Big debate in the Republican Party over whether to use a budget showdown to defund Obamacare. Heritage, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Mark Rubio and others demand the Republicans use this tactic. Karl Rove, Senator Coburn, and the rest of their side call this one of the "dumbest ideas" they've ever heard. What does our Mississippi delegation think about this idea? MPB reported:
A growing campaign among some Republicans to quote 'defund obamacare' is splitting Mississippi's congressional delegation. Mississippi's five Republicans agree that the law should go, its just a question of how.
Earlier this month, fourth district congressman Steven Palazzo took to the floor of the United States House of Representatives to implore his fellow representatives to try one more time to stop the federal health care reform law before it takes full effect.
"That is also why I firmly believe we must defund Obamacare in a continuing resolution this body will take up later this year. I believe this is a fight worth fighting for Mississippi. And I believe it is a fight worth fighting for the American people," Palazzo said....
The plan Congressman Palazzo is advocating is to refuse to pass a federal budget unless the federal government is prohibited from spending any money on implementing the Affordable Care Act.
Senator Thad Cochran has also voted in favor of a bill to 'defund obamacare'.
But Gregg Harper does not agree:
Senator Roger Wicker says the big pieces of the law, Medicaid expansion and private insurance subsidies, are built into the law and not subject to annual budgetary review.
"The Obamacare bill doesn't come back each year to the appropriations process. There is nothing in any appropration bill or continuing resolution that actually funds Obamacare. It is a mandatory program now. An entitlement as you were. The appropriation bill couldn't fund or defund Obamacare because it is automatic spending," Wicker said.
Wicker says the way to change the law is for Republicans to win more elections.
Wicker is joined by third district congressman Greg Harper who, while opposing the law, does not see the 'defund obamacare' movement as the way to dismantle it.
"I think the overwhelming pubic support is let's get rid of Obamacare. Let's do what we have to do on that. What vehicle it will be on that still remains to be seen," Harper said.
Mississippi's 1st District congressman Alan Nunnellee opposes the law and sees an opportunity this fall to reign in all federal spending but not at the risk of defaulting on the federal debt. Article
Food for thought. Byron York wrote this pointed essay on what will happen if the Republicans do not attempt to defund Obamacare before the end of the year and by defund he means adopt the strategy advocated by Pallazo:
"When Washington conservatives gather to talk among themselves, and the discussion turns to Obamacare -- it happens pretty frequently -- it's not unusual to hear predictions that the president's health care law will "collapse of its own weight." It's a "train wreck," many say, quoting Democratic Sen. Max Baucus. It's unworkable. It's going to be a big, smoking ruin." (KF note: the Karl Rove position)
On the other hand, a lot of thoughtful conservatives are looking beyond Oct. 1 to Jan. 1, the day the law (except for the parts the president has unilaterally postponed) is scheduled to go fully into effect. On that day the government will begin subsidizing health insurance for millions of Americans. (A family of four with income as high as $88,000 will be eligible for subsidies.) When people begin receiving that entitlement, the dynamics of the Obamacare debate will change.
At that point, the Republican mantra of total repeal will become obsolete. The administration will mount a huge public relations campaign to highlight individuals who have received government assistance to help them afford, say, chemotherapy, or dialysis, or some other life-saving treatment. Will Republicans advocate cutting off the funds that help pay for such care?
The answer is no. Facing that reality, the GOP is likely to change its approach, arguing that those people should be helped while the rest of Obamacare is somehow dismantled.
The administration is fully aware of its advantage. Last week officials invited several prominent liberal bloggers to a special White House Obamacare briefing. From the reporting that resulted -- one headline included the declaration "Implementing the Affordable Care Act is going to be a huge success" -- administration officials are quite confident that, whatever problems arise, Obamacare will be solidly in place after the money starts flowing on Jan. 1.
"Neither Democrats nor Republicans liked to emphasize how much the Affordable Care Act debate was about redistribution rather than health care as such, but there's a lot of money here," wrote Slate's Matthew Yglesias, who attended the briefing. "The law is structured to be financially beneficial to a large majority of people, and the infrastructure is in place to make that clear to a critical mass of them."
Truth be told, many Republicans did note that redistribution is at the heart of Obamacare. But the fact is, the redistributing will begin Jan. 1. And whatever else goes wrong with Obamacare, look for the White House to apply whatever fixes it must to make sure the money keeps flowing.
"The last few months have shown us that the administration will do whatever it needs to do -- whether it is in the law or not, within its formal powers or beyond them -- to prop up collapsing elements and avoid political disasters in the near term," said Yuval Levin, a former Bush administration staffer and one of Obamacare's most perceptive critics, in an email exchange. "That often means pure ad hoc governing where they just do whatever they have to in order to avoid allowing the system's worst problems and failings to become apparent in the near term."
