Posted on 11/04/2010 5:12:22 PM PDT by FTJM
The legislative process isn't normally thought of as "litigation" ~ that's something for the courts.
It would be good of the Republicans to hold PUBLIC HEARINGS on the issue and bring in witnesses to provide some pros and cons on each and every element including the standards of care committees, taxes on prosthetics for handicapped people, tanningbed taxes, etc.
This could be going on coincident with other work of course,
She voted for it, she promoted it, she pimped for it, look where it got her! Next I want to see old Dicky Turban gone from Illinois.
WE got Mark Kirk (R) in as senator, next we need to dump Turban!
I think you two are on the right track with your analyses of the situation.
Gibbs protests too much.
It is a misconception that the heavy turnouts of freaks put 0bama over the top. They made up a huge part of his base but it was the Independents and a few Republicans who put him over the top. If he loses the independents he cannot win in 2012 unless there is a 3rd party candidate to suck away votes from the GOP candidate.
DEM Efforts to fund healthcare won't get past the House.
Check and Checkmate .
Very true on all counts.
Especially regarding the remark about the 3rd party candidate. That’s the dem MO for getting re-elected. They tried it on the ballot in just about every Congressional race in my state. Right now, I believe they are under an illusion that Bloomerberg would be a good 3rd party candidate to ruin Republicans, but I believe he would take more votes away from the dems.
The biggest 3rd party threat to republicans would be from someone professing to be from the Right. After seeing what happened with Clinton, I believe most of us know better than to fall for such a thing, but in a close race, 50,000 votes somewhere could be more than enough to throw the whole thing to the dems....
No matter Gibbsy-boy... if we can’t get it through the front door we’ll go around, if we can’t go around we’ll go over the top, if we can’t go over the top, we’ll parachute in from above... and by the way, did ya notice how many more Republican Govs there are out there? I expect the voters in all those states had something to do with that, and I’m willing to bet, a large percentage of those voters were voting against Obamacare... get my drift dude?
When the courts start to tackle this bill he isn’t going to be able to veto that. This will be a tag team at some point. We do not have the money to support it.
The House need not vote to defund. Hannity made the same error on Fox News tonight. He said the House could vote for budget cuts.
Nothing is spent unless the House and the Senate both vote to spend the money and the President signs the appropriation legislation. As long as the House doesn't vote to fund it, it gets no money.
The dynamics on Obamacare may change. I am sure the dems got an earful during the campaign and they also saw a huge wave of GOP wins from candidates that promised to repeal it. More and more details are coming out. It’s their chance to save their hide. The know now that supporting Obama can kill their gravy train jobs. The second wave of suicide politicians will not be so willing after the 2010 massacre.
De-funding is the only viable effective strategy. De-funding can be piecemeal.
1. Cut funding for IRS compliance officers
2. Cut analysts for “exchanges” subsidy determinations
3. Cut the rationing boards (actually from the Stimulus law)
4. Cut all public information “propaganda” campaigns. We can still pay for Andy Griffith’s Aricept for his dementia.
Concurrent congressional hearings will re-educate the public on the horrors of this legislation.
The House can also justify the de-funding of this legislation because it is so contentious and a SCOTUS determination will be needed. It will be hard for critics to argue against that.
It’s a small, but important point: it is unnecessary to “defund” anything. Government is only “funded” after an appropriations bill is passed by Congress and signed by the President.
The Appropriations Committee Chairman can simply forward the bill without the onerous spending included in it. No vote required.
True. And this probably makes the process favor the House. I would think that the House would appropriate bills piecemeal, leaving out the appropriations for 0bamacare and other obnoxious legislation. The important parts of the government will be funded. The Senate would have to determine whether go along with this approach, but it seems that the Senate could be seen as obstructionist if they opposed a defense appropriations bill for example. The senate will want the whole enchilada passed and then go to conference.
Harry Reid may be the one that shuts things down when he does not get the appropriations the he wants, but this will be difficult.
I do have a question. If temporary measures such as continuing resolutions are passed to give the House and Senate more time to appropriate for the budget, would 0bamacare be funded as a part of the continuing resolutions?
Whatever happens, I hope that these scenarios are worked as carefully as the Pentagon’s warplans.
The debt ceiling could be the first test.
That’s funny. He’s a Kenyan Keynesian.
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.