Letters to the Editor

Letter: Consequences

October 9, 2013


To the editor:

I agree with Sen. Harry Reid in saying “The House Republican caucus is controlled by anarchists.”  That includes my Congresswoman, Lynn Jenkins!

House Republicans are clearly hell-bent to stop Obamacare from going into effect. But they need to act fast because most of it goes into effect soon and when it does, people will realize how valuable it is.

Never mind the fact that the Affordable Care Act is now the law, passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President. Never mind that, last November, the president won re-election. I understand that Obama is only the sixth president in history to win two elections with an actual majority of votes both times. (Recall that Bill Clinton won twice with only 43 percent and 49 percent.)

In our recent election, the Democrats increased their majority in the Senate and they received 1.4 million more votes for Congress than the Republicans, but Republican gerrymandering allowed the minority to retain their control in the House.

The central issue for the Republicans in the 2012 campaign was repealing Obamacare, which Mitt Romney promised to do on “Day One.” They lost. (How Romney could do this hours after taking the oath of office is a mystery known only to God and She isn’t talking.) Meanwhile, the Democrats ran on supporting Obamacare, and they won. Apparently the House Republicans, including our Kansas delegation, don’t think elections have consequences any more.


Abdu Omar 4 years, 7 months ago

When the election comes next year, and when you are in the voting booth, all alone with your ballot, remember this month's fiasco. It certainly is time to stop the craziness in congress. I have lost all respect for it - both houses. Get to work and stop this!! Lynn Jenkins, although I am an independent and not affliated with any party, I voted for you to represent this district and what do you do? You fall in line with party votes, not representing our district. Can't vote for you again. Come on be a leader and force the repubs to do what is right for the people. Obamacare is law, you must repeal it, if you don't like it. The President can't just waive it away. I think you should give it a chance.

Brock Masters 4 years, 7 months ago

I understand the dislike of the GOP tactics as they try to stop the ACA, but not the notion that since it is the current law they should not try to repeal it.

By that logic, if Brownback and Kobach are re-elected, then democrats should not try to repeal any current laws. No changes to the recent laws passed regarding voting or concealed carry for example.

And to correct the letter write, the bill didn't actually pass both the Senate and the House. It was passed and became law only through procedural maneuverings.

jafs 4 years, 7 months ago

They can try to repeal it, and have over 50 times, but they keep losing, which is the obvious outcome, given the makeup of Congress. So that's a big waste of our tax money, time and energy.

Are D in KS, who are in a small minority, trying to repeal any of the current laws in KS?

If/when R regain control of Congress and have a president who won't veto a repeal (or they have enough votes to overturn a veto), then repealing the ACA is a possibility. Until then, they should accept it, and stop wasting time energy and taxpayer money.

Just my two cents.

And, it's ironic as heck that this attempt to de-fund it will almost certainly cost them votes in the next midterms, and make it less likely they'll have the conditions necessary to repeal it anytime soon.

Also, it would be better, in general, for politicians to have things they stand "for", rather than "against", in my opinion, and for the atmosphere in Washington to be less of a competitive sport between "sides" and more of a shared attempt to govern and solve our problems.

Brock Masters 4 years, 7 months ago


I agree with you. You stated why it is stupid for the GOP to pursue this course of action. Agree 100%.

I just disagree with people when they cite it being current law and that Obama was elected to a second term as the reason for the GOP not trying to repeal it. Whether it is the ACA or some other law, politicians have a responsibility to their constituents who believe it is a bad law to try and change or repeal it

Kate Rogge 4 years, 7 months ago

And they have the responsibility not to shut down the country and default on the country's debts. Let's see our responsible congressmen and women do that before we go through yet another attempt to repeal ACA.

somebodynew 4 years, 7 months ago

Fred- you are missing the point that jafs is trying to make. I agree with you that if one side or the other doesn't like a law that is passed they should try to change it. They have tried that over 40 times and failed. So now they resort to extortion and hold the rest of the country hostage until they get their way. THAT is what people have a problem with. Well, that and now trying to spin it and blame Obama for not wanting to have 'talks'. Fortunately I think a lot of Americans are seeing through that c***.

elliottaw 4 years, 7 months ago

They legally can't strike it down with these budget talks, and they know that, but they are saying they refuse to talk until everyone agrees to get rid of the ACA. That would be like the Dems saying they would refuse to talk until the Republicans agreed to ban assualt weapons. They are two completly different subjects (budget and the ACA) you can't say you don't like this so you refuse to talk about the budget.

ebyrdstarr 4 years, 7 months ago

"And to correct the letter write, the bill didn't actually pass both the Senate and the House."

Do people really believe this? This is absolutely, completely, utterly, 100% untrue. For crying out loud, if a bill doesn't pass both the Senate and the House, it would never be sent to the President for signature. We would have an epic constitutional crisis if ever a President did try to proclaim that he was signing something into law even if it didn't pass through both houses of Congress.

Rest assured, a majority of members in both houses of Congress voted yes on this legislation before it was sent to the President to be signed into law. What you are probably thinking of is that the Senate avoided subjecting this bill to a cloture vote, which would have required 60 votes. But the Constitution calls for a majority vote in the Senate for a bill to pass. This bill did, in fact, pass the Senate with a majority vote.

Brock Masters 4 years, 7 months ago

How am I missing the point when I say I agree with him 100%?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.