None of this is to say Obamacare won't face huge problems. The most obvious is that it will make things worse for more people than it helps. If that disparity is huge -- that is, if on one side there are many millions of people paying more for coverage than they did previously, losing coverage they were satisfied with, and suffering through great uncertainty, while on the other side there are far fewer people receiving direct government subsidies -- if that happens, then the political fight over Obamacare will intensify rather than fade. But even then, the subsidies are unlikely to go away.
But collapse of its own weight? The administration's insurance against that is the billions of dollars that will start flowing out of Washington Jan. 1. Once that happens, Republicans will likely stop talking about Obamacare's collapse and will instead start searching for ways to limit the harm done to millions of Americans. Essay
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Mississippi Republicans split on defunding Obamacare
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
Harper and Wicker are RINOs of the first order.
I wish there was a way to adopt Ted Cruz as my representative. I despise our republicrats. Nothing worse than shaking hands and smiling here then screwing us over in DC. But they had no problem in saving themselves from Obamacare. Bet they'd fight a little harder if this crap was shoved on them.
@ 9:28 is right: Let's burn the RINO witches!
Gregg Harper has got his nose buried so far up Boehner's behind he's morphed into the Speaker's buttnugget yap-dog.
Harper sends out tough talking tweets, emails and letters about how he's out there fighting Obamacare but in the final analysis he does nothing except what Boehner tells him what to do.
Boehner doesn't want the truth about Benghazi to come out and there is Harper failing to support the discharge petition to force a House floor vote on creating a House Select Committee.
Harper also plans to support immigration amnesty but doesn't want anyone back at home to know it yet. Then he'll go on GOP radio over at Supertalk and regurgiate the same tired Haley Barbour amnesty crowd talking points.
Just watch.
If they pay for it, they'll never have the guts to undo it. Republicans always give in, they never can fight.
How did Wicker get in the Senate? He was APPOINTED. Appointed by someone who turned out to be the BIGGEST RHINO in Mississippi, Haley "Pardon Me" Barbour. Like attracts like
Agreed. I'm a big Hillary supporter. I can't wait until President Hillary files into the Medgar Evans airport and drives down Medgar Evans Blvd. to visit the Medgar Evans home.
Hillary is in tune with civil rights, like all Democrats are by default. She appreciates the sacrifice that Medgar Evans made in the 60s. I'm certain she feels the same about Rosa Parker, Ralph Abernally, Stokely Carter, and Martin Luther Kane.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
This is not just " dumb", it's insane!
And, it's also a ridiculous strategy. If y'all were surgeon, you'd amputate above the knee rather than bother with a knee replacement. Amputation is also faster and less difficult!
And, for godsakes, please read up on study our government structure and economic history from 1776-1789 so you'll have some notion of the dangers of some of the positions you hold!
So Rove and Coburn are RINOs?
See this:
Sarah Kliff: What do you think of the effort underway to defund Obamacare?
Tom Coburn: I don’t think it’s achievable. A good portion of the health-care law is mandatory spending and repealing that would require two-thirds of the House and 67 votes in the Senate. I don’t see that happening.
I don’t see how you passing a CR [continuing resolution to fund the government] that does this. And let’s say you do, and the President vetoes the CR. Then what happens? How fast do members of Congress who voted for that strategy fold when the government shuts down? I’ve been here when we’ve done that, and it’s not a strategy that works. This is misleading the conservative base because it’s not achievable, and all it will do in the long run is dispirit the base. This is a failed strategy for conservatives.
A few Republicans have sense enough to know that their party's extremist policies(at least from the Tea crowd) are pushing it quickly into obsolescence. Note to Repubs.: Obamacare is the law of the land. Get over it.
I hope the Repubs. in the House vote to nullify Obamacare about 40 more times so that they continue to look like cry-babies to the majority of the American public who do nothing but waste everybody's time instead of governing, as they were elected to do.
That's ok. Let the American people learn the hard way. Obamacare is a disaster. Period. It will not work and is just a step to government run healthcare. But you are right, the American people voted for it. So give it to them. Let them learn the hard way. Its time to quit protecting them from the consequences of their actions.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Insanity is posting the same admonitions you repeatedly leave here and then somehow expecting that someone, anyone, is going to suddenly change their mind because you called for them to do so.
Note to the Donkey @ 12:02. There are a plethora of "laws of the land" that our white African-American President does not enforce or uphold. Pay attention.
"Wicker says the way to change the law is for Republicans to win more elections." Simple truth. But the message will have to change to do that.
I see more and more "Republicans" adopting a "lost cause" attitude. As if to say: "We're gonna lose, but by God we'll keep fighting to the end." Looks to me like the Confederacy has risen again, snatching the body of the GOP.
