Tea Party controls GOP
Thanks to Lucille Homoki for her letter, “Priorities Needed),” (Sept. 25), regarding how cutting food stamps and public transportation hurts the poor. She brings to light how taking a meat axe to the budget leaves collateral damage.
I don't believe anyone wants cuts that hurt the poor who really need it. We want thoughtful, responsible cuts to eliminate those who abuse these benefits. Unfortunately, the Republicans don't use proper prudence to separate the users from the abusers. It's too hard for them, drilling down into legislation to make a good law.
This is also true of ObamaCare, parts of which I like. My son will be able to use my insurance until he is age 26, giving him eight years to go to school and find a job without worrying about health insurance. There is no need to cut or eliminate ObamaCare. Just drill down into the law and make changes to strengthen it.
But the GOP won't. They are still stinging from how Democrats rammed through this law and are obsessed with an immature mantra, “No kumbaya with Democrats.” It's a “Tea Party way or the highway” attitude and people are sick and tired of it.
This is all about the Tea Party agenda and could result in the government not paying its bills. This is why Republicans who aren't Tea Party zealots are frustrated.
Wasting time to change the law of the land because you don't like it and shutting down the government to get your way like an insolent child is no way to run our country.
Ms. Homoki is right — priorities in Washington definitely are needed.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Corbett is the honest choice
- Inconsistent Wolf
- Corbett over Wolf II
- Corbett over Wolf I
- Gross in 45th
- Justice incomplete
- Barbour sentence shameful
- Watson in 33rd
- Embrace domestic energy production
- Gun questions for mayor I
- Harhai’s controversies