To the Editor:
A recent letter sent by Wally Hauck regarding The Affordable Care Act describing how the Democrats lie, especially President Obama, and how Mr. Obama, as a constitutional lawyer, must have known the ruling would turn out as "really a tax.”


Now surly, President Obama must be clairvoyant, since he should have predicted the Supreme Court decision and its rationale.
So now, Mr. Hauck says President Obama was "either lying or incompetent" adding "...all this is driving us to serfdom, leaving individual liberty lying on the side of the road like some discarded trash."
Mr. Hauck continues, "They did it here again and this time they lied about it too.”
What I found revealing about Mr. Hauck’s comments is that he, like other GOP/Tea Party types, cannot accept any opposing view or decision. In this case, the Supreme Court upholding The Affordable Care Act (ACA).
If it doesn't agree with their view, It just can't be right. When confronted with opposition, the other side is often described as lying and often includes insulting terms: "Obamacare", "lying", "being a serf" and "discarded trash" in this instance.
My point is that, as evidenced by the on-going actions of the Gop/Tea Party as demonstrated by Mr. Hauck, can anyone with a different point of view ever be right, or even close to right?
All opponents are not even worthy of respect as evidenced by their actions. In the old days, once a decision was rendered, supporters and opponents closed ranks and went on to the next issue. Today, the GOP/Tea Party continues to fight and disrupt.
Hence our problem in Washington and why gridlock will continue as long as there are enough Tea-Partiers in Washington to muck up honest dialogue.
They have hijacked a good party. I, myself, voted Republican at times but this is not now your fathers GOP. Until they are recognized for what they truly are, nothing will progress.
Regarding the Affordable Care Act, scholars will discuss this question for years to come. Is it a tax? Is it a penalty? I leave it to them.
As a tax payer and not a scholar, to me the former way was a tax since all had to pay. Now, only those who choose not to pay, pay the penalty. Sounds fair to me.
John Scalici