Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Further to the question of defunding ACA post-election:
Henry Aaron explored this possibility in cogent detail in an Oct 2010 article in New England Journal of Medicine. Obviously, given that he was writing prior to the 2010 midterm elections, some of the article is no longer relevant, but much of Dr. Aaron's conclusions are as equally valid for the next four years as they were when he published. In the most likely scenario, of an Obama second term and GOP control of the House, Dr. Aaron predicts "a high-stakes game of political chicken", in effect a repeat of the 1994 constitutional crisis:
Quote:
The president could veto an appropriation bill containing such language. Congress could refuse to pass appropriation bills without such language. Failure to appropriate funds would lead to a partial government shutdown. In 1994, leaders of the Republican Congress who pursued a similar tactic during the Clinton administration lost the ensuing public-relations war.
As Dr. Aaron notes, "one cannot be certain how political blame — or credit — for such a governmental closure would be apportioned or which side would blink first". On the other hand, since the seizure of the House in 2010, we know more about its leadership than Dr. Aaron did when he wrote. We know, in the first place, that Speaker Boehner already has agreed to a continuing resolution with funding for ACA. We know that when pressed, hard, by conservative journalists on whether he will "fold" on defunding again, his official answers are evasive. And we know, or can well surmise, that a strong Democratic showing in this election will not be likely to strengthen John Boehner's resolve to repeat Gingrich's 1994 showdown.
In short, under Boehner's leadership of the House, it seems unlikely that the defunding gambit will be successful. This raises the question, of course, whether or for how long Boehner will continue to lead the House. But a Cantor-led coup d'etat merely re-states the question: is the GOP willing to repeat Gingrich's maneuver and shut down the government in order to prevent ACA implementation?
The GOP are risking political suicide. By blocking Obama's plans, they are angering a majority of the people who really do feel like Obama has a plan, the GOP just won't go along with it. The solution isn't removing Obama -- it's replacing Congress.
The GOP are risking political suicide. By blocking Obama's plans, they are angering a majority of the people who really do feel like Obama has a plan, the GOP just won't go along with it. The solution isn't removing Obama -- it's replacing Congress.
In the aftermath of an Obama victory, and especially if the Dems hold even a narrow majority in the Senate, Grassley says defunding "comes up short", while DeMint says "it’s going to be very difficult to turn it around" because so much of the working machinery of the law will be in place.
Meanwhile, as Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute ("a research organization devoted to...individual freedom, consumer choice, competition, and innovation in the health sector") points out, businesses have little choice but to operate on the assumption that the law will go into effect in extenso, meaning that a defunding gambit will likely not only cause chaos in government finance, but also chaos in the private sector as well, bringing the House GOP under pressure from business leaders to stop making confetti of their HR planning.
And the GOP will lose the House in '14. Boehner understands this: that's why he caved on the last CR, which included ACA funding. Assuming, as now seems very likely, Obama's reelection, a Dem-majority Senate, and a reduced GOP majority in the House, the only way to defund ACA will be to refuse to agree any further CRs, effectively shutting down the federal gov't.
There's no more sure and certain way for the GOP to lose control of the House in the midterm election than to force marginal GOP incumbents to campaign against opponents who can beat them black and blue not just for "fiscal hostage taking" but for "endangering granny's healthcare".
Which places Boehner in an almost impossible situation, caught between political prudence and the bloodshot fervor of the tea tribe. He may well throw in the towel, rather than fight such a hopeless position.
In which case, we'll probably have Speaker Cantor leading the most extremist House since Reconstruction, a congeries which will make Robespierre's Revolutionary Convention seem like a Quaker meeting by comparison. And that outcome is also likely to lead to a Democratic majority in 2014
You are basing this on the senate will stay dem in Nov.
Because that outcome seems rather more likely. But yes, let's consider the alternate possibility: the GOP controls both chambers of Congress and may pass laws as it sees fit, subject of course to filibuster in the Senate, since there is no plausible scenario for the GOP gaining 60 votes.
But the GOP could attempt to dismantle parts of the ACA via reconciliation procedure. The parliamentarian would have to rule on what parts of the (as we know, very complicated) law would be subject to reconciliation, but let's say for argument's sake that he rules enough of the law is subject, that reconciliation could effectively dismantle it.
But at what cost? Politically, the precedent is ominous: a major piece of legislation, central to one party's ideology, which has already been both vetted and passed by the Supreme Court, and endorsed indirectly by the re-election of the president who signed it, is now to be dismantled through the dubious and relatively hole-in-corner procedure of reconciliation.
But still, the GOP may be sufficiently committed that the cost in comity and precedent may seem worth it. Very well - a budget is passed under reconciliation, which includes the ACA's death warrant. Obama naturally vetoes it. And the result is constitutional crisis, in effect a repeat of 1994 on a grander scale, with much higher stakes at play, and in an atmosphere of even hotter partisan enmity.
