Cruz to lead the charge to Defund the ACA act.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**whembly**

I still think it's a waste of time... but, there's one thing that I think everyone ignores.

Congress has ABSOLUTE power of the purse.

I saw this link on my twitter feed that asks Sen.Ted Cruz 4 explicit questions:

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has been among the most vocal Republican senators in pushing the latest strategy to defund Obamacare.

“Now is the best time,” Cruz said in an email interview with The Daily Caller.

Using this strategy, which is also favored by Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee and Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, lawmakers would refuse to vote for a continuing resolution to keep funding the federal government unless President Obama’s healthcare law is defunded as part of the legislation.

Under current law, the government is funded until Sept. 30, meaning a continuing resolution needs to be passed to keep the government from shutting down.

But inside the Republican Party, many lawmakers object to the strategy, saying it gives false hope because it simply won’t work. Without having control of the Senate or the presidency, such legislation would be impossible to pass.

The Daily Caller attempted to have a high-profile Republican on both sides of the debate answer four of the same questions about the strategy. While Cruz agreed to answer questions, no Republican that TheDC contacted on the other side of the issue would agree to do the same.

Through spokespeople, Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan and former White House aide Karl Rove all declined to participate. All have spoken out against the strategy.
–
Here are the four questions posed to Cruz by The Daily Caller:

What precisely is your strategy to defund Obamacare and what’s your best argument for employing this method?
Cruz: Now is the best time: There is bipartisan agreement that Obamacare isn’t working. It’s killing jobs, causing more and more Americans to be driven into part-time employment, causing employers to drop health insurance and dramatically increasing health insurance premiums. Even the unions — President Obama’s most reliable allies — are jumping ship.

The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, the most important check we have on an overreaching executive. Now is the best chance we have to exercise this power in order to defund Obamacare. It can be done as part of passing the Continuing Resolution (CR) — a piece of legislation that funds the government and must be renewed by September 30th.

The Continuing Resolution gives us real leverage to defund Obamacare. Fighting this fight won’t be easy, but it’s now or never. President Obama’s strategy is simple: on January 1, the subsidies kick in. President Obama wants to get as many Americans addicted to the subsidies because he knows that in modern times, no major entitlement has ever been implemented and then unwound. That’s why the administration announced that it won’t enforce eligibility requirements–essentially encouraging fraud and “liar loans”–because that way the most people possible will get addicted to the sugar.

To stop that from happening, the House should pass a new Continuing Resolution to fund the entire federal government except Obamacare. The House should include a rider in that bill that explicitly prohibits any federal dollars – discretionary and mandatory – from being spent on it. Republicans control the House, and have already voted some 40 times to repeal Obamacare, so if we stand together, we can do this.

Then the bill comes to the Senate. Republicans need just 41 votes to prevent Democrats from passing legislation that funds Obamacare – 45 Republicans in the Senate have already voted to repeal Obamacare, so if we stand together, we can do this also.

At that point, we simply have to continue to stand together and not blink. If Republicans are truly against Obamacare, they will not vote to fund it.

While the ultimate goal is to repeal the law in its entirety, defunding is a crucial step so we can stop the law from being implemented before Americans get hooked on the subsidies. We cannot just wait for Republicans to take back the Senate to repeal the law. We owe it to Americans to prevent as much of it from being implemented as possible right now.

If we hold 41 Republicans in the Senate or 218 Republicans in the House, we can win the fight because no Continuing Resolution can pass without our support.

And, for any Republicans who disagree, the following question is revealing: what is your alternative? All the various suggestions (delaying the individual mandate, removing the IRS from Obamacare) are fine and good — but none of them can happen before January 1. The House can have a symbolic vote on all of them, but Harry Reid will kill every one.

The only way to force passage is to condition the CR on defunding Obamacare. Otherwise, the so-called alternatives don’t stop the subsidies on January 1; and, if it’s correct that, once implemented, it will never be unwound (and no Republican has effectively refuted that premise), then not fighting on the CR is effectively saying we surrender and will allow Obamacare to become a permanent feature of our economy, hurting jobs and growth in perpetuity.

