And So I Go: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

The American Spectator : Starving ObamaCare

Posted on: August 11, 2010

The American Spectator : Starving ObamaCare.

De-funding Obamacare with the Republicans taking the Congress in 2010 is one way of holding off Obama care  until it can be repealed in 2013 if a Republican President is elected.  This is certainly worth a try.

This article is a good read if you care to understand the dynamics of such a move by the newly elected Republicans (if they are elected in November that is)  BB

“A simple majority can refuse to fund,” Gingrich said. “So if [John] Boehner is Speaker and Mitch McConnell is majority leader, all you have to do is write it into the appropriations bills. If the president vetoes the appropriations bills, you repass them. The president has got to go to the country and convince the country…to spend money on a program that has a 20 percent margin of disapproval.”

He continued, “So the president has to somehow make it into a positive political issue to veto the appropriations bills. The only person who can close the government is the president. If you’re determined to pass the appropriations bills, he has to decide to veto a bill you have passed.”

The idea would be to gut ObamaCare by denying the money needed to implement its sweeping provisions. “There are 159 new offices, agencies, and commissions in this new bill,” Gingrich explained. “All you say is, we’re not gonna fund them. And you have in effect, stopped the project.”

REP. TODD TIAHRT OF KANSAS is the ranking member on the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. The spending bill that emerges from his committee would ultimately be the one that would include the funding associated with the new health care law.

Shortly after the signing of the new law, Tiahrt called for House-Senate talks on how to defund the legislation. In a phone interview with TAS, he agreed it was theoretically possible to stop ObamaCare in its tracks through the appropriations process. Even spending that is considered “mandatory” still needs to be implemented by an agency.

“If there’s no money to administer it, nothing gets done,” Tiahrt said, echoing Gingrich. “If the money is not there to write the regulations, the regulations won’t be written.”

Logistically, a member could offer an amendment to the committee that targeted a provision of the law, adding the language, “No funds shall…” The amendment would have to pass out of committee to be included in the bill that goes before the larger chamber. Tiahrt said he used this method last year to strip the Environmental Protection Agency of funding needed to regulate live-stock emissions, which he said would have crippled cattle production.

While he said he supports presenting an amendment that would defund the law in its entirety, his comments suggested it would be more likely that Republicans would target specific aspects of the bill.

In May, the Congressional Budget Office released a new analysis estimating that $115 billion in discretionary spending has been authorized under the new law for the next decade. But the office cautioned that it couldn’t issue a more thorough estimate because in many cases the legislation simply says that Congress shall allocate whatever sums it deems “necessary” to implement given provisions, without specifying how much those sums would be. One Republican staffer on the Hill described discretionary spending as the “low-hanging fruit” for defunding.

Page: 1 2 3
The article then  goes on to give the pros and cons of this strategy.   It would take very strong and determined leadership to pull it off.   And there are those who are afraid it would put the Republicans in a bad light of being against  helping those who need health care and can not get it.  the same argument the Democrats used when pushing this monster down our throats.  I don’t think the Republicans need fear the public turning over on this issue because Obamacare has caused too much ire on the part of the American public.  I do wonder if therre wiull be enough backbone in the Republican party to stay the course.
Also mention is given the suits now moving towards the Supreme Court to overturn the entire  law/bill  by agreeing that the federal government can not force people to buy  health care insurance which Obamacare does.  Since the Court is now well padded with liberals this is a toss up and is sure to be a  5-4 decision either way.  BB
It is ironic is it not that the United States  Democrat congress and President who are now in power are so intent on going into universal health care and the European countries who have had this type of entitlement for decades have seen that it does not work and are moving back to the user pay and free market system of health care delivery.  BB

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

See topic cloud at bottom of page for specific topics.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 97 other followers

BB’s file cabinet

%d bloggers like this: