Posted on 08/02/2013 1:11:54 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
House Republicans cast a win-win-win vote to go home on Friday — a single bill linking taxes, the IRS and the unpopular Obamacare.
Cuing up the exit music as they leave Washington for what’s likely to be an acrimonious August recess, the House voted 232-185 for a bill that would bar the IRS from any role in carrying out the law or in collecting taxes to help pay for it. Like most of the other 39 House votes against Obamacare, it’s largely symbolic as it won’t make it through the Senate.
The National Republican Congressional Committee will hammer home the tax-IRS-health law triple play message in August television ads. The theme is that the tax agency under fire for improperly targeting conservative political groups shouldn’t have any role in administering the health law. The NRCC also rolled out a new line of green T-shirts that say: “Hey IRS, hands off! My healthcare.”
“The IRS will have access to the American peoples’ protected health care information,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said Friday morning. “Given that this same agency has illegally disclosed protected taxpayer information, the privacy concerns raised by many are legitimate. This is nothing short of a big government overreach into the most personal aspect of our lives.”
The vote was the finale of a series of measures targeting the scandal-plagued IRS. It’s also part of Speaker John Boehner’s stated strategy of trying to attack the health law’s most vulnerable pieces this summer and fall while picking up a smattering of Democrats in the process. On this vote, only four Democrats — Rep. Mike McIntyre of North Carolina, Jim Matheson of Utah, John Barrow of Georgia and Collin Peterson of Minnesota — crossed party lines.
Boehner has outlined this as an alternative to risking a government shutdown over Obamacare...
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
No matter.
obumbler will just create another group to take the place of the IRS.
The Consumer Protection Agency would be a likely choice since they have immense powers to collect financial data already, and arguing that health care is not a serious concern for consumers who wish to be protected...rinos would never have the guts to argue the point.
“No matter.
obumbler will just create another group to take the place of the IRS.”
You’re right of course. I should have written “contribute to the disassembly of America”.
Bohner can stop that kind of krap
just as soon as he discovers the good Lord endowed him
with certain anatomical parts
Amen! You have to wonder whether Boehner and the House GOP leadership really want to get rid of Obamacare or are just grandstanding for the majority of voters who want to kill it completely.
Suppose we'll know for sure with the budget debate in September.
About time for "Boner" to stand up and do what is principled, rather than concerning himself with his image with the leftist MSM. Aside from that, getting rid of Obamacare by whatever means possible would be a political winner for the House GOP going into the 2014 elections.
If that’s an alternative to “risking” a government shutdown over the real thing, it’s a horrendously weak one. Boehner has absolutely no testosterone in his entire weepy self.
” You have to wonder whether Boehner and the House GOP leadership really want to get rid of Obamacare or are just grandstanding for the majority of voters who want to kill it completely.”
He hasn’t fixed anything yet, so I have no faith in him.
House votes to block IRS from Obamacare role
Thanks, justiceseeker93.
That didn't seem to help much in the case of Death Care.
Talk to the Dems...they own the Senate and the Presidency.
I think it’s time for the Tea Party to show up in DC again and remind the Kings and Queens that We The People will help them pack in 2014.
The House could vote to defund it every day...but without the other 2 branches...it just won't happen.
“The Constitution is clear on where fund must originate. House only. Tired of the game playing. They do not think anyone is left alive that has read the Constitution.”
The problem is, half white Hussein doesn’t go by the constitution - it doesn’t exist for him and no one is stopping him. He’ll figure out a way to go around the House and just do it as he is doing everything thing else.
“The Constitution is clear on where fund must originate. House only. Tired of the game playing. They do not think anyone is left alive that has read the Constitution.”