Explain specifically how your strategy actually has a realistic chance of being successful?

Cruz: Republicans have the votes to make this possible. Moreover, the American public is increasingly behind the effort — winning this fight is dependent on Americans standing up and holding their elected officials accountable to doing what’s in the people’s best interests.

Americans realize that Obamacare hurts jobs and economic growth, by penalizing full-time employment and raising taxes. They realize that it won’t bring down costs, that it will create longer wait times and scarcity of health services. They recognize it for the disaster it is and they don’t want it.

We can get the votes we need to defund Obamacare if the grassroots rise up in huge numbers to force their elected officials to do the right thing before late September. If this happens and if Republicans have the political will to stand firm for their principles, we can succeed. That is why I am spending the next 50 days reaching out to conservatives, activists, and citizens to get them involved.

President Obama wants to grant a waiver from Obamacare for big corporations and for Members of Congress — but not for hard-working American families. That position is indefensible.

If the American people get mobilized by the millions, Congress will listen. Republicans will stand their ground. And Democrats will succumb to the pressure and agree to grant American families the same waiver President Obama has already granted giant corporations and Members of Congress. That’s how we win.

Your opponents argue your strategy won’t work because Republicans, without control of the White House or the Senate, do not have the votes. They say it’s simply dishonest to lead conservatives across the country to think it would. Opponents also say that Republicans will take the blame for any shutdown, thus harming your midterm chances. Your response?

Cruz: One thing is for sure: we lose 100 percent of the battles we don’t fight.

With divided government, either side can stop legislation. As a result, whoever is in the stronger position with no action has the advantage at the bargaining table. That’s why Republicans got such a lousy deal with the fiscal cliff — if nothing happened, the result was a massive tax increase on every American taxpayer…a result that President Obama was perfectly happy with. So he had all the leverage. With the continuing resolution, if Republicans stand together, we have the leverage.

President Obama may well choose to force a temporary partial government shutdown, rather than pass a CR that defunds Obamacare. But, if that happens, what happens next? One side or the other has to blink.

Why do people assume that President Obama and Democrats will never ever ever blink, and so Republicans must do so instead? If 41 Republicans stand together in the Senate and 218 in the House, we can insist that any Continuing Resolution does not fund Obamacare. We win by sticking to our principles longer than the Democrats stick to theirs.

And this fight doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Republicans win the fight by winning the argument: going to the American people and making the case that Obamacare is a “train wreck” that is killing jobs and hurting those who are struggling to climb the economic ladder. That’s a winning argument, if only we make it effectively.

In 2010, we ran on repealing Obamacare and won an electoral tsunami. In 2012, we ran a cautious campaign, barely mentioning Obamacare, and got walloped. The way you win, especially in an off-year election, is to stand for principle in way that mobilizes the American people to show up and vote. The way you lose is to stand for nothing and demoralize your supporters. Running away from this fight would do that.

Too many Republicans are obsessed with poll numbers and terrified of who takes the “blame.” Do the right thing, lead, and the politics will take care of itself.

Republicans will only take the “blame” if they fail to make the argument and let the Democrats define them. We want to fund government in full, without funding Obamacare. We have voted to do so. If Harry Reid and the Democrats are willing to shut down the government for a law that Americans don’t want, that’s their decision. And they should be held accountable.

We’ve seen shutdowns before, twice in 1995, and the world didn’t end. When House Republicans stood up to President Clinton, we had a partial temporary shutdown for 22 days. Social Security checks still kept coming, the military kept being paid, interest on the debt was satisfied, but non-essential government activities were temporarily suspended.

There was some political pain, to be sure, as Bill Clinton took a 2×4 to the House Republicans in the media, but look at the gains. As a result of Republicans standing together in 1995, Bill Clinton declared “the era of big government is over,” and we saw year after year of balanced budgets, welfare reform, and some of the most fiscally responsible policies Congress has ever produced. All because we didn’t surrender, we stood our ground.

