Can Appropriations Bills Defund Obamacare? [Yes!]

Heritage Foundation ^ | Aug 14, 2013

[Jim Robinson]

• Some have argued that because much of Obamacare constitutes “mandatory” spending—namely, new entitlements such as the massive Medicaid expansion and exchange insurance subsidies—Congress is powerless to defund the entire law as part of its annual appropriations bills. These claims are false.

• Congress routinely enacts changes to mandatory spending programs as part of its annual appropriations process. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recognizes these changes when analyzing spending bills and scores them as CHiMPS—changes in mandatory program spending.

• In February 2011, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1—legislation intended to reduce federal spending by $100 billion, consistent with House Republicans’ “Pledge to America.” CBO found 23 pages’ worth of CHiMPS in the House-passed version of H.R. 1. These reductions in mandatory spending ran the gamut from $26 million in savings over one year, and $74 billion in savings over ten years, achieved by reducing the maximum Pell Grant award (Section 1831), to $30 million in savings achieved by reducing mandatory appropriations to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Section 1517).

• Congress has already defunded mandatory programs within Obamacare—and done so through appropriations measures. Section 1857 of the continuing resolution Congress enacted in April 2011 (P.L. 112-10) “permanently cancelled” $2.2 billion in mandatory funding to Obamacare’s co-op health insurance program.

• Congress has also defunded elements of health care entitlements for decades. Every year since 1976, Congress has enacted the Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funding of abortion. This provision, enacted as part of discretionary appropriations legislation, prohibits abortion coverage in the Medicaid entitlement program.

• Historically, Congress has used the “power of the purse” broadly to make key policy statements through defunding. For instance, in 1982 Congress acted to block the Reagan Administration’s policy for supporting the Contra forces opposing the Nicaraguan government. As part of Public Law 97-377, Congress prohibited both the Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency from furnishing military equipment and support to any group for the purpose of overthrowing the Nicaraguan government. Even though defense spending is not funded through mandatory appropriations, the example demonstrates that defunding has been—and remains—a powerful tool Congress can use to affect public policy.

• Given the examples above, and numerous others, it is beyond dispute that Congress can use its power of the purse to defund Obamacare—both its mandatory and discretionary spending—in appropriations legislation this fall. The lone remaining question is whether Congress can summon the political will to do so.

[Vigilanteman]

Congress has also used its power of the purse to unilaterally cancel treaty obligations:

[Norm Lenhart]

His record is a mirror of Obamas. Pro gay, pro Abortion, Anti gun control freak.

Before his election, Obama wasn’t a full blown tyrant either. But his record showd him to have that potential. Once elected, he realized that potential. So you think his twin would do any different? Not according to his record he wouldn’t have.

History can be a real problem for his apologists. And making excuses and what ifs is no different. He was and is a liberal and some here wanted him in office.

Conservatives do not make excuses for liberal disasters. If they do and thats the new normal here, then what else are you willing to compromise on so we can have this debate on clear footing?

[wita]

The issue is in comment 48. What you seem to ignore are the folks elected who do pay attention to the platform and who can be considered principled GOP. I don’t think you really want to throw good people under the bus to end up with a third party that will ultimately look exactly like what you dislike at present. You unfortunately reject everything when not everything is bad. That my friend is the democrat view of the Republican party, and it is a lie.

[Norm Lenhart]

Name 10 actual conservatives who vote consistently with the written platform on the big issues.

From that number if you can reach it, how many of them are like McCain and Ghramm who occasionally vote right but ALWAYS screw the whole thing up Gang of Ocho style?

How many does that leave? 5? maybe? That is how Democrats get power, not by electing principled people.

God I cannot believe I am on FR trying to convince people that voting for principled leaders is good and that electing libs is bad.

[stevie_d_64]

“...political will...” ???

How about “political courage”!!!

Otherwise, my opinion of Congress remains the same...They are a bunch of feckless wastes of air...

[stevie_d_64]

Be aware, there is a concerted effort by the opposition to turn Texas blue once again...They are succeeding...

They may not get it totally done this next election cycle, but the trend in the tea leaves is they have a good chance to do so by the time 2016 rolls around...

It is wayyyyyy past time to draw swords, put a line in the sand as far as I am concerned...

[Norm Lenhart]

The dems learned that they only need to get liberal/moderate Repubs elected to conservative areas to have their agenda passes without a fight. And they count on the compromise brigade of the right wing base to elect them.

But some here insist we help them. Proof is in the history of the post Reagan years.

[RKBA Democrat]

The platform of the gop is not relevant in my view. It’s propaganda for the ever shrinking numbers of true believers. Whatever platform is agreed to will be promptly ignored less than 5 minutes after the convention ends.

Even if the gop were to wake up one morning and make a serious effort to reform itself along conservative lines, it would be doomed to failure. Why? Because trust has been broken. Once broken, trust is very difficult to regain, and the gop has broken trust with conservatives so many times that there just isn’t any reserve to fall back on. Very few people who don’t have a vested personal interest in the gop would bother with a reform effort, sincere or otherwise. It would be perceived, logically, as a waste of time and effort.

There is an old saying that goes like this: fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. The gop is up around 346 in fooling conservatives.

The time of the gop as an opposition political party is simply over. We have a one party system with two factions that differ little in their views of governance.

[wita]

“God I cannot believe I am on FR trying to convince people that voting for principled leaders is good and that electing libs is bad”.

