ACA has been restricting business at the corporate level for a long while… Obamacare has increased a LOT of red-tape and put many more restrictions on the insurance providers, and this extra cost is naturally past on to the consumers…there is no other way to pay for it than to pass the costs onto consumers. If you look into this matter a little bit, you will see exactly what I’m talking about. Better yet, call your insurance provider and ask them how they have been affected since the ACA was signed into law.

        1. So you are saying that red-tape… overhead/administration/paperwork… is causing rates to increase significantly?

          What is the % cost breakdown pre-ACA and post-ACA of a typical insurance rate? What % is overhead? 7%? 30%? 50%?

          Let’s assume overhead rates account for 30% of an insurance cost and the total cost of coverage increases by 50%….

          $100 monthly policy, $30 goes to overhead. Costs increase to $150. That means, $30 increases by $50 to $80. So now, your overhead rates are over 50% of your total health care costs.

          It’s an incredibly simplistic example, but by your account, it’s overhead rates that are causing employer rates to skyrocket and not the general increase in health care costs.

          The average employer premium only rose about 4% in 2013, but you are saying the ACA is already causing huge increases? So what explains the discrepancy?

    2. Also, your insurance provider is lying to you about your current plan or your are lying to us.

      According to the ACA website, any current plan qualifies as “minimum essential coverage”.

      You should NOT have to buy more insurance or a different plan.

      https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-someone-doesnt-have-health-coverage-in-2014/

      “Minimum essential coverage
      To avoid the fee in 2014 you need insurance that qualifies as minimum essential coverage. If you’re covered by any of the following in 2014, you’re considered covered and don’t have to pay a penalty:

      ~Any Marketplace plan, or any individual insurance plan you already have
      ~Any employer plan (including COBRA), with or without “grandfathered” status. This includes retiree plans”

      1. Tom, the way it was explained to me was that since we have a FAMILY plan that didn’t qualify as meeting the “minimum coverage,” rather than INDIVIDUAL plans, then we do not qualify to have our plans grandfathered-in. If all the members of my family had individual plans then we would ok, but this would cost more than TWICE the cost of having a family plan.

        Please get your facts right before claiming that people are lying. Very rude and not a good representation for your side’s argument.

        1. You are right, it was rude for me to claim you were lying, I apologize.

          I have not taken a side in this debate, so I represent no side.

          That said, I still think you are getting screwed by your provider. Current plans, individual or family, are both covered as minimum coverage, that’s how my provider and friends in Washington who work in this sector both explained it. If your provider is telling you otherwise, I’d certainly call them and complain, and if that doesn’t work try to contact someone in the government, when and if they ever get back to work. Maybe there are loopholes and the law isn’t fully understood… both are possibilities.

  7. “If you like your current plan, you can keep it.” -Obama

    “Ummm…the above statement is actually a lie.” -Our Current Reality

    Wendy, I also had to purchase a different, more expensive plan as a result of the ACA. I am very healthy and in my mid-30s. I resent having to purchase extra coverage that I don’t need (or want!) and that I really can’t afford. I am very disappointed in our politicians for the way that they snuck this crappy Obamacare right under our noses…

    1. See above, your current plan is acceptable. It’s your insurance company that’s screwing you, not Obamacare. You can claim it’s in response to Obamacare, but given the fact that it hasn’t been fully implemented is proof enough that your company is the culprit.

    2. How did you have to purchase a different plan? The ACA minimum coverage says that current plans, employer or individual, are sufficient.

      If you had to purchase a different, more expensive plan, that’s your insurers fault and has nothing to do with a law that has not been fully implemented.

      If you don’t want that insurance, look elsewhere. If you can’t find it, that’s because insurance companies are all jacking up prices… why? Because they can and the ACA is a convenient scapegoat.

      1. Tom,

        Are you a Whitehouse staffer or somethin? You’ve commented on this issue like you wrote the law yourself, lol. So defensive haha. This law is more than bad for our country, it is disastereous. Please do a little more homework and take some of the emotion out of your posts. It makes you look so frenetic.