How are those who disagree with you on the strategy distorting your views on this?

Cruz: Aside from the defeatist view that this can’t be won, addressed above, there are three significant misunderstandings:

A) Some, even among our allies, describe our proposal as “shutting down the government to defund Obamacare.” Such framing clearly tilts towards the Democrats. Our perspective is, we would pass a bill to fund the entire government except Obamacare; it is the President and his allies who have threatened to shut down the government to force Obamacare onto working families, even though its problems are manifest.

B) Another recurring line is that a recent Congressional Research Service report confirmed that a government shutdown would not, in itself, fully defund Obamacare. Of course not; no one has ever suggested it would. The point is, passing a CR that defunds Obamacare — that explicitly prohibits discretionary and mandatory spending — defunds Obamacare. That’s what this fight is all about.

C) Some have suggested this initiative would only defund Obamacare’s discretionary spending, while leaving in place the far larger mandatory spending. This is incorrect, as we can absolutely include language in the CR to defund Obamacare’s mandatory spending as well.

Sure... it can work.

But, the (R)s can't get their gak together... not.going.to.happen.evar.

**azazel the cat**

So the GOP is, as usual, planning on the standard coercion tactic of forcing American to hold a gun to its own head and shout demands at itself?

Bored now.

**d-usa**

Oh look, a tandrum.

That worked out every other time they tried it.

**Ma55ter_fett**

They could always just work to make it better...

**azazel the cat**

Ma55ter_fett wrote:They could always just work to make it better...

Why would they do that? The absurd insurance-based health system is one of the best ways of eliminating economic mobility, thus ensuring the economic class gap stays nice and wide; fuelling the modern slave labour economy whose overlords fund the GOP.

**dogma**

President Obama wants to get as many Americans addicted to the subsidies because he knows that in modern times, no major entitlement has ever been implemented and then unwound. That’s why the administration announced that it won’t enforce eligibility requirements–essentially encouraging fraud and “liar loans”–because that way the most people possible will get addicted to the sugar.

...winning this fight is dependent on Americans standing up and holding their elected officials accountable to doing what’s in the people’s best interests.

I'm going to give him credit and assume he was using the word "people" as though it were equivalent to the word "Americans", because there some extremely poor comparisons down the alternative line of reasoning. But I still love this.

He is essentially acknowledging the agency of Americans after explicitly denying that they have it by way of the addiction remark.

Too many Republicans are obsessed with poll numbers and terrified of who takes the “blame.” Do the right thing, lead, and the politics will take care of itself.

Says the First term Senator.

Unless he doesn't care about being reelected, in which case: alright.

**Ouze**

"I see no way this could backfire".

**Jihadin**

Do we really want the ACA to kick in? Its a bad sign even when congress...POTUS...Unions...want out of it. Yet the civilian pop has to go into it?

**Ouze**

Jihadin wrote:
Do we really want the ACA to kick in?

Since the majority of the American public voted for a candidate who would push for a healthcare solution, and since that law was duly passed, and then re-elected that candidate over a opponent who stated he would repeal it, and and then said law was voted constitutional by the Supreme Court, I'm going to go with "yes".

**Jihadin**

Why does "The House and Senate was in control of the Democrats" tapping me on the shoulder when this got pushed through? Follow by Pelosi quip of something to the effect of "We know what's in it when we pass it".

**Ouze**

Jihadin wrote:
Why does "The House and Senate was in control of the Democrats" tapping me on the shoulder when this got pushed through?

Well, it's not like they got control via a military coup or something. They were elected by a popular vote in free and fair elections. The control of the house and the senate was what a plurality of Americans wanted, goofy quote from Nancy Pelosi aside.

What kills me the most about this is how absolutely desperate Obama was to deal with Republicans when this first was up for debate. Rather than bargain, it was decided that the president couldn't have a victory, no matter that it might benefit the American people. It's pretty dumb now for them to be complaining that they don't like the bed they find themselves in.

