« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

How To Repeal ObamaCare

From the diaries by Erick

by Michael E. Hammond, former General Counsel Senate Steering Committee 1978-89.

To listen to the liberal media, you would think conservatives had won the first and only battle on ObamaCare repeal –- but already lost the war.

The Washington Post, echoing the almost universal media theme (including Fox), called the vote “largely symbolic.” Over and over again, we have been told that ObamaCare will never be repealed and we are wasting our time to even think about it.

And, incidentally, the stupid Republicans reinforce this theme when they concede at the beginning of each interview that they are too flaccid and ineffectual to prevail. Compare this to the “We will win!” mantra Obama used to pass ObamaCare in the first place.

Ironically, we are probably only about four Senate votes short of sending the repeal bill to Obama’s desk in the 112TH Congress. And, if Republicans have the courage to tack repeal onto the debt limit or continuing resolution, even without those four votes, the House will have the capacity to present Obama with a choice:

  • sign the ObamaCare repeal; or
  • shut down the administration’s rulemaking powers for the next two years.


That’s right. No regulatory cap-and-trade. No NLRB requirements that employers encourage unionization. No BATF gun registries for multiple sales. No massive new administratively designated wilderness areas. No taxpayer funded TV commercials touting ObamaCare. No ObamaCare implementation.

In September, 2009, Obama was more than four votes short of passing ObamaCare. He initially fell more than four votes short of ratifying START, repealing don’t-ask-don’t-tell, creating a 9/11 entitlement, and regulating small farms. Yet, he moved ruthlessly and methodically to pick up the votes he needed. And the Hypocrite Press, not surprisingly, didn’t whine that these initiatives were “symbolic” or “a waste of time.”

Here are the steps to repealing ObamaCare:

STEP ONE: BRING THE HOUSE BILL ONTO THE SENATE CALENDAR

A single senator can use the Senate rules to force the House-passed bill onto the Senate legislative calendar. And my understanding is that Jim DeMint has committed to us that he will do this.

This is done under Senate Rule 14, which allows any senator to object, on two successive legislative days, to further proceedings on a House-passed bill. After the first objection, the bill is held at the desk. After the second objection, the bill is placed on the calendar.

This is important.

Sure, DeMint can introduce a similar bill with a Senate number. But, even if that bill passes the Senate, it will be “blue-slipped” in the House, because it is a revenue measure which originates in the Senate in violation of the Constitution.

STEP TWO: TARGET FOUR DEMOCRATIC VOTES

Once H.R. 2 is on the Senate calendar, ANY SENATOR can move to proceed to it at almost any time -– and any senator can file cloture on the motion to proceed.

(This assumes that Udall and Merkley are not successful, on January 25, in their effort to abolish the filibuster of the motion to proceed. If that were to happen, a switch of four votes would make H.R. 2 the pending business of the Senate. And, incidentally, if Merkley and Udall pull the trigger on the “constitutional option” on January 25, H.R. 2 goes to final passage and Obama’s desk. I am not advocating this, but I am saying that Merkley and Udall will be held to the rules-related implications of their own sleaziness.)

True, if a GOP senator makes a motion to proceed, Harry Reid will squeal and whine that Republicans are interfering with “his prerogatives.” But as the Manchins and Nelsons and McCaskills stare into the face of electoral defeat, Reid’s “prerogatives” may not be that important to them.

How do you target senators?

With the same ruthlessness that Obama employed in passing ObamaCare. Democratic bills and treaties like the START Treaty, don’t-ask-don’t-tell repeal, the 9/11 entitlement, and ObamaCare itself started out without the necessary votes. But guess what? Barack Obama moved heaven and earth to pick off the votes he needed to prevail on these bills.

Start with all but three of the so-called “Blue Dog” Democrats who won reelection by swearing that they were “independent” and not just “Pelosi puppets” –- only to see their “independence” vanish Wednesday as soon as the Democrat Left pulled on their puppet strings. Talk about giving a big, fat obscene gesture to the suckers who have just been stupid enough to reelect you…

In the Senate, “independents” like Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, McCaskill, etc., during the ObamaCare battle and the post-election session, jumped over and over again when ordered to by the Far Left. Any argument that a vote for McCaskill is anything other than a proxy for Barbara Boxer should be met with withering resistance.

STEP THREE: AS OBAMACARE COLLAPSES, SHOUT IT TO THE HIGH HEAVENS

The primary impact of ObamaCare has been to drive premiums through the roof. Employer-provided premiums, which were supposed to DECREASE, according to CBO, have increased as much as 9% or more IN ONE YEAR.

The only reason the insurance industry has not already collapsed is the hundreds of waivers of ObamaCare given by the Obama administration to employers, unions, and AARP.

And guess what? The biggest “gotcha” is yet to come: In 2014, tens of millions of former Obama voters will find out about the bloated premiums they will have to pay, under penalty of law.