        1. Ben,

          Yep, I’m a White House staffer, Obama and I are boys. Never mind, then I’d be out of a job thanks to the legislative branch.

          No, I’m just a guy sick of the rhetoric and spin.

          You mention how disastrous this will be for the country, you know what, you are right. Your baseless, factless assertion has me completely convinced!!

          haha, thanks man, I appreciate you setting me straight!

  8. Kate @ ParkaGirlFinance

    I think it is ironic how some of the postings mentioned that personal finance bloggers shouldn’t write about politics, even though the issue that Kevin is talking about is our national financial strategy (or lack there of…). Who exactly should write about politics then? Keep on spreading the word, Kevin. Those of us who are more informed definitely support you!

  9. Obamacare isn’t even a good deal…If you currently pay for your own plan, go on the ACA website and see how much they are charging for a comparable plan… For my family’s current plan, Obamacare was charging an extra $135 per month for slightly LESS coverage! This program is so horrible, I honestly don’t think there will be very many enrollees… If you are already getting defacto free healthcare by not paying any insurance, why would you start paying now? Paying more even? Doesn’t make any sense…

  10. Great article, Kevin. Obamacare is bad for our economy and bad for the future of healthcare in the USA. If we implement Obamacare, where will the Canadians go for quality, timely healthcare? I am concerned…

  11. Obamacare isn’t free…i just graduated college in may and they told me that i would have free obamacare and birthcontrol, but when i went on the site it says i have to pay 230 dollars per month! this is not right! we deserve free healthcare and sexual healthcare prevention! tell your congress members

  12. Just for reference, this amendment is why the government is shut down right now:

    “Amendment to the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 59—Provides a one-year delay in the Affordable Care Act individual mandate; requires Members of Congress, congressional staff, and political appointees (including White House staff) to enroll in the Obamacare exchanges without an employer subsidy for coverage; amends the expiration date of the CR to be December 15, 2013; makes a technical change to the Eisenhower Memorial Commission provision; adds a new provision to extend the authority for the U.S. to issue Special Immigrant Visas.”

    I think we can all agree that this amendment we destroy the USA. Now you see why Obama and the Democrats are willing to negotiate, but not “budge” on this amendment, to protect the “people.”

    1. Mega Dittos scott s. I completely agree. Americans are absolutely waking up to just how terrible the ACA is. Obama’s approval is at 37% today… I hope that the Republicans stand strong and don’t give in.

  13. Obama and the Dems want the Republicans to pass a clean CR bill and then begin the larger budget discussions. The clean CR bill would have only taken them to mid-November anyway, so the Republicans still have leverage to negotiate. The Senate (finally) passed its own budget earlier this year. Why is it that the Republicans weren’t willing to negotiate then? They refused to discuss the Senate and House bills almost 20something times! It is more than disingenuous now to claim that it is the Dems that don’t want to negotiate. Both sides are at fault and both sides need to grow up. And, probably most importantly, both sides need to stop claiming to speak for the American people. Though if you are going to publish a political piece, it might probably would be a good idea to more accurately represent the current situation.

  14. The whole deal is ridiculous. If you are a newbie wanting to run for office now is the time because I am ready to fire the whole lot and start over. None of our elected officials have a clue about what the American people want, and they have all become so disconnected with the average person they are just causing more and more damage to our countries reputation and our economy.

  15. Great Post Kevin! I agree that the Democrats are like children, not allowing multiple bills drawn up by the House Republicans to even see the senate floor. They are sinister, they are not looking to bring the country together, rather tear it apart, which is a tactic straight out of the Rules for Radicals playbook!

    1. Jim, you are exactly right. The Democrats achieve success by dividing the country and then capitalizing on the chaos from an endless stream of self-created crises. Their intent is to destroy this nation… I thank God for men like Ted Cruz.

Comments are closed.