Cruz is, in my opinion, the next Alan Grayson or Michele Bachmann. He tosses out lots of red meat to the crowd on the news shows but he's also totally ineffective as a legislator and very short lived. But, this is also what the people want.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Why does "The House and Senate was in control of the Democrats" tapping me on the shoulder when this got pushed through?

Well, it's not like they got control via a military coup or something. They were elected by a popular vote in free and fair elections. The control of the house and the senate was what a plurality of Americans wanted, goofy quote from Nancy Pelosi aside.

What kills me the most about this is how absolutely desperate Obama was to deal with Republicans when this first was up for debate. Rather than bargain, it was decided that the president couldn't have a victory, no matter that it might benefit the American people. It's pretty dumb now for them to be complaining that they don't like the bed they find themselves in.

Cruz is, in my opinion, the next Alan Grayson or Michele Bachmann. He tosses out lots of red meat to the crowd on the news shows but he's also totally ineffective as a legislator and very short lived. But, this is also what the people want.

This...

It won't work... it's just red meat to his constituents.

I would also like to point out guys that this was NOT passed in a normal fashion (passed via budget reconciliation mechanism)... so, it wasn't such a "clean" passage that ya'll make it out to be. When was the last time something of this magnitude was passed like this? (hint: never)

And for those who keeps harping that, it was duly passed by congress... so, it should NEVER need to be revisited again... Our history is littered with laws/ACT/fething Amendments being redone and/or revoked.

I firmly believe it'll eventually be repealed, or vastly neutered, but it has to be fully implemented first so that the "bad stuff" will keep on hitting. We American like to feel the pain first before we do something about it.

EDIT: Well... it can work. Remember, Congress has the power of the purse. They can pass laws to stop funding anything... even those "mandatory spending" laws, ie SS, Medicare, etc... (mandatory is a misnomer... really should be automatic spending). It'll only work if all the GOP (and maybe some vulnerable Democrats) sticks together. Right now, they can't even do that. That's one thing that the Ds are very, very good at... is that they can stand together.

**azazel the cat**

whembly wrote: It'll only work if all the GOP (and maybe some vulnerable Democrats) sticks together. Right now, they can't even do that. That's one thing that the Ds are very, very good at... is that they can stand together.

Up is down and black is white in your world, isn't it? For the better part of the last 50 years, the Dem party has been virtually defined by a cadre of smaller groups, all gathered together in opposition of the almost entirely homogenous GOP.

Also, you most recent post virtually parrots the language and tone of the article you quoted in the original post. I guess that's how long it takes the party's message to sink in and become gospel to you, Whembly: 3/4 of one forum page. Uncross your arms, erase your scowl and consider that for a minute. Seriously. "power of the purse" appears to be the soundbite, and you've eaten it up like it was ice cream.

**whembly**

azazel the cat wrote:
whembly wrote: It'll only work if all the GOP (and maybe some vulnerable Democrats) sticks together. Right now, they can't even do that. That's one thing that the Ds are very, very good at... is that they can stand together.

Up is down and black is white in your world, isn't it? For the better part of the last 50 years, the Dem party has been virtually defined by a cadre of smaller groups, all gathered together in opposition of the almost entirely homogenous GOP.

Also, you most recent post virtually parrots the language and tone of the article you quoted in the original post. I guess that's how long it takes the party's message to sink in and become gospel to you, Whembly: 3/4 of one forum page. Uncross your arms, erase your scowl and consider that for a minute. Seriously. "power of the purse" appears to be the soundbite, and you've eaten it up like it was ice cream.

What? That the GOP can do this? Or, that I don't think they can get their gak together?

The original intent of the post was to point out that Congress does have power to NOT fund anything.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

I would also like to point out guys that this was NOT passed in a normal fashion (passed via budget reconciliation mechanism)... so, it wasn't such a "clean" passage that ya'll make it out to be. When was the last time something of this magnitude was passed like this? (hint: never)

Only the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act was passed by way of the reconciliation process. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed normally.

whembly wrote:

And for those who keeps harping that, it was duly passed by congress... so, it should NEVER need to be revisited again... Our history is littered with laws/ACT/fething Amendments being redone and/or revoked.

