Romney: Repealing Obamacare

“What the court did not do on its last day in session, I will do on my first day if elected president of the United States. And that is I will act to repeal Obamacare.”

How?

First, note that he didn’t say he would repeal Obamacare – he said he would “act” to repeal it.   Presidents carry out laws, they neither have the power to write laws nor to repeal them.   Very little of the funding and costs of Obamacare are in the Federal government.   It is a series of mandates on employers, insurance companies, health care providers and State governments.

It’s extremely improbable that Republicans will have 60 Senators, especially with Tea Party folks knocking off incumbent Republicans.  Without 60 Senators, no law to repeal Obamacare is going to pass.  So what “Act” would a President take to repeal Obamacare?  An executive order?  Saying what?    Submittmg a repeal as a charade, knowing it has no chance to make it through the Senate?  If a state is already forming its insurance pool, is he going to order them to stop?

Keep in mind almost all the federal judges likely to get involved will be sympathetic to what the Supreme Court said – it’s the role of Congress to make the laws, not the role of the Courts to substitute their judgement  about what is or isn’t a “good law”, nor is that the role of the President.  The Supreme Court has blessed the law as written.

Whatever spending is mandated by the law is not discretionary spending that the House can refuse to spend.   Perhaps an increase in IRS agents is – but if you have a law requiring proof of insurance but no agents to double check, that doesn’t change the requirement  or let you off the hook in an audit – it just means that there is a law that can be arbitrarily enforced.

Put my mind at rest that this isn’t an insincere campaign pledge.   Tell me exactly what “act” I am voting for.

 

This entry was posted in 2012 Election, Tax Policy. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Romney: Repealing Obamacare

  1. Art Stone says:

    Told ‘ya so.

    Rand Paul threw in his hand today. Welcome your new Obamacare overlords.

    • CC1s121LrBGT says:

      Jay Leno (paraphrased): “There are so many problems and issues with Obamacare and its implementation now that even the President is now calling it Bidencare.” lol

  2. popsmayhem says:

    What I am starting to learn…

    All of them want to f*&^% us over a barrel…

  3. Art Stone says:

    The theme of the original post is wrong 🙂

    The day before I wrote that, “Repeal Obamacare” became “Repeal and Replace”

    With What?

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/romney-launches-mission-repeal-and-replace/article/2500867

    So are the people who want to “Repeal Obamacare” going to show up and vote to “Repeal Obamacare and replace it with Romneycare”?

    In the last day or so, Mitch McConnell started sending signals that he understands the reality that a repeal of Obamacare is not possible no matter how well the Republicans do in November.

    http://www.humanevents.com/2012/07/03/mitch-mcconnell-says-obamacare-will-be-difficult-to-repeal/

    Once that message sinks in to the TEA party folks, the wind will vanish from the sails of Romney.

    Welcome your new globalist overlords.

    • I think Mitch McConnell needs to be repealed and replaced. Rand Paul is much more in tune with what Americans want at the moment.

      A much better Human Events article linked from that page was called “Top 10 Reasons Obama Won’t Be Re-elected.” I liked that one a lot more.

  4. George W. Bush spent money like a pre-Obama Democrat but in the BP era (Before Pelosi), we had 5% unemployment, substantial private investment and we stood up to our enemies. A Democrat is not the same as a Republican. Romney is not the same as Obama. We are not doomed. Let’s put Chicken Little back in the cage.

    • Art Stone says:

      I’m not completely sure why, but after Bush lost the midterm election in 2006, he seemed to “check out” of the job. Being strongly rebuked by the American public, his attitude on making decisions seemed to turn to “Whatever…” so we wound up with Mr Paulson knocking over large banks for his own personal reasons and the government stepping in to “Save” GM despite Congress having voted that doing that was not what the people wanted. I’m pretty sure history is not going to treat him well. I’ve had it with the “Bush Family”.

  5. Parrott says:

    Mitch McConnell from KY will block real reform. He is part or the problem, like Harry Reid. Way too established & on the take as well, just a different set of cronies.
    They will not let intra-state purchase of Insurance policies. Keep the pools small and cost up. Don’t want no competition. Too much lobbyist monies for the senate to listen to the ‘little people’ .
    Yeah, what JayMar said. Its like a Tick, its just we won’t be able to get the head out when its tried to be pulled out .
    We’re done. I am really sad for my kids and my nieces. We won’t be giving them the keys to much when the time comes.
    Parrott

    • magnusphi says:

      Parrott is right. Even with a Republican Senate, McConnell is part of the ongoing Republican Problem. His backing of Rand Paul’s opponent in 2010 is a good example.

      Speaking of Rand, the tea party seems to be co-opted and/or neutralized. I’d love to hear anyone’s take on how they aren’t. The prevailing wisdom is the tea party voting bloc is busy plowing fields and only makes itself known near election time. That contradicts their visibility during the summer and fall of 2010. Certainly now is the time to speak up again. I wonder if the tea party movement wasn’t an example of media hype, just like bird flu and Y2K. Either that or Dick Armey and the like took them out at the knees by being a cheerleader-lobbyist.

