Posted on 10/15/2010 5:11:49 AM PDT by truthandlife
Republicans could keep their promises to stop healthcare reform even if they cannot repeal it, simply by blocking legislation needed to pay for it, one expert argued.
Control of one house of Congress could give the Republicans power to cripple the law, creating "zombie legislation," healthcare expert Henry Aaron of the Brookings Institution wrote in a commentary in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Healthcare reform is President Barack Obama's signature policy.
The Affordable Care Act passed in March without a single Republican vote. It is supposed to get health insurance to 32 million Americans who currently lack it, help set up local clinics to help provide needed care, set new standards for health insurance and, eventually, begin to transform the fragmented U.S. healthcare system.
Many Republicans running for Congress in November have been promising to roll back as many of its provisions as possible or even to repeal it if they gain control of both the House and the Senate.
Repeal would be unlikely, Aaron said, as Obama would veto any such attempt.
Republicans are headed for gains in both chambers in the Nov. 2 elections and could take control of the House, but are not expected to win enough seats to override a presidential veto.
ZOMBIE LAWS
"A more serious possibility is that ACA opponents could deliver on another pledge: to cut off funding for implementation," Aaron wrote.
The legislation authorizes spending, but the actual cash must be appropriated in a second process. The ACA has more than 100 separate authorizations calling for spending of well over $105 billion between now and 2019.
"None of these funds will flow, however, unless Congress enacts specific appropriation bills," Aaron wrote.
Members of Congress could stop staff from working on rules for implementation, Aaron said.
(Excerpt) Read more at moneynews.com ...
If only they get elected AND keep their spines!
I have to imagine that there is one judge, one governor, one group of state legislators out there with the fortitude to tell the Federal Gummint and the Obama misAdministration, “NO. We won’t Play this game.”
Imagine for a moment that Jan Brewer simply asserts her state’s rights and sovereignty and delcares that Arizona will not participate in this scheme to rob Arizonan’s of their Liberty and force their citizens to pay for the healthcare of citizens of the other states.
What happens next?
It immediately ratchets up the stakes. What means does Zer0 have to compel a state’s compliance? Well, they can withhold Federal dollars for this and that...”Ok. Fine. We don’t want your money,” is a proper response, and so is, “And in return, this state will no longer turn over tax receipts to the Fed...”
A discussion - at the very least - if not a decision would be forced.
What’s he gonna do? Send troops to enforce the healthcare law? Doesn’t that just show how tyrannical this law is and how tyrannical he has become? The backlash would be horrific.
If one state, one governor finds a way to make and take a stand, rasing the stakes, calling their bluff...Others would certainly follow.
This thing could collapse into dust in just a few weeks. The tyrant’s power would be forever weakened...State’s to have their rights must assert them.
I heard a guest on Savage Nation talking about this very thing the other night. I didn’t catch his name, but he called it nullification. Said, as co-equal branches of government, it’s ludicrous for the states to be petitioning the federal government for a redress of their grievances via the courts. They should just refuse to implement the law. He stated that there are already states who are ignoring other federal laws and no tanks have rolled in yet.
Author Thomas Woods, Jr., Book “Nullification”.
In depth analysis of a procedure that has been used by the several states to nullify laws that were contrary to the Constition.
Very well written and ignored by MSM. Our ‘prarie fire’, so to speak.
Yep.
But making it public that they won’t play - just one state taking a stand - can create a domino effect. It makes the debate nationwide. It sucks the oxygen out of every other conversation in the nation until it is resolved. It forces the issue.
There is a measurable affect to escalating this. Ratcheting up the stakes polarizes the wishy-washy leaders around the country, galvanizes those that have already taken sides.
Once the administration commits to force or other acts of tyrnny to enforce its wishes it has lost - not a shot fired. They will be shamed into backing down just for looking like tyrants.
And if, God forbid, shots are fired...Well, then we needed to have this conversation anyway, apparently. Regardless of how some may have felt before about the idea of the healthcare law, they will feel the imposition of the fed on their state, their property and their livelihoods as a step too far. They will defend their homes, their children, their state...The revolution would be short lived because then other measures can be used to take down this tyranical government, other people in other states and in all levels of government begin to contribute to ways to end this madness - even to the point where removing this tyranical government - the obvious choice - becomes self-evident and action is taken against them.
I can’t imagine it stands.
Liberty would be restored to the land. The Constitution would be restored to the land.
Patriotic Americans would proudly celebrate this moment, even as they mourned the loss of those who had given the ultimate sacrifice for Freedom.
Republicans block entitlement programs? That would be novel.
I wouldn’t rely on them.
It is “We The People” who need to keep pushing back liberalism, socialism and elitism inside the Beltway.
We have a strange situation on our ballot here in Illinois this year. We have an opportunity to vote for Obama’s senate seat twice. We are voting to fill the “unfinished” portion of Obama’s term and also for the next term. Apparently the judiciary decided that a special election was necessary to fill the term to which Blago appointed Burris. Looks to me that this should have been resolved during last February’s primary as that was a clear opportunity to hold a no cost special election. Thus Burris has been an illegal senator since then. As such his vote for obamacare and any other legislation on which he voted should not count. Don’t remember for sure, but I think it passed with the bare minimum # of votes. If that is true, it shouldn’t really have passed.
This seems to bring up some basic constitutional questions. I am not a constitutional lawyer, but know about a fellow who claims to have some expertise in that area. If someone could get me Obama’s email address, I might bring the question up to him & get a reading on this subject.
If they do what they usually do, they will repeal a portion of the mess and declare victory, with a wink and a nod to their good friends across the aisle.
Hopefully, enough of the new breed will be elected, not catch Potomac Fever too soon, and won't care what the mediots or their good friends across the aisle think of them.
Thanks for the author and book info. Definitely going to check it out.
You bet, just about finished with it. Well documented, good writing style, goes into the library. He is our people!
I don’t disagree with you. When I posted about nullification, I was not implying that it should be done secretly or quietly. In fact, the 21 states that are currently suing the fed’s over this law should all band together and just do this. I honestly believe Obama is tyrannical enough to sick the tanks on one state - but 21?
I believe he is a tyrant as long as he’s unchallenged. I think he’s a chicken. I don’t think he could send tanks into one state.
All it takes is one to stand up to him. Just one.
Sides will then have to be takens, and I find it hard to imagine that there’d be many on the side of the tyrant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.