Cruz's proposal isn't about revisiting the law. It is about the House passing a new Continuing Resolution that is unlikely to be passed by the Senate.

And by the by, advocating the passage of a Continuing Resolution this far in advance strongly indicates that he is against passing an actual appropriations bill (read: budget).

whembly wrote:

(mandatory is a misnomer... really should be automatic spending).

It isn't a misnomer. The word "mandatory" means "required by law". So "mandatory spending" is spending that is required by law.

whembly wrote:

That's one thing that the Ds are very, very good at... is that they can stand together.

That might be one of the funniest things I've ever read.

**Tannhauser42**

My knowledge on this is far from complete, so correct me if I'm wrong. A Continuing Resolution (CR) is intended to fund the federal government for a set period of time based off of the previous year's budget. For example, if a CR is passed and set for two months, then all federal agencies get two months' worth of last years budget, no more, no less. Thus, Congress can't pick and choose what gets funded by a CR. I would think that trying to do so with a CR, to try to specify what the CR's money will be spent on, would be a VERY BAD precedent to set.

Assuming I didn't make any mistakes there in what I said.

**Jihadin**

Obama already mention to a group of Vets that our VA Disability checks are in danger of not being issued next fiscal year due to sequester.. Veterans of the military...yet no mention of the government disability checks to disable government workers are to be affected. If I have to give up my disability check then the government employee receiving a disability check to best be effected to. Which I believe would be political suicide for anyone even attempting that financial cut to vets next fiscal year.

A bit OT there

So why is the ACA fully funded then if there's a sequester in effect?

**Laughing Man**

Jihadin wrote:
Obama already mention to a group of Vets that our VA Disability checks are in danger of not being issued next fiscal year due to sequester.. Veterans of the military...yet no mention of the government disability checks to disable government workers are to be affected. If I have to give up my disability check then the government employee receiving a disability check to best be effected to. Which I believe would be political suicide for anyone even attempting that financial cut to vets next fiscal year.

A bit OT there

So why is the ACA fully funded then if there's a sequester in effect?

Because half of the kerfluffle was over the ACA in the first place, so defunding the ACA as a part of the sequester would have made using it as a threat to the GOP rather useless.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

I would also like to point out guys that this was NOT passed in a normal fashion (passed via budget reconciliation mechanism)... so, it wasn't such a "clean" passage that ya'll make it out to be. When was the last time something of this magnitude was passed like this? (hint: never)

Only the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act was passed by way of the reconciliation process. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed normally.

Right... it was all jumbled up. ACA was passed w/o Republican support while the Ds still had 60 vote in Senate. Then, Scott Brown won in his special election... That necessitated the House to actually pass the Senate versions untouched (which some of them weren't too pleased), so they passed the "Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act" with what the House D's wanted... and passed it via the reconcilation method because it couldn't be filabuster'ed in the Senate.

In otherwords... a complete clusterfeth.

But, hey... that's how it works. *shrug* (note to Azazel via the cuba thread, this is how representative democracy works

)

whembly wrote:

And for those who keeps harping that, it was duly passed by congress... so, it should NEVER need to be revisited again... Our history is littered with laws/ACT/Fething Amendments being redone and/or revoked.

Cruz's proposal isn't about revisiting the law. It is about the House passing a new Continuing Resolution that is unlikely to be passed by the Senate.

And by the by, advocating the passage of a Continuing Resolution this far in advance strongly indicates that he is against passing an actual appropriations bill (read: budget).

Yeah... he's just feeding red meat to his constituents.

whembly wrote:

(mandatory is a misnomer... really should be automatic spending).

It isn't a misnomer. The word "mandatory" means "required by law". So "mandatory spending" is spending that is required by law.

It's a misnomer in a sense that Congress could just not fund it. (if it truly passes, which we both know it'll never happen).

whembly wrote:

That's one thing that the Ds are very, very good at... is that they can stand together.