Somehow I envision Obama, standing atop a rickety ladder like Mr. Filch, hammering in yet another governmental decree while we look on in astonishment. Or, more sinister yet, is the eerie resemblance this administration seems to the nation-state characterized in "Atlas Shrugged." Either way, we're in for a long and painful struggle over this issue.
The Constitution grants the House of Reps the ultimate “power of the purse.” If Congress chooses not to fund Obamacare activities for the upcoming fiscal year, the Obama Administration cannot act to implement the law. O doesn’t control the House of Reps, which must originate debt limit and spending bills to fund the government. And the House Republican Majority was elected in 2010, on the basis of its platform against Obamacare.
“What do you mean by defunding Obamacare?”
Defunding Obamacare means attaching a legislative rider to a “must pass” bill (debt limit, annual spending bill, etc.) that 1) prohibits any funds from being spent on any activities to implement or enforce Obamacare; 2) rescinds any unspent balances that have already been appropriated for implementation; and 3) turns off the exchange subsidy and new Medicaid spending that are on auto-pilot.
“There is no such thing as defunding Obamacare.”
That is false. Congressmen who assert this are either asserting that funding is not being spent to implement Obamacare (false) or that a defund amendment cannot technically be executed (again, false). Defunding Obamacare can be done. For instance, in 2011, after gaining the majority, the Republican House included such a defunding provision on the continuing spending resolution (HR 1) when the bill first passed the House. The provision was later discarded in negotiations with the President and the Senate, but the effort began with promise.
“What is the urgency to defund Obamacare now?”
On January 1, 2014, Obamacare’s new main entitlements—the Medicaid expansion and the exchange subsidies—are scheduled to take effect. Open enrollment for both programs begins on October 1, 2013, at the start of the new fiscal year. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal government will spend $48 billion in 2014—and nearly $1.8 trillion through 2023—on these new entitlement programs. Also on January 1, Americans will be forced by their government to buy a product—health insurance—for the first time ever. Individuals and families who don’t comply will be penalized by tax penalties administered through the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The Obama Administration has requested over $400 million in funding and nearly 2,000 bureaucrats for the IRS to implement the individual mandate and 46 other statutory provisions in the law. Regulators have now written over 20,000 pages of Obamacare-related rules and notices in the Federal Register. Many of these regulations will increase the cost of insurance; CBO concluded Obamacare would raise individual health insurance premiums by $2,100 per year.
“Isn’t defunding Obamacare impossible because most of the funding is ‘mandatory’ (or on ‘auto-pilot’) and cannot be amended via the annual appropriations process?”
No. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), the Department of Health and Human Services and the IRS, “will incur substantial administrative costs to implement the law’s private insurance reforms and its changes to the federal health care programs.” And while Obamacare provided $1 billion in mandatory implementation funding when it was enacted, HHS projects that this is largely spent. According to CRS, Obamacare “administrative costs will have to be funded through the annual discretionary appropriations.” Furthermore, annual appropriations bills routinely carry funding limitations to block all sorts of activities (for example, the Hyde Amendment), as well make changes to mandatory spending. These latter provisions are called “changes in mandatory program spending” (CHIMPS). Even if these riders were not so common-place, the stakes of so many provisions of Obamacare scheduled to take effect would present grounds for an exception.
“Isn’t defunding impossible because there is not a specific funding stream for Obamacare?”
No. Congress is aware of all of the programs that fund Obamacare because CRS has provided such a list and the Appropriations Committees are well-versed in the funding intricacies of the law. However, a blanket prohibition against funding all activities associated with implementing the law is all that is needed to halt implementation. Each program does not have to be specifically defunded.
Obama wants chaos and anarchy. He's itching to declare martial law.
Wicker says the way to change the law is for Republicans to win more elections.
...at what cost? He's a beltway guy to core if that is what he believes. Being a Senator or Congressman is about representing your constituents not about winning elections. That's what they all focus on, is the next election. Just do your damn job and you'll win the election.
‘Government shutdown would be the end of everything!’
Well, um, no.
Federal Government Shutdowns in last 35-40 years:
Sept 30, 1976 – Oct 11 (10 days)
Sept 30, 1977 – Oct 13 (12 days)
Oct 31, 1977 – Nov 9 (8 days)
Nov 30, 1977 – Dec 9 (8 days)
Sept 30, 1978 – Oct 18 (17 days)
Sept 30, 1979 – Oct 12 (11 days)
Nov 20, 1981 – Nov 23 (2 days)
Sept 30, 1982 – Oct 2 (1 day)
Dec 17, 1982 – Dec 21 (3 days)
Nov 10, 1983 – Nov 14 (3 days)
Sept 30, 1984 – Oct 3 (2 days)
Oct 3, 1984 – Oct 5 (1 day)
Oct 16, 1986 – Oct 18 (1 day)
Dec 18, 1987 – Dec 20 (1 day)
Oct 5, 1990 – Oct 9 (3 days)
Nov 13, 1995 – Nov 19 (5 days)
Dec 15, 1995 – Jan 6 (21 days)
Scream! Horror!!!!! Sky is falling!
oh wait, the world didn’t explode any of these times.