STEP FOUR: TACK OBAMACARE REPEAL ONTO A MUST-PASS BILL

If Republicans choose to tack ObamaCare repeal onto the federal appropriations bill (the “continuing resolution”) or the debt limit increase, Obama will have no choice but to repeal his treasured legacy or shut down his rule-making agencies for the remainder of his term.

Yes, yes, I know. The GOP Senate leadership is terrified of threatening a government shut-down, for fear of repeating the 1995 Gingrich debacle.

Let’s ignore the argument, for the time being, that Gingrich lost the political debate not because he stood up to Clinton, but because he cowered and lost. The fact is that the GOP can preempt this problem by introducing legislation that will keep debt payments, entitlements, and defense funding flowing, even if there is not continuing resolution or debt limit increase.

Within the past two days, Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey has, at our urging, announced legislation to allow the debt limit to expire -– while requiring that the U.S. continue to pay interest on the debt, thus avoiding default.

Thus, if Obama vetoes the debt limit bill (with ObamaCare repeal attached), the international financial system will not collapse. An even more expansive version of the Toomey proposal could guarantee payment of interest on the debt, entitlements, and defense. Exactly what justification would Obama use to veto that?

So the net impact of killing the CR or the debt limit would be that BATF will not be able to illegally create gun registries of multiple sales. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will no longer be able to implement job-killing “cap-and-trade” by administration fiat. Obama will no longer be able to ban guns in a major portion of the U.S. by designating “wilderness areas” by regulation.

STEP FIVE: DO NOT LET BEN NELSON, ETC., OFF THE HOOK BY ALLOWING THEM TO CHERRY-PICK AT THE REALLY UNPOPULAR FEATURES OF OBAMACARE, LIKE THE 1099 REQUIREMENTS

Repealing the mandate is fine, because it is so central that its repeal will collapse the entire system.

But if the GOP allows ObamaCare to be “cleaned up,” (1) we will never repeal ObamaCare, and (2) the Nelsons and McCaskills will use their votes on these efforts to nibble around the edges to defeat Republicans and retain control of the Senate and the White House.

Let me give you an example. Republicans were in the cat-bird’s seat in the post-election session. At the behest of the liberal media’s call for “bipartisanship,” they capitulated on a variety of issues in order to obtain a tepid two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts. And what did that get them? They revived the Obama administration, opened the floodgates to a raft of Obama priorities, and sent their own numbers plummeting through the floor.

So, the bottom line is this:

The successful legislative strategy of the Far Left over the past year is to pronounce, like a mantra, “We’re going to win. You’re going to lose.” And sad-sacks like Mitch McConnell have all-too-often responded by conceding that he’s going to lose. Which he does -– with unbending regularity.

But we have all the legislative tools we need to repeal ObamaCare –- or shut down the Obama administration — in the 112th Congress.

And guess what? If Republicans can prove that they are not sad-sacks and losers, maybe they will control the White House and Senate in 2013.

Tags:

COMMENTS

  • concap

    Replacement all or in part will advocate the notion that the U.S. Government should be in the Health Care Business or govern how it should be run.

    • YnotNOW

      The trendy statement that we need to “replace” Obamacare with something that includes the “parts that are good” is counterproductive.

      The fact is that Government regulation and mandates have caused half of the problems wth the health insurance market. For the market to work, supply must be balanced by demand. Freely chosen by sellers and buyers. The more Government interferes, the worse the market works. The rules for the market must be as basic as possible, to allow freedom to chose the product and service that you are willing to pay for.

  • Dan Perrin

    the thing that is missing is the steel/titanium will to pull it off.

    This is how to win, plain and simple.

  • http://www.va5thdistrict.blogspot.com va5thdistrict

    to every piece of legislation that makes it to the floor. It will either get passed or significantly slow down government expansion. Either way it is a win win situation.

    http://www.vadistrict5.com/2011/01/debt-ceiling-increase-vs-repeal-act.html

  • morstar150

    We here at Red State need to promote the idea that the purge of the Republican party is not over. Since the new Congress has taken seats all you hear is how we are going to work together. All you hear from the media is that “the people” ( like they ever represented our interests) want a Congress that works together.

    What we want still is a smaller government and leaders who can stand up for us.

    What these politicians will get is another house cleaning in the Senate if they don’t start cutting spending and the size of the govenrment. And this time we will send a cleaning crew to the White House too.

    • Flagstaff

      Senator “The president… is a very intelligent man, I think he is doing a lot of the right things” John McCain.

      Nothing like saying nice things about the guy we have to beat in two years. McCain apparently didn’t notice that it was NEVER practiced by ANY Democrat while George W. Bush was President.

      I liked a comment today on Fox News, to the effect that “Obama hasn’t pivoted, the mainstream press is pivoting for him.” And McCain is helping, as he seems to do for the 5.5 years between elections.

