Skip to comments.Defunding Obamacare would defund Obamacare; but NOT DEFUNDING Obamacare is not FUNDING Obamacare
Posted on 09/23/2013 11:16:53 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
A slew of recent articles (Bloomberg, Washington Post, National Journal) explaining the effort to defund Obamacare have all pointed out an important fact: A government shutdown wouldn't defund Obamacare.
But these articles have all glossed over another important fact: Defunding Obamacare would defund Obamacare.
The bill to keep the government fully funded after Sept. 30 is called the "continuing resolution" or CR. If Congress fails to pass a CR by Sept. 30, then we get a "government shutdown." But, of course, many government functions will keep operating, just not most of those functions that require annual appropriations.
Guess what doesn't require annual appropriations? Almost all of Obamacare. So, yes, B-Berg, NatJo and WaPo a government shutdown won't defund Obamacare.
But that's not the whole story. The House passed a CR numbered H.J. Res 59. This House CR, in addition to funding the government at current levels, also contains a "defund Obamacare" provision. This provision at least aims to defund Obamacare, and I think it does:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal funds shall be made available to carry out any provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ...
No entitlement to benefits under any provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ... shall remain in effect on and after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution, nor shall any payment be awarded, owed, or made to any State, District, or territory under any such provision.
Sure, there's some ambiguity as to whether the tax credits Obamacare created are affected, but the GOP staff who wrote the language argues that Obamacare is effectively moot if the House bill becomes law. From an aide to an appropriator:
"The defund provision of the CR prevents taxpayer dollars from being used to implement or enforce the law, including the individual mandate, employer mandates, subsidies, exchange operation, rules for insurance companies, etc."
So, it seems to be false when Ezra Klein writes that the " 'continuing resolution' that defunds Obamacare ... wouldn't actually stop Obamacare from being implemented."
Also misleading is the language coming from the Tea Partiers in the Senate.
Rand Paul says, "I will not vote for any CR that funds Obamacare." Heritage Action writes about battling "a CR that funds Obamacare."
But for the most part, no CR will fund Obamacare, even if Obama wrote it himself. You know what funds Obamacare? A bill called HR 3590, also known as the Affordable Care Act.
Obamacare funds Obamacare.
This is a point of contention between the Ted Cruz wing of the GOP and the rest of the GOP, because Cruz is now saying he will filibuster the House CR, which defunds Obamacare. He will block a motion to limit debate, because once debate is limited, Reid can strip the defund language with a simple majority vote.
But such a CR can't be called a "CR that funds Obamacare." It's really a "CR that doesn't defund Obamacare."
This is not merely semantics. This matters because Cruz's strategy involves a government shutdown. If Cruz kills the CR altogether, he's not blocking significant Obamacare funding he's leaving Obamacare mostly alone, while cutting most other government funding.
In other words, Cruz and Heritage Action might want to justify filibustering the CR by claiming an amended CR "funds Obamacare" but that ignores the truth: Obamacare stays funded without a CR because, as stated at the beginning, a government shutdown doesn't defund Obamacare.
I admit Im confused...Im not blindly following Cruz/Lee but they do have all the right enemies. I want obamacare out/crippled/dead!
Then by all means defund it.
then what is the fuss, just defund it
I’ve never understood how a “government shutdown” essentially means 90% of the government keeps running on autopilot
If Obamacare is voted defunded, let the courts sort it out. (maybe Roberts doesn’t like being the most hated man on earth). What it is doing right now is exposing which Republicans have been working behind our backs to save Obamacare, and we now understand their intentions to get as many invaders in the US as possible. These sellouts are forever scum and no one will ever vote them into office again.
Umm, ok. A distinction without a difference. Are there people who will vote against defunding who are also against Obamacare? I don’t see how they can reconcile the views.
If shutting down the government doesn’t stop Obamacare, it still has a significant effect. It forces the Democrats to give up a majority of the big government beast in order to keep Obamacare or to give up Obamacare to keep their beast.
I’m fine with that strategy. They won’t keep a wildly unpopular healthcare law that is already negatively impacting voters just to save Obama’s legacy. They can always be counted on to save their own hides.
Midterms are not far away.
Hopefully most here already knew that.
The whole idea is that a shutdown would force Reid to pass a defund bill and then Obama to sign it when they get all the blame for it and the public lines up against them with the media's help.
(On the good side a shutdown due to Senate inaction reflects on Dems as they control that house)
Of course ’we dont really want a shutdown, its Obama who wants that, wink, wink ’
To make things more confusing, voting for the defund CR in Senate (cloture vote) is likely to lead to Reid restoring the funding to the CR and sending that to Bohner and Cantor and voting against it could lead to the shutdown mentioned above.