Essential is kept up. Whole government does not shut down as a matter of federal law.
Some Republican leaders are not knowledgeable…OR they are weak….OR they simply want Obamacare.
Wicker and Harper have the backbone of an amoeba. Both need to get fired or at least have a good scare in a primary. Who's up for a challenge?
Republican West Virginia Rep. Shelley Moore Capito says she will not accept any health care subsidy made available to her and her staff that average Americans can’t receive. “As long as ObamaCare remains law, Members of Congress should not receive exchange subsidies that are not provided to other Americans.”
Wow! somebody NOT living by the code screw-thee-not--me!
Will a true conservative please step forward and provide a primary challenge to Wicker and Harper?
What a bunch of simpletons, trying to stop the tide with a horsewhip. People!, Obama just got re-elected. Unless the Republican party stops pandering to you right-wing puritans, a Democrat will be elected in 2016, and will control at least one house of Congress. "Dost thou think, because thou are virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
Wicker and Harper have received the last votes they will get from me. I can no longer continue to cast my vote for those two spineless creatures when they continue to lie to the voters who send them to Washington. I realize that I have only one vote; but, I choose to use it wisely in the future.
... and will control at least one house of Congress
Pure conjecture.
12:41 p.m., of course I know that you hard core extremist Teas will not be convinced by me or any other rational person that your commandeered party, the Repub. Party, is quickly heading towards obsolescence. The Repubs. will eventually lose the House, too, as white Tea men continue to decrease in percentage of the population. I admit that may take a decade or so due to the 2010 district gerrymandering the Repubs. passed.
Gov. Christie could win the Presidency in 2016. I might even vote for him as he's an effective leader. No other Repub. can, and the Teas would never allow Christie to be the Repub. nominee. He actually tries to work with the President to get things done, which is an automatic disqualifier.
Christy would never win because during his election cycle, he, well, showed his real colors, shall we say. Before that, he would have had a chance. Since then, he has more enemies than you can count.
Republican and Democratic parties both still have a base.
What is changing are the people who do not vote for someone based on a letter behind their name. A tremendous amount of democrats left their party when they decided God wasn't relevant at their convention. A tremendous amount of repubs have left and are leaving their party because the few who are running it have decided that what they think--and not what the American public thinks---is somehow law and should be observed.
Those few top repubs are no better than Obama in assuming they are some form of a higher being. Exact same problem with both of them.
I am not a democrat (no where near being a liberal).
I am not a republican (refuse to follow those in charge of making it the roll-over-and-play-dead wing of the democratic party)
2:21 pm you omitted the political consequences and the economic consequences.
Did you review the dates? If so...
You miss that many of these shutdowns happened in one term in office.
So, politically, it's three failed attempts not 35-40 years.
The people have spoken. The court has spoken.
If Republicans were smart, they would try to fine tune this Affordable Care so it will be better and take the credit for doing so.
Being the party of obstruction isn't working .
Make no mistake, this isn't about Obamacare.
This is about infighting within the GOP and a political finger to Democrats in general and Obama in particular.
This is about getting segments of the base all worked up.
IF this were about healthcare costs, the first thing that would have been done is contract for drugs like every other country.
IF this were about reducing spending and the deficit and thus the opportunity to reduce taxes, it'd start with requiring zero based budgeting on the part of government and changing the rules so that earmarks for State's needs are treated as separate funding,
If this were about Medicare and Medicaid, this would be about reexamining both and increasing the penalities for fraud and for starters, those who are still working and covered by insurance wouldn't be getting Medicare until they retired except as a supplemental!
The " bases" having this fight and encouraging others to choose up sides are the duped,the dupers, those who profit and pay the dupers to dupe others, and those who profit from the ensuing argument starting with the media darlings. Would Glenn Beck or Jesse Jackson have two red cents to rub together if they couldn't stir up trouble?
Nobody minds the "home inspections", do they?
According to an Obamacare provision millions of Americans will be targeted.
The Health and Human Services’ website states that your family will be targeted if you fall under the “high-risk” categories below:
-Families where mom is not yet 21.
-Families where someone is a tobacco user.
-Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities.
-Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States.
There is no reference to Medicaid being the determinant for a family to be “eligible.” In 2011, the HHS announced $224 million will be given to support evidence-based home visiting programs to “help parents and children.”
Palazzo, Cochran, Harper, Wicker, Nunnellee---you make me want to puke.
Post a Comment