  • poleok

    They also need to add drilling again.. last time gas hit $4.00 a gallon look at what happened (it won’t be long now) It will send us into a Double Dip as the cost of delivering products will be WAY too high and no one will be able to do buisness (or for those who have a job, they won’t even be able to drive to work) I won’ even mention where O should put the first drill bit………..

  • volunteerstate

    It is time to FIGHT the sorry sack socialists. It is time for BACKBONE, There is no middleground with Marxists. We voted for change on Nov. 2nd., some testosterone, please congress ?

  • markinidaho

    I agree completely that Obamacare needs to be repealed, and by any means possible. I also agree that the House needs to shut down funding for all the nonsense dictatorial decrees of this White House. I also agree that the EPA and the BATF need to be reigned in or abolished.

    I don’t agree that it is a good thing for both houses of the Congress and the White House to be under the control of a single party. We had that before, under Bush, and it didn’t work. It didn’t work under Obama. In both cases, we the People were saddled with ridiculous, oligarchy-like government that oppresses the People and robs us of our freedom.

    No, the House and Senate and White House need to be under different party leadership, if we must have parties. We would be better off with three, four, or even five parties so that coalition governments were required. It was not so in the late 1700′s and early 1800′s, when this nation was in its infancy. But now that this nation has matured, to keep freedom, we must limit government in the extreme. If they accomplish nothing, that is good. They are there for our defense, and even a fractured party government would come together when there is a threat or act of war against US.

    “No one’s life, liberty, or happiness is safe while the Legislature is in session”.

  • http://www.voteforteri2010.com teridavisnewman

    You are absolutely correct! We have got to stand up and say we are going to win! When I ran for Congress in 2010, I stood up in every speech and said I was going to win against an unbeatable opponent and as a complete unknown, I garnered almost 40% of the vote ALL BY MYSELF–LITERALLY. It cost the incumbent over a million bucks to beat me and I spent about 35K and now everyone the district knows my name and I am being pressed to run in 2012 and I am probably going to do run, depending on the redistricting and if the Republican party gets on board with me this time. I stunned them by getting nearly 40% of the vote as an unknown, with NO political experience and they told me I’d get 10% of the vote as a maximum and now they are kicking themselves because they realize that if they had gotten on board with me, the 12th Illinois would have changed hands. Never underestimate confidence as a marketing tool! The Republicans are famous for negative self-fulfilling prophecies and they need to turn it around and get confident–we have a mandate from the people of America!

  • edintexas

    Coalitions don’t work well, the government stands only so long as one of the minority parties doesn’t decide to “take their ball and go home”.

    Assuming that the people will be unable to take control of one of the major parties is awfully pessimistic. You could be correct, that nothing will change in either party, but history indicates that is not probable. If a party doesn’t change, it can be replaced by another. Seen the Whigs around recently?

    I do agree that government doing nothing is preferable to the relatively recent urge to be seen “doing something”. Once upon a time the American citizenry understood that government shouldn’t always be doing “something”. It may be too late to change that perspective in many citizens, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.

  • Flagstaff

    “We would be better off with three, four, or even five parties so that coalition governments were required.”

    Just look at all the dozens or even hundreds of failed countries that have followed that plan. The best of them have only been able to fail more slowly.

  • counselor

    why the right would rather put insurance company profit over the health of our citizens?
    Isn’t some sort of program (albeit imperfect) better than having thousands of uninsured people with little or no access to healthcare?

    What are some ideas the republicans have regarding healthcare for those who work, but do not have healthcare provided by employers?… or for college students (who will not be covered if we repeal obamacare).

    Some folks simply do not make enough money to afford insurance, esp insurance provided by the monopolistic companies that run the show.
    I ask these questions sincerely , and with all due respect .
    I need to learn….Thank you to anyone who takes the time to address my questions.

  • jeffersonian76

    and a privilege, not a right or entitlement. Insurance is a risk based business, an employer of many, and designed to make a profit – and it is a privilege to afford it.

    Have you ever thought about the sacrifice and commitment it takes to become a Doctor, Nurse, EMT, etc.? Now the colossal inefficient federal government and 1,960 some new bureaus and agencies want to regulate your career, or run it out of business altogether – They will decide, in their own sweet, expensive time, what you will and will not get paid for services that they will decide – in their own sweet, expensive time – you may or may not perform.

    SMACK!!! Can you smell it yet? And all of this ‘law’ was written by whom? How many pages? Passed with bribery and kick-backs?
    How long did ‘the authorities’ allow it to be debated and analyzed – emphasis on ‘anal’?

    It IS the wolf in sheeps clothing and it has already eaten our future. Repeal it, by any means necessary.