They're much better at it than Republicans (I'm talking about nationally... not sure who holds that crown locally).

That might be one of the funniest things I've ever read.

**Ouze**

whembly wrote:
[And for those who keeps harping that, it was duly passed by congress... so, it should NEVER need to be revisited again... Our history is littered with laws/ACT/fething Amendments being redone and/or revoked.

I firmly believe it'll eventually be repealed, or vastly neutered,

While the first point you raise is a very good one, I do have to say I don't see the 2/3rd majority to override a veto anytime soon. Better hope Obama fumbles it so badly that Obama fatigue sets in, combined with the GOP nominating someone electable - no sure thing - and then we'll see. I think it's unlikely but certainly not impossible.

**Ahtman**

I think this is the first time I've ever seen anyone think the Dems were homogenous, and more so than the Republicans.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

In otherwords... a complete clusterfeth.

What's wrong? You don't like seeing how the sausage is made?

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

In otherwords... a complete clusterfeth.

What's wrong? You don't like seeing how the sausage is made?

Nope... not that particular brand of sausage.

Speaking of sausage... I love 'em... just had some Chorizo (mexican sausage) with some eggs. Awesome.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
whembly wrote:
[And for those who keeps harping that, it was duly passed by congress... so, it should NEVER need to be revisited again... Our history is littered with laws/ACT/fething Amendments being redone and/or revoked.

I firmly believe it'll eventually be repealed, or vastly neutered,

While the first point you raise is a very good one, I do have to say I don't see the 2/3rd majority to override a veto anytime soon. Better hope Obama fumbles it so badly that Obama fatigue sets in, combined with the GOP nominating someone electable - no sure thing - and then we'll see. I think it's unlikely but certainly not impossible.

Yup.

Here's why I think the ACA is here for good though. Hillary will be the next President... think she's going to sign any bill to repeal the ACA? Me neither....

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
The Continuing Resolution gives us real leverage to defund Obamacare. Fighting this fight won’t be easy, but it’s now or never. President Obama’s strategy is simple: on January 1, the subsidies kick in. President Obama wants to get as many Americans addicted to the subsidies because he knows that in modern times, no major entitlement has ever been implemented and then unwound. That’s why the administration announced that it won’t enforce eligibility requirements–essentially encouraging fraud and “liar loans”–because that way the most people possible will get addicted to the sugar.

So basically, "stop it before it comes and becomes popular like other government programs like Medicare and Medicaid" isn't so much a final rallying cry as an admission that you're on the wrong side of policy fight, and you have to tank this thing before people figure that out.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
I would also like to point out guys that this was NOT passed in a normal fashion (passed via budget reconciliation mechanism)... so, it wasn't such a "clean" passage that ya'll make it out to be. When was the last time something of this magnitude was passed like this? (hint: never)

If you don't want messy legislative processes, don't play gakky politics by block voting against legislation.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Nope... not that particular brand of sausage.

I honestly don't understand how you can advocate the revision of an existing statute, and yet find the manner in which Obamacare was created to be irksome.

At least absent the notion that you're desperately reaching for arguments to justify your opposition to it.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

Nope... not that particular brand of sausage.

I honestly don't understand how you can advocate the revision of an existing statute, and yet find the manner in which Obamacare was created to be irksome.

Huh? Those are two completely separate things. o.O

At least absent the notion that you're desperately reaching for arguments to justify your opposition to it.

I can haz opinion... no?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:
whembly wrote:
The Continuing Resolution gives us real leverage to defund Obamacare. Fighting this fight won’t be easy, but it’s now or never. President Obama’s strategy is simple: on January 1, the subsidies kick in. President Obama wants to get as many Americans addicted to the subsidies because he knows that in modern times, no major entitlement has ever been implemented and then unwound. That’s why the administration announced that it won’t enforce eligibility requirements–essentially encouraging fraud and “liar loans”–because that way the most people possible will get addicted to the sugar.

