Repealing Obamacare: what goes around may come around
Keith Hennessy lays out a multi-step blueprint for repealing Obamacare in 2013:
* Keep up the pressure in 2011 and 2012:
* maintain and strengthen Republican unity toward full repeal;
* repeatedly attack the bill legislatively on all fronts, knowing that most votes will pass the House and fail in the Senate;
* continue legal pressure through the courts; and
* tee up repeal as a key partisan difference in the 2012 Presidential and Congressional elections;
* In 2012 win the White House, hold the House majority, and pick up a net 3 Republican Senate seats to retake the majority there; and
* In 2013, use reconciliation to repeal ObamaCare, requiring only a simple majority in the Senate.
It is a profoundly satisfying poetic justice that the final step of the undoing could involve the reconciliation process. And it would be even more satisfying because—unlike the passage of Obamacare—the argument for reconciliation being valid in this case is stronger.
There are problems with CBO scoring and the like (not to mention defeating Obama in 2012), but apparently they could be overcome. Read what Hennessy writes, and see what you think.
[ADDENDUM: And then there’s the war between the states—and Obamacare.]
There’s poetic justice to it, but at the same time, I’m not sure that railroading things via an Orwellian “reconciliation” is a good idea in the first place. Maybe we’re past the point of caring about the high ground (which has been abandoned by both parties anyway), though, and well into “playing the game” and just sticking it to the other guys the way they stuck it to us. *shrug*
You seize the high ground by winning. When Washington was employing non-European fighting tactics which were mocked and despised by the British, was that not occupying the high ground?
In war there is little high ground and war has been declared and is being made upon us. Ironically, someone like Rush Limbaugh provides a comic sense of relief and a greater ability to keep whatever high ground we may. But to present reconciliation as a low ground, whew. Wake up and smell the democrats.
It may be that Obamacare makes its way to the SCOTUS before this congressional time line for repeal can play out. If it does, I think a 5-4 majority will uphold Vinson’s ruling. As the journal article notes, a majority of state governments are waging ‘war’ against Obamacare and the more conservative judges will be cognizant of this factor. Look to see the majority opinion declare it unconstitutional per the commerce clause but also with (hopefully) a reference to the 9th & 10th amendments.
If the SCOTUS rules as I suspect they will before the ‘012 elections it will have an impact on the outcome…. bye-bye Obamacare and (perhaps) bye-bye Obama.
I agree with that blueprint to get rid of the worst legislation I have seen in my life (a pretty long time 🙂 ).
So far, we are on track.
The more likely those steps to getting rid of the Health Care Law are, the more likely Obama will attempt to negotiate a ‘fix’ with the Republicans well before the 2012 elections leaving in place as much of the infrastructure of the existing law as possible.
Of course if the Supreme Court rules against the law then he still will be motivated to get something in place before he leaves office. That something won’t look anything like the current law, but he’ll be more flexible the closer to the election.
I absolutely hate that a nominal nine Supremes will make the decision. Nominal, because it is entirely reasonable to expect “Unconstitutional” from 4, “Constitutional” from 4. That leaves ONE Supreme to cast the tiebreaker.
The decision on the future of 300 million rests with one. ONE. Not just re Obamacare, but with the entirety of the future America: individualism v. collectivism. The Politburu v. States’ Rights.
We’re fussing about Mubarak? I give you Justice Kennedy.
It would be a major step toward American salvation if the Supremes voted 8-1 or 9-0 against Obamacare. Ain’t gonna happen.
We keep tiptoeing toward the abyss, knowing it’s there but pretending it isn’t. Just following the rules, occasionally weeping into our hankies like Boehner. And one fine day, it will suddenly blow up, just like Cairo, but with much, much more violence.
Occasionally weeping into our hankies like Boehner.
Very good. Love it.
I can assure you, I am not weeping into my hankie. I’m fashioning it into a garrote. Metaphorically speaking. (not that there’s anything wrong with that!)
What I should’ve said before I derailed over the Supremes is Hennessy is much more interested in process than product. There are major, major issues he quite ignores, while wanting to tweak here, tweak there, and tweak badly at that. I am amused that he remains so guileless.