I believe the point is that Bongocare is mostly funded by the healthcare act itself. The citizen pays fees directly, the funding isn’t from the government. That’s why some call it a tax.
Hollywood can move over - anyone who wants to see real weath can watch the blowhard crooks who run the United States.
Hollywood can move over - anyone who wants to see real weath can watch the blowhard crooks who run the United States.
No, there is a significant difference.
Are there people who will vote against defunding who are also against Obamacare?
Yes, the GOP-e who sent opposition research on Ted Cruz to Chris Wallace oppose Obamacare but do not support attaching a measure to defund Obamacare to the CR.
I dont see how they can reconcile the views.
They do so by explaining that there is no way politically to defund Obamacare. They posit that the best we can do now with a Democrat majority in the Senate is delay Obamacare until we get a Republican majority in the Senate.
The Democrats hold the majority in the Senate. We can’t get a measure to defund Obamacare through the Senate.
If we go for the shutdown, which doesn’t stop Obamacare, we have to be willing to endure the pain until Democrats choose to defund Obamacare in exchange for funding the rest of their government beast.
“If we go for the shutdown...”
“We” have nothing to do with any shutdown, only the President and Senate majority can cause a shutdown
Actually I live in one of those rich counties referenced, I always post about it here. Its another housing boom here.
Dems always cite that its the red states like Alabama that pay the least NET taxes per NET government benefits they get , and its the high income blue states like NY, Maryland and CA that pay the most per net handout.
But I haven't seen what goes into those numbers.
Sample Call Script
Hi, this is ________ ________ and I'm calling to urge Senator ________ to OPPOSE "cloture" on the continuing resolution (CR) to stop Harry Reid's trick plan to fund Obamacare with only 50 votes.
Is Senator ________ going to vote against cloture? ...
I strongly oppose Obamacare and I hope the senator will stand with Mike Lee and Ted Cruz and oppose cloture so the Democrats can't fund it. We must stop the implementation of Obamacare and there are millions of Americans counting on the senator to stand strong.
Will you please pass my message on to the senator? ...
The House passed a bipartisan bill to prevent a government shutdown and to defund Obamacare so it won't be implemented this year. This House legislation represents the will of the American people and the Senate should approve it. Unfortunately, Harry Reid and the Democrats plan to add Obamacare funding back into the bill using a procedural trick that allows them to fund Obamacare with only 50 votes.
Senate Republicans can stop Harry Reid's plan to fund Obamacare by defeating cloture a vote on the process that requires 60 votes. If Republicans defeat cloture, they can protect the House bill that defunds Obamacare and pressure Democrats to adopt it.
However, if Republicans vote for cloture, Obamacare will be funded and millions of Americans will be forced into a government program that is unaffordable, unworkable, and unfair.
A vote for cloture is a vote to fund Obamacare.
Don't let Senate Republicans tell you the vote on cloture is a vote to "defund" Obamacare. It is not. Cloture approves the debate process, not the bill being debated.<.b> If cloture were truly a vote to "defund" Obamacare, the Democrats would not be supporting it.
Senate Republican Whip List
Tell the Republicans to OPPOSE cloture to stop Harry Reid's plan to fund Obamacare. Tell them a vote for cloture is a vote to fund Obamacare.
A roster of Republican Senators AND contact info can be found here. Scroll down page.
Did you read the article? The above statement is apparently false. Obamacare is funded by the Act that established it not by a continuing resolution to fund the government. The Democrats don't have to "add" funding for Obamacare.
Alabama has a large black population ... that eats up a lot of taxes.
Yes, technically speaking, if the Senate refuses to pass a CR or the POTUS refuses to sign one, either of those actions causes a government shutdown.
So the issue becomes whether or not we (the Tea Party, the grassroots, conservatives, etc.) are willing to endure the “pain” associated with a prolonged government shutdown in order to force the Democrats to defund Obamacare.
One way or another, we’ll choose.
People in Hollywood pay high taxes too - it’s a consequesnce of making a lot of money. I guess the parasites in DC are proud of taking our money while bankrupting the country. Those folks in Alabama - black and white would be happy to pay $80,000 a year in taxes if they could keep $200,000.
The DC folks fear a backlash - as all crooks do - and that’s why they’re afraid of the Tea Party. It’s not that middle class people have figured them out yet - but that they fear it’ll happen... And if History is a guide - eventually ‘the people’ will get tired of the crooks. And yeah, it can happen here...
This sounds like:âAnd today isn’t really Monday. You poor fools THINK this is Monday but that is because you’re not as smart as I am.â Okay right! Defund the pos.