So basically, "stop it before it comes and becomes popular like other government programs like Medicare and Medicaid" isn't so much a final rallying cry as an admission that you're on the wrong side of policy fight, and you have to tank this thing before people figure that out.

Right... I'm on the wrong side of the policy debate... so wrong that Obama Administration Has Missed Half Of Obamacare's Legally Imposed Implementation Deadlines.

I'm mean, the ACA is so awesome, that everyone loves it so much. Truth is, it's losing popularity (fairly or unfairly)... such that Obama is trying to claim it's now a "Right". It's going to be an interesting next couple of years...

**djones520**

sebster wrote:
whembly wrote:
The Continuing Resolution gives us real leverage to defund Obamacare. Fighting this fight won’t be easy, but it’s now or never. President Obama’s strategy is simple: on January 1, the subsidies kick in. President Obama wants to get as many Americans addicted to the subsidies because he knows that in modern times, no major entitlement has ever been implemented and then unwound. That’s why the administration announced that it won’t enforce eligibility requirements–essentially encouraging fraud and “liar loans”–because that way the most people possible will get addicted to the sugar.

So basically, "stop it before it comes and becomes popular like other government programs like Medicare and Medicaid" isn't so much a final rallying cry as an admission that you're on the wrong side of policy fight, and you have to tank this thing before people figure that out.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
I would also like to point out guys that this was NOT passed in a normal fashion (passed via budget reconciliation mechanism)... so, it wasn't such a "clean" passage that ya'll make it out to be. When was the last time something of this magnitude was passed like this? (hint: never)

If you don't want messy legislative processes, don't play gakky politics by block voting against legislation.

You do realize the Democrats, aware of their super majority, largely blocked Republican attempts at participating in the writing of the bill. The bill isn't made when it's voted on. The Dem's wrote it, they voted it in. The Republicans tried to have a say in it, and they were effectively told "I won."

**whembly**

djones520 wrote:
sebster wrote:
whembly wrote:
The Continuing Resolution gives us real leverage to defund Obamacare. Fighting this fight won’t be easy, but it’s now or never. President Obama’s strategy is simple: on January 1, the subsidies kick in. President Obama wants to get as many Americans addicted to the subsidies because he knows that in modern times, no major entitlement has ever been implemented and then unwound. That’s why the administration announced that it won’t enforce eligibility requirements–essentially encouraging fraud and “liar loans”–because that way the most people possible will get addicted to the sugar.

So basically, "stop it before it comes and becomes popular like other government programs like Medicare and Medicaid" isn't so much a final rallying cry as an admission that you're on the wrong side of policy fight, and you have to tank this thing before people figure that out.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
I would also like to point out guys that this was NOT passed in a normal fashion (passed via budget reconciliation mechanism)... so,
it wasn't such a "clean" passage that ya'll make it out to be. When was the last time something of this magnitude was passed like this? (hint: never)

If you don't want messy legislative processes, don't play gakky politics by block voting against legislation.

You do realize the Democrats, aware of their super majority, largely blocked Republican attempts at participating in the writing of the bill. The bill isn't made when it's voted on. The Dem's wrote it, they voted it in. The Republicans tried to have a say in it, and they were effectively told "I won."

That's what I keep saying... the ACA defenders keeps saying it's a "Republican idea" or this mess was because the Democrats were forced to compromise...

The ACA was all written by Ds, and passed by all D's.

Shoot, even the fething Chicago Tribune calls the ACA a SNAFU:

Democrats strong-armed Obamacare into law three years ago. Now they're busy flouting it.

The mandate that employers provide insurance next year or pay a penalty, as the law requires? Delayed for at least a year.

The law's dictate that people applying for federal subsidies to buy insurance provide proof that they're eligible for the government aid? Scaled back.

Sharp limits on Americans' out-of-pocket costs for health care? Suspended for a year.

Providing members of Congress and more than 10,000 staff members with federal health care subsidies that the law does not allow? Done, via a deal brokered by President Barack Obama.

And on and on.

The Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, is a hugely complex law that sets up online health insurance marketplaces, requires people to have coverage or pay penalties, and doles out subsidies and incentives to nearly everyone in health care. Doctors, hospitals and insurers have spent large sums to gear up for its requirements. Employers are mulling: Hire? Fire? Cut workers' hours?

Millions of Americans, that is, stand to gain or lose from how this law is enforced — with the Obama administration bending that enforcement in ways that test, and arguably exceed, the boundaries of lawful conduct.

Every time the White House undercuts one provision of Obamacare, there is a massive ripple effect on other provisions. It's generally a zero-sum game: When someone gains, someone else loses. Example: When employers are relieved of their mandate to provide insurance, taxpayers risk having to subsidize more of those companies' employees.

The administration asserts that it can make these changes under the president's broad executive authority. Yet critics make a compelling argument that the president is stretching the limits. Former federal appellate Judge Michael McConnell, director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, writes in The Wall Street Journal about a different sort of mandate: the mandate in Article II of the Constitution that the president "'shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.' This is a duty, not a discretionary power. ... As the Supreme Court wrote long ago (Kendall v. United States, 1838), allowing the president to refuse to enforce statutes 'would be clothing the president with a power to control the legislation of Congress, and paralyze the administration of justice.'"

Like most issues of presidential authority, this isn't cut and dried. Presidents do have broad discretion on how laws are enforced. But they're on shaky ground when they decide whether to enforce a law. It's not hard to understand why: Imagine the outcry if President Mitt Romney refused to enforce, say, Obamacare.

Granted, any president may decline to enforce statutes he believes are unconstitutional. But Obama is making no such claim here. Basically, he is admitting that parts of law are impossible to enforce on the deadlines imposed by Congress — deadlines he signed into law. He's also admitting he doesn't want to have Congress make these changes, for fear that if lawmakers get their mitts on this unpopular program, they would at least debate far more extensive changes than he'd like.

Congressional Democrats, and some Republicans, may agree with the numerous delays, changes and special favors. But the president invites chaos when he picks which parts of Obamacare to enforce, and which, in retrospect, he has decided are unworkable or unwise.

In a recent news conference, Obama acknowledged that congressional modification of the law is preferable to these White House fiats: "In a normal political environment, it would have been easier for me to simply call up (House Speaker John Boehner) and say, 'You know what? This is a tweak that doesn't go to the essence of the law. ... Let's make a technical change of the law.' That would be the normal thing that I would prefer to do, but we're not in a normal atmosphere around here when it comes to, quote-unquote, 'Obamacare.'''

Tweaks? Obama isn't making tweaks. He's trying to circumvent major flaws that began flaring when the law was enacted. Hence the many carve-outs, delays and special deals that have been piling up since he added his signature to Obamacare on March 23, 2010.

The president crusaded for this law and has embraced its nickname. But he did not write the law. Congress did. Major changes are necessary — he has stipulated by his actions that this law as constituted cannot work — and Congress should legislate them for his review.

Bottom line: Let's delay and rewrite this ill-conceived law. Congress need not start from scratch. Lawmakers can build on what all of us have learned from three years of painful trial and error. Three years of attempting, but failing, to make this clumsy monstrosity work for the American people.

**Dreadclaw69**

whembly wrote:
Shoot, even the fething Chicago Tribune calls the ACA a SNAFU:

The administration asserts that it can make these changes under the president's broad executive authority. Yet critics make a compelling argument that the president is stretching the limits. Former federal appellate Judge Michael McConnell, director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, writes in The Wall Street Journal about a different sort of mandate: the mandate in Article II of the Constitution that the president "'shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.' This is a duty, not a discretionary power. ... As the Supreme Court wrote long ago (Kendall v. United States, 1838), allowing the president to refuse to enforce statutes 'would be clothing the president with a power to control the legislation of Congress, and paralyze the administration of justice.'"

That is exactly what this Administration is doing......albeit with the provision as long as it doesn't hurt us at election time

**Frazzled**

ACA is what Sauron would write if he was bored and in a bad move.

Threatening to shut down the government is NOT the way to reform it however.