Yes, revenue bills must originate in the House of Reps, however, any revenue bills must still go to the Senate for a vote, and then to the President, for passage or veto. So, any attempt to vote down funding of Obamacare is an exercise in futility, as the Senate via Reid would just ignore the bill when it came there and not vote on it, and/or if somehow it was acted on in the Senate and passed, the President would then veto it. So, just like the House of Reps having voted 40 times to repeal Obamacare, the attempt to defund Obamacare would also be just symbolic.
In actuality the only ways to get rid of Obamacare is to have such a hue and cry from the citizenry that parts of it are dropped, or the Pubs win significant control of the Senate and enough seats in the House in the mid-term elections that by a 2/3 of Congress vote in both Houses they could override a Presidential veto. Or the Pubs win the Senate in the mid-term elections by a significant majority, maintain the House by a significant majority, and win the Presidency in 2016, thus having control of all 3 branches of gov’t.
That’s our options, folks, whether you like it or not. And that is the Constitution, correctly interpreted. See below:
From Wiki (Constitution of US):
Clause 1: Bills of revenue
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
This establishes the method for making Acts of Congress that involve taxation. Accordingly, any bill may originate in either House of Congress, except for a revenue bill, which may originate only in the House of Representatives. In practice, the Senate sometimes circumvents this requirement by substituting the text of a revenue bill previously passed by the House with a substitute text.[54][55] Either House may amend any bill, including revenue and appropriation bills.
The Origination Clause stemmed from an English parliamentary practice that all money bills must have their first reading in the House of Commons. It was intended to ensure that the “power of the purse” lies with the legislative body most responsive to the people, although the English practice was modified by allowing the Senate to amend these bills. The clause was also part of a compromise between small and large states; the latter were unhappy with equal representation in the Senate, and so the Origination Clause theoretically compensated the large states for allowing equal voting rights to Senators from small states.
Clause 2: From bills to law
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
This clause is known as the Presentment Clause. Before a bill becomes law, it must be presented to the President, who has ten days (excluding Sundays) to act upon it. If the President signs the bill, it becomes law. If he disapproves of the bill, he must return it to the House in which it originated together with his objections. This procedure has become known as the veto, although that particular word does not appear in the text of Article One. The bill does not then become law unless both Houses, by two-thirds votes, override the veto. If the President neither signs nor returns the bill within the ten-day limit, the bill becomes law, unless the Congress has adjourned in the meantime, thereby preventing the President from returning the bill to the House in which it originated. In the latter case, the President, by taking no action on the bill towards the end of a session, exercises a “pocket veto”, which Congress may not override. In the former case, where the President allows a bill to become law unsigned, there is no common name for the practice, but recent scholarship has termed it a “default enactment.”
Indeed. Buuuump!
No discretionary government spending, including Obamacare, can occur without approval first in the House. If the House passes a bill that continues all other discretionary spending except Obamacare, the government has no legal authority to spend on Obamacare. The Senate can't permit the funding of Obamacare on its own; it will have to meet with the House for negotiations if it insists on Obamacare funding, at which point the House GOP leadership's backbone will get its sternest test. With some Senate 'rats in states where Obmacare is unpopular up for re-election next year, it's really not predictable whether the House Republicans or Senate Democrats will "blink first" if such a showdown should come to pass.
Meanwhile, Obama can't legally spend anything on Obamacare implementation past Sept. 30 without both House and Senate approval. If he doesn't like it and if no agreement can be reached, there could be a "government shutdown" (no discretionary spending at all allowed), the thought of which bothers a lot of Republicans more than it should. There were several brief ones in the Clinton administration when Newt Gingrich was Speaker, which did not negatively impact the GOP's fortune in the subsequent congressional election.
Justiceseeker93, I like it, but can obamacare taxation (as opposed to spending) occur without House approval at this point?
Money is the ONLY thing that matters to the political class. Without it they have no power, no authority, no status, no grease on their palms, no ill-gotten gains, no privileges...and no jobs!
Yet the people continue to supply these scoundrels with money.
Defund THEM. Starve THEM. They can’t do their dirty work without money.
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.
