Replies

So is the funding cut off or does the bill have to pass other hurdles?

"It has to pass the Senate.

If it passes, it faces a veto by Obama. Override unlikely, but it will be tied around the President's neck as an issue in the next election.

If it fails to pass the Senate, there are 23 Democratic seats up in 2012. Four of them have already announced they are retiring. There is an excellent chance the Majority will change.

The Senate may pass its own version of this Budget, leaving this provision out. It goes to conference at that point. If the house holds strong, there is the possibility of a government shutdown. Again, this becomes an issue in the 2012 elections.

After Jan. 2013, if we control both Houses of Congress, and the White House, this thing is toast.

Even sooner, if SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional."

_____________________________________

Uh, this is not correct. Pursuant to the Constitution, all bills to spend money must originate in the House. The President can propose any spending he wants to, but that's just for show until the House puts said spending into a bill and send it over to the Senate. Then, if they approve it, the President must sign it for the bill to become law and to actually get the money spent.

So, in this case if the House doesn't put the spending into the budget bill, then the money can't get spent. The Senate and the President can stand on their heads, and it will do no more good than King Cannute getting pissed off about the tide rolling in.

The key here, now that these funds have been stripped out of the bill, is strictly and solely that the House Republicans have to stick to their guns and NOT GIVE IN. Shut the whole GD government down if necessary - and let the whole world know that it takes two to tango. Don't accept the blame for this the way Newt, etc. did in the mid-'90s. People elected a Republican House to control spending and stop Obamacare, so YOU GUYS BETTER DAMNED WELL DO THAT, OR START LOOKING FOR WORK STARTING 1/1/2013.

Good post. Right on... Except that, IIRC, significant money has already been appropriated for implementation of Mengelecare by the previous (DemocRAT-controlled) House. Apparently, this funding ($billions$) was snuck in there by Pelosi specifically in anticipation of a GOP takeover and the subsequent effort to "defund" Mengelecare. This money was supposed to fund implementation for several years.

I don't know how this works, but I thought I read that because of this manuever the GOP-controlled House could restrict or completely deny future funding, but would need consent of the Senate and the President to strip/repeal funding that has already been budgeted.

I hope I'm wrong. (And I probably am...)