Alternately, rather than attempt to repeal ACA in bits and pieces through reconciliation, both House and Senate could simply vote for a budget or CR which defunds it. But again, there can hardly be any doubt that Obama will veto such a bill: the most important part of his historical legacy at stake, at the cost of a showdown he's not likely to lose because the GOP is certain to look extremist to the point of constitutional illegitimacy.
In short, the question for the GOP after November is what price they want to pay. The price is certain to include a constitutional confrontation between two of the branches of government, on a signature piece of legislation on which the third branch has already ruled in the affirmative. The price is equally certain to involve making the GOP appear dangerously extremists, at the very time when much of the post-game discussion is likely to revolve around the possibility that it blew the best chance it had to gain the White House in a century primarily because it was perceived as too extreme. And, with the 2014 midterm elections looming, the GOP leadership will need to take into account the nervousness of many of their foot soldiers, who will not relish going into re-election campaigns as members of a party which has begun to resemble a crowd of sweaty nervous suicide bombers looking for hostages to take.
So, to quote that old guy with the empty chair, if they want to use their majorities to undermine the ACA, the question GOP leaders will have to ask themselves is "Do we feel lucky?"
The President to put out plan for next 4 years today, while Romney tries to figure out what his positions are for today or perhaps, just for this morning.
You don't have to wait to hear Obama's plan. Here it is:
1. A new stimulus because the first one worked so well. More money for the teacher's unions and for solar companies
2. Higher taxes on seniors. Dividend taxes to go from 15% to 44%
3. Higher taxes on the middle class. Obamacare taxes kick in 1/1/13
4. Higher taxes on the rich business men and women. That should spur job growth.
5. More regulations on fossil fuel exploration. Then we can send more money overseas to our Moslem friends
6. More spending on food stamps, disability and welfare. No work required to collect free money.
7. Change the allies we have in the world. Israel will continue to be out of favor
Obama 2012!!!
Because that outcome seems rather more likely. But yes, let's consider the alternate possibility: the GOP controls both chambers of Congress and may pass laws as it sees fit, subject of course to filibuster in the Senate, since there is no plausible scenario for the GOP gaining 60 votes.
But the GOP could attempt to dismantle parts of the ACA via reconciliation procedure. The parliamentarian would have to rule on what parts of the (as we know, very complicated) law would be subject to reconciliation, but let's say for argument's sake that he rules enough of the law is subject, that reconciliation could effectively dismantle it.
But at what cost? Politically, the precedent is ominous: a major piece of legislation, central to one party's ideology, which has already been both vetted and passed by the Supreme Court, and endorsed indirectly by the re-election of the president who signed it, is now to be dismantled through the dubious and relatively hole-in-corner procedure of reconciliation.
But still, the GOP may be sufficiently committed that the cost in comity and precedent may seem worth it. Very well - a budget is passed under reconciliation, which includes the ACA's death warrant. Obama naturally vetoes it. And the result is constitutional crisis, in effect a repeat of 1994 on a grander scale, with much higher stakes at play, and in an atmosphere of even hotter partisan enmity.
Alternately, rather than attempt to repeal ACA in bits and pieces through reconciliation, both House and Senate could simply vote for a budget or CR which defunds it. But again, there can hardly be any doubt that Obama will veto such a bill: the most important part of his historical legacy at stake, at the cost of a showdown he's not likely to lose because the GOP is certain to look extremist to the point of constitutional illegitimacy.
In short, the question for the GOP after November is what price they want to pay. The price is certain to include a constitutional confrontation between two of the branches of government, on a signature piece of legislation on which the third branch has already ruled in the affirmative. The price is equally certain to involve making the GOP appear dangerously extremists, at the very time when much of the post-game discussion is likely to revolve around the possibility that it blew the best chance it had to gain the White House in a century primarily because it was perceived as too extreme. And, with the 2014 midterm elections looming, the GOP leadership will need to take into account the nervousness of many of their foot soldiers, who will not relish going into re-election campaigns as members of a party which has begun to resemble a crowd of sweaty nervous suicide bombers looking for hostages to take.
So, to quote that old guy with the empty chair, if they want to use their majorities to undermine the ACA, the question GOP leaders will have to ask themselves is "Do we feel lucky?"
I could be mistaken, and if I am, I will delete this message, but since the senate passed the bill under reconciliation, they wil not need 60 votes, only 51 to repeal obama care...But the repubs have to take the senate....
Quote:
And it ends by employing budget rules that would allow a fast-track repeal with a 51-vote majority in the Senate, circumventing a Democratic minority and potential filibuster.
The GOP are risking political suicide. By blocking Obama's plans, they are angering a majority of the people who really do feel like Obama has a plan, the GOP just won't go along with it. The solution isn't removing Obama -- it's replacing Congress.
Amen!: ok:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