      • Art Stone says:

        Their power derived from nobody knowing who was in charge and what they agreed on. It also left them wide open to be hijacked.

        I’m very frustrated as I see the “conservative” movement’s focus being steered toward abortion and Middle East policy, not Federalism, over regulation, stability of the tax code, limiting the government role in student loans, mortgages, bailouts. When election day arrives most of the Catholic and Jewish voters will be pulling the Democratic party lever. Why do Conservatives let this drive their agenda?

        So I’m living in nowhere land. Republicans are just after control of power and money, ConservatIves want In God we trust printed on toilet paper and to keep knocking over sovereign countries in the name of “democracy”. Allah Akhbar.

        Could I pull the lever next to Obama? Maybe. Do I think it matters? Not a chance.

        • magnusphi says:

          Well put as usual, Art. Who sits in the White House means very little. You won’t hear Mittens paying anything other than lip service to state’s rights, federal overreaching, and the like. Is it safe to say the most ideal candidate in the Republican primaries was Ron Paul? Paul was neutralized early and often, as I knew he would be.

          Since there is so much working against this nation as we approach another birthday, what is the conclusion that can be inferred? A splintering into republics with common interests a la Igor Panarin? Seeking citizenship elsewhere? I never thought I’d consider those as possibilities ten years ago, but these days it’s difficult for me to ignore.

  6. magnusphi says:

    A recent Joseph Farah column at WND is focusing on the lowered expectations of a Romney presidency…using Romney’s own words. As stated above, a soft conservative in the White House (assuming Roberts didn’t help push Barry past the finish line in the fall) and a House that seemingly has had its Tea Party tailwind reduced to a gentle breeze will accomplish little. They can blame the Senate (which will stay Democrat) and a fairly left-leaning Supreme Court for “holding the nation back.” This way, Mittens can stay left-centered in his beliefs while trying to push through “daring, bold, and severely conservative” initiatives through the House to no avail. Voting is only powerful if there is a differential between the candidates. We’ve not seen that on the presidential level in quite some time, so I’ve become more than a little disenfranchised. A Wisconsin resident, I was glad to vote to retain Walker last month and, in the process, feel like my vote meant something. I doubt I’ll feel that way this November.

  7. prboylan says:

    If the fine for not buying insurance is now deemed a tax, how is it not a “direct” federal tax upon the citizens? I thought direct taxes were prohibited by the Constitution, except as provided in the 16th amendment (income tax).

    Oh, but I forgot. No one cares about the Constitution anymore. When even the SCOTUS ignores it, the Constitution becomes just one more dusty historical document written by white guys who are no longer relevant.

    Time for a tax revolt. It’s long overdue. The major corporations don’t care and wouldn’t be able to participate, but privately owned small businesses could pull it off.

    • prboylan says:

      Thread relevance- Art, you’re right. Romney will beat his gums after he’s elected but he won’t be able to do anything to repeal ObamaCare. The House of Representatives controls all federal spending and they could have de-funded the law anytime they chose to do so. They still can.

      • Art Stone says:

        The most that would do is to remove the federal subsidies.

        I haven’t read the 3,000 pages of the bill, but it wasn’t written by people who didn’t know the system. It may well be that the tax on pacemakers, etc… is put into a separate dedicated fund for Obamacare (like the Gasoline Tax for maintaining and building roads) and make the program at least in part self-funding, making it impossible to defund other than by repealing the tax.

  8. Wil Schuemann says:

    I vaguely recall, but am not really sure, that ObamaCare was passed in the Senate because some parliamentary maneuvering avoided the cloture maneuver (60 vote requirement to end debate).

    Does anyone know if the fact that the individual mandate has now been defined as a tax change the situation, such that only 51 votes in the Senate would be required to repeal ObamaCare?

    • Art Stone says:

      At this point, I don’t think there are any facts, only desired outcomes.

      The thing was forced through the Senate with less than 60 votes (but still with a majority) because the reconciliation process allows that to happen – but only if the bill doesn’t create a new tax. Judge Roberts could have argued that if he wanted to scuttle Obamacare, but he didn’t. Congress makes up its own rules for how it passes bills – that’s explicitly in the Constitution. What matters to the Court is that the bill was passed by the House and signed by the House Clerk as “passed”. The Supreme Court doesn’t to the best of my knowledge ever base its decisions on that Congress used a wrong procedure or violated its own rules. You won’t find anything about needing 60 votes to break a filibuster or the budget reconciliation process in the Constitution. That’s all just part of the rules that Congress has written down over the years. Rules alone are never a constraint when people don’t want to follow the rules.

      Barack Obama saying “I promise I won’t raise your taxes” has zero legal significance. Just ask George HW “No New Taxes” Bush.

  9. JayMar says:

    The law will never come off the books, even if Republicrats capture the Senate. Way too many establishment politicians for that to happen, especially after the backing of a “conservative” majority court. Our beloved USA is in a major storm, sliding to the ocean and will never recover.

Leave a Reply