We need to cut off the subsidies to Hollyweird as well as everything else
I would not be surprised if that is not the endgame for Cruz and Lee, they just not are as stupid as Boehner and so don't announce their strategy in advance. To get there, the House has to hold firm, and bring the government to a shutdown. If they hold fast long enough, and if it seems that there are some red state Democrat Senators who are getting afraid of their constituents, a compromise may well be reached, delaying Obamacare for a year or two. It will be easy to sell--they delayed it for fat cats, we just want it delayed for everyone.
And, when that compromise is reached, they are not agreeing to fund Obamacare in the future. See how easy that is? If you oppose Obamacare, you don't vote to fund it. And if you oppose Obamacare, you do vote to defund it. The distinction you want to reach is that between surrendering and fighting. You suggest that those who are surrendering to Obama are not as bad as those who are on his side from the beginning. I think one that surrenders before even trying to fight might as well be on his opponent's side.
It’s not. From National Journal:
According to a Congressional Research Service report released at the end of July, much of the laws [Obamacare} implementation is separate from annual discretionary appropriations.
This is because much of the law relies on mandatory funding and multiple-year and no-year discretionary funds, which are not beholden to annual budget debates.
Also, [Executive Branch] agencies have prepared contingency plans in the event of a government shutdown, and the Health and Human Services plan maintains funding for many of its programs.
The vote to fund Obamacare took place when Pelosi and Reid forced the Patrient Protection and Affordable Care Act through Congress. It's already funded.
Our options now are:
Anyone who doesn’t vote for defunding is giving the Democrats another victory in 2016 because I WILL stay home. No more Karl Rove White Houses for me.
As to the 3 choices, I agree with your list somewhat. Choices 1 and 2 are our current only choices. Democrats will never defund it on their own. They may agree to a delay, but they will not agree to a delay unless they see that Republicans are resolute. Otherwise, they will just beat up on them in the press and wait for them to fold.
As for Choice 3, that is for next year, not now. It is not much of a choice if Republicans don't win this battle or force a delay. If Obamacare goes into effect now, it will be much harder to defund it in 2014. And conservatives will be so disillusioned with Republicans that they will put control of the Congress in serious doubt.
Even if you get a Republican majority in both houses in 2014, it just gets us back to the shutdown fight, because Obama will most definitely veto any repeal. So then you are back to negotiating a delay or else Republicans shut down the government. Might as well begin that fight now, before Obamacare is implemented and people have got new health plans, not after.
Choice 4, not on your list, is to keep defunding the bill until 2016, until a Republican president can sign a bill repealing this monstrosity of a law. And even then it will be tough, because Dems will filibuster in the Senate. It may take a budgetary parliamentary maneuver to get it done.
You've left out a few steps, but the bottom line is that to get from here to repeal, the first step is to vote to defund Obamacare. If you don't do that, you cannot pretend to be against it.
Where/when was it funded? Please let me know so I can contact Senate Conservatives (DontFundObamacare.com petition) and let them know that their statement is false. Thanks.
From the Congressional Research Service report:
... the federal government will be able to rely on sources of funding other than annual discretionary funds still available for obligation as well as mandatory funds.
Is it funded, already, or not? Senate Conservatives - and several other conservative sites - seem to think it is NOT funded, yet. If anyone can confirm, please let me know. Thanks.
Specifically, read the first two paragraphs under Questions & Answers in the CRS report. In short the answer is two-fold: funds other than annual discretionary appropriations and mandatory funding provided for in the ACA when it was passed by Congress.
Yes, most of it is funded. See my post at 33.
Another poster seems to disagree...
Regarding the people demanding that the House of Representatives defund constitutionally indefensible Obamacare, some patriots have been referencing Federalist No. 58 which was written by James Madson.
In Federalist No. 58, Madison actually emphases that one of the main reasons that the Founding States delegated the power of the purse solely to the House of Representatives (HoR) was give the HoR a means by which the people could redress their grievances against the Oval Office for usurping legislative powers (my wording), not that Obama would dare think of usurping Congress's powers. =^O
Here's key wording from Federalist No. 58:
The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. They, in a word, hold the purse that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.
From this thread...
The House controls the purse. Just to confirm, as this is confusing to many of us.
Headline makes no sense.
"But for the most part, no CR will fund Obamacare, even if Obama wrote it himself. You know what funds Obamacare? A bill called HR 3590, also known as the Affordable Care Act."
Baloney. The courts have held that each individual congress can control the spending. A prior congress cannot bind future congresses on spending bills. They cannot block the power of a future congress to control spending during its term. The current House holds the purse strings and the power to deny funds. Look it up. James Madison Federalist 58.
“Bongocare”... I had to laugh. Mind if I use that in my vernacular? I love it.