I’m giving you credit for your being a 98er, but you have no idea how ignorant your comment sounds to me. Mitt Romney was one of the most principled men running and unfortunately you nor I will ever know how he would have governed. Frankly I had very few questions regarding how Mr Romney would have governed, and I knew exactly how the other one would back when he was an Illinois State Senator.

“His record is a mirror of Obamas. Pro gay, pro Abortion, Anti gun control freak”. Total emotional crap based on what you may have been reading right on this very site.

Your choosing to ignore other principles completely opposite has me thinking you have been emotionally dragged into the fray.

Regardless of everything you mentioned above about Romney, it is the Congress that would have faced those issues, NOT Mr Romney, and as you and I hopefully both agree it is the Congress by and large that is the problem with government. They are abdicating their duty to keep the Executive and Judicial branches of Government in check and it isn’t all of them, just enough to make it seem like “they” are all against us.

As to your name ten comment, I would say 40% of the House Republicans could be counted on to vote right much of the time and the Senate pretty close to the same number. In both houses of Congress that is not a majority, but it is close. It may be all one can expect when you try to elect someone with principles from the North east or the West coast. Nearly impossible. Government is what it is and the voters are in charge. So you win a few and lose a few, and don’t throw the baby out with the bath water to use an overused statement.

[ChildOfThe60s]

As I understand it, the Republicans had options at several points to stop OC from being passed. Options they did not utilize.

Why?

It was obvious to me that the leadership wanted it to pass, albeit on party lines, in the belief that the party would benefit at the polls in the next elections.

It was a cold, calculated decision to destroy the lives of millions of people for what they hoped would be political gain. IMO, this makes them as evil as the Dems.

Mitch McConnell is dirty as hell on this point & if he is successful in reaching the general election, he will not get my vote.

[Norm Lenhart]

Are you remotely serious or as Ashton going to jump out and tell me I got punked?

Principled? The man that has cartoons in his honor showing him talking out of both sides of a dozen mouths? the guy that gave his own money to planned barrenhood? the guy that said he’d be better than Ted Kennedy for the homos? thee guy that had illegals working at his house?

I gotta tell you. I have seen some over the top outright lies about this guy but PRINCIPLED??

Really?

This is a joke right? Because if you are serious you are barking moonbat insane. The guy is a principled liberal in that he adopted the principles of liberalism. All of them.

He didn’t miss one I’m aware of. And please tell me that 40 percent number has some data to back it up. I know it doesn’t of course since we see Obama’s unchecked spending and power grabs daily.

Just amazing what people call conservative around here lately.

[rawcatslyentist]

Rodney Alexander R La. member appropriations committee, has announced his last term.

Rodney turned coat about 15 years ago.

I look for him to sell US out! Take the money and run. Obey his master, and stomp the smurfs!

[SoConPubbie]

The guy is a principled liberal in that he adopted the principles of liberalism. All of them.

He didn’t miss one I’m aware of.

Bingo!

And this has been proven by historical fact over and over and over again on FreeRepublic by Freepers.

[rawcatslyentist]

>"Too bad the law doesn’t prevent the DOD from providing military equipment to city cops."

Or the DOJ from providing military equipment to Prohibition Created Foreign Drug Cartels.

[Norm Lenhart]

Got another lib demanding we stay on the plantation here

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3055064/posts

[SoConPubbie]

I’m giving you credit for your being a 98er, but you have no idea how ignorant your comment sounds to me. Mitt Romney was one of the most principled men running and unfortunately you nor I will ever know how he would have governed. Frankly I had very few questions regarding how Mr Romney would have governed, and I knew exactly how the other one would back when he was an Illinois State Senator.

Principled my Ass!

The Father of RomneyCare, a Socialist Healthcare program principled?

The Father of Gay Marriage in America, Principled?

The supporter of Abortion, Principled?

The supporter of Gays in the Military, the Boy Scouts, and Allowing them to adopt innocent babies, Principled?

The supporter of Global Warming, Principled?

The Governor that wanted to ban Assault Weapons, Principled?

And he did not admit every, that his previous positions and actions were incorrect during this last election, so besided not being principled, he is dishonest.

Principled in comparison to who? Stalin? Nancy Pelosi? Barack Obama?

There is not an ounce of conservative principle, or even Christian principle in that Liberal loser's soul as HIS OWN HISTORY PROVES!

[fatnotlazy]

Thank you. My congressman still thinks Obamacare is the best thing to happen since sliced bread. He’s one of those “I know what’s best for you” congressmen. And the idiots in my district keep voting him back in.

[itsahoot]

And contrary to many idiots claims, we do indeed have a choice.

[Art in Idaho]

We must more than just defund Obamacare. We also need to create a viable alternative. And here's my suggestion: allow health insurance companies to offer policies across state lines on a regional basis. That way, there will be vastly more choice for health insurance plans, and with a lot more competition, that means lower prices overall.

A good idea. Let get-out-of-the-way free market entrepreneurial capitalism have a free reign. No government involvement. None. The only way that's going to happen is the eventual success of a third party or an armed revolution. Take your pick. 'Reforming' the republican party is not going to happen. Newt railing on about the republicans having no 'alternative' health care plan is a perfect example of how entrenched they are. The plan Newt is simple: free market entrepreneurial capitalism. Any questions?

[stephenjohnbanker]

” “The administration miscalculated how many states would support this law, so now they’re using the IRS to push through provisions that Congress did not pass.”

Nailed it!