HR 3590 was passed by a prior congress now dead and gone. Thank God and Greyhound.
The current congress (elected by the people as a direct result of the recalcitrant prior congress that rammed it through over the objections of the people and by bastardizing the long-standing rules and procedures to do so) absolutely has the constitutional power and authority to either appropriate funds or deny funds. Especially if those funds are unwisely being spent to unconstitutionally expand government powers beyond its constitutional limits. It’s the people’s check on a runaway chief executive. James Madison was a wise man.
Yes, the House controls the purse and they already opened it for Obamacare when they passed the Affordable Care Act. Madison’s Federalist No. 58 does not contradict the Congressional Research Service report that I cited.
It was the House of Representatives who provided the mandatory funding for various aspects of Obamacare within the Affordable Care Act itself. Read the report.
The House does not have to vote to fund Obamacare. They have to vote to defund Obamacare, which they did.
I hope that clears it up for you.
No, the house must reject whatever the senate sends back to them and then send a new “clean” CR funding the entire government, except with ZERO funds for the departments charged with implementing Obamacare. And I believe that would be maily HHS and IRS. The senate will object, then they can negotiate the proper funding levels for those departments again, with zero funding for obamacare being approriated.
Absolutely agreed. I'm not asserting otherwise. The House doesn't have to vote to fund Obamacare. If they want to deny funds, as is totally and completely within their power under the Constitution, then they must vote to defund it. That is the point of the article.
The main elements of Obamacare (insurance exchanges, subsidies, and the individual mandate) will be funded even during a shutdown through mandatory funding that was provided for in the ACA and through multi-year and no-year discretionary funds.
Social Security and Medicare are continually funded in the same manner. A prior Congress provided for mandatory funding within the original legislation. To stop funding those programs, the House would have to vote to defund them.
” I know no method to secure the repeal oof bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution.” Ulysses Grant
"Congress also may, and does, adjust, suspend, or repeal various provisions of law through appropriations acts. United States v. Dickerson (1940); Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Society (1992); United States v. Bean (2002). The Supreme Court has insisted, however, that Congress must clearly articulate its purposes when it uses the appropriations process to adjust, suspend, or repeal other provisions of law. United States v. Will (1980). Nevertheless, Congress has "wide discretion...in prescribing details of expenditures," Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United States (1937), and indeed has a long and consistent practice of setting conditions on the expenditure of appropriations. One particularly noteworthy example was the Boland Amendments of the 1980s, which limited the use of appropriated funds by any agency or entity of the United States involved in intelligence activities to support the Nicaraguan insurgency against the Sandinista regime."
Bingo! That's what the House JUST DID - last week - w/0Care! They could also vote to Defund welfare, SS, etc., but the MAJORITY of Americans don't want those programs completely defunded! The MAJORITY of Americans DO want 0care DEFUNDED, so the House followed the will of The People.
The House holds the purse strings...for ALL *programs*...and authorizes funding, each year.
See my later post. The congress most definitely may adjust, suspend or repeal various provisions of law passed through prior acts. See Federalist 58.
The current house has final control over funding or the denial of funding of the current government.
Yes, the House should reject anything from the Senate that doesn't match what the House just passed - which explicitly defunds Obamacare. If the Senate chooses a government shutdown, so be it. We'll starve the big-government beast until the Democrats vote to defund Obamacare. During the shutdown, however, the Democrats will continue implementing Obamacare as outlined in the CRS report. I'm not supporting that or saying it's legal. I'm saying that's what they'll do.
The congress most definitely may adjust, suspend or repeal various provisions of law passed through prior acts.
Absolutely, 100% agreed. The point of the article is that Congress must take affirmative action (i.e. vote) to "adjust, suspend, or repeal" those various provisions.
Therefore, if Congress doesn't pass legislation that explicitly adjusts, suspends, or repeals Obamacare funding, then it stays funded by means of prior provisions - because they remain in effect.
Ok, and that’s what I said above. The house should reject whatever the senate sends back and pass a new bill funding all but obamacare. There, it’s explicitly defunded. If Obama and Reid wish to cut their own throats by shutting down the goverment, go for it. We’ll have a Republican house and senate in 2014, plus the presidency in 2016. The vast majority of the American people are not stupid. Just the ones voting for socialism/fascism.
The House holds the purse strings...for ALL *programs*...and authorizes funding, each year.
No, not for all programs. Some programs are continually funded through multi-year/no-year discretionary funds and/or mandatory funding provided within prior legislation.
If the House does not take explicit action to adjust, suspend, or repeal prior funding for those special programs, then that funding remains in effect. The House does not vote every year to continue funding Social Security and Medicare. Those programs have funding unless and until the House says they don't have funding anymore. That's how it works.