  • scmom

    and it’s not that people don’t have acces to care. It is that the Feds have made it impossible for market forces to work because of the massive burden of reguation that they have imposed already. College students are allowed to be covered under their parents policies, and there are policies available to students through most Universities. States have CHIP programs that are specifically for those who do make enough $$$ to afford health insurance, but many of the non-insured just havent bothered to sign up.

    Here are just a few Republican ideas: 1.) Allow insurance companies to sell their products across state lines to encourage competition. 2. Reform lawsuit rules so that the lawyers don’t make more money than the plaintiffs and the cost of malpractice insurance will go down. There are many more… sheck out the website for “Americans for Prosperity”.

    In addition, the insurance companies are being demonized by the left, in order to distract us from the real problem which is a governmental take over of every aspect of our lives. Do some reading, and look beyond what you see in the Alphabet Soup Media… there’s a lot of information out there and not all of it is true. Insurance Companies have large cash reserves because they planned for the baby boomers to retire. They were pro-active and fiscally responsible, They didn’t borrow the deposits of their customers to spend on other things like the Feds did with our Social Security Trust Fund”. They are NOT the enemy.

  • YnotNOW

    Valid questions – let me provides some of my thoughts:

    1) Insurance companies must make a profit to exist. The question is how much profit is “reasonable.

  • Bill S

    “why the right would rather put insurance company profit over the health of our citizens”

    Next time you put up a massive strawman like that may be your last. We do not allow leftist talking points to be spewed here, so don’t do it again.

  • JSobieski

    Compare the bottom 5% of the US with the botton 5% of Sudan or North Korea.

    Individuals don’t work for free, even back in the USSR. If you want to make goods and services available to the poor, you implement capitalism.

    Poor people in the US have smart phones, personal computers, cars, etc.

    By allowing people to profit from their work, you incentivize people to work hard, innovate, etc. which creates a market of desirable goods/services. Suppliers compete with each other, which keeps costs low.

    The main reason why insurance is expensive in most states, is that states put mandatory coverage requirements.

    Why would the left force the poor to pay for coverage they don’t want and don’t need?

    Why does the left want to centralize control over health care decision making?

    Why does the left insist on making the poor permanent wards of the state rather a temporary escapable condition?

    Why does the left hate freedom?

    I answered your question, no answer mine.

  • poleok

    Sorry……. I WON’T even mention where O should put the first drill bit……..

  • counselor

    for some very good and enlightening inforrmation.

  • counselor

    for the enlightening information.

  • counselor

    insightful and useful information from scmon, jeffersonian , and Ynotnow.
    Then I get the
    message from you.
    How does one debate or grow on this site, if you shut down anyone with a dissenting view?
    I am trying to see why there is so much objection to obamacare. Through others here, I can see that my opinion is misguided.
    But your message to shut up or be banned from the site, is exactly the opposite of the other helpful responses I have gotten here.

  • http://christopherrenner.blogspot.com Christopher Renner

    It’s a site for those who already want to fight the Left to coordinate their efforts.

    I read your initial post the same way Bill S appears to have done – as a regurgitation of a leftist talking point (i.e., that conservative opposition to Leftist policies = not caring about people). And the RedState community doesn’t take kindly to leftists showing up and pretending to be concerned.

    If you want to learn more about perverse incentives creating artificially expensive goods and services (obviously medical care is one instance; others include housing in coastal California and college tuition everywhere in the U.S.), you could start by reading Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics or his <Economic Facts and Fallacies. Also, search this site for “RedState University” and read the posts with that tag.

    Here’s a hint in closing: artificially expensive goods and services ALWAYS have government regulation as their cause.

  • MF

    The problem is not your attempt to gather information. It’s the way in which the question was phrased. Your question inherently assumes the left’s (blatantly false) talking point about the right favoring insurance companies. Read your question and tell us that Bill and I are wrong.

    It’s sort of like the old question: Yes or no – have you stopped beating your wife? If you answer yes, it implies you once were beating her. If you answer no, it means you’re still beating her. Neither answer provides for the possibility that you had never beat her in the first place.

    Your question assumes the right would rather put insurance company profit over the health of our citizens, and merely asks why that is the case. It doesn’t even allow for the possibility that the assumption is wrong to start.

  • Bill S

    MF and Christopher pegged it.

    My message is “if you’re going to spout leftist-speak, then yeah – leave. If you’re going to ask questions without double meanings, do so”

    Listen and learn, counselor. On another thread, you already saw Jim Moss get the message. I suggest you do, too. I’ll reiterate – this is not a debate society where leftists get their say. That’s just the way it is – Life isn’t fair sometimes.

  • Flagstaff

    a few days ago. Not as detailed, not as well done, but generally the same. Repealing parts of the law would weaken the desire and support to get rid of all of it.

    “But if the GOP allows ObamaCare to be

  • counselor

    for pointing out that i am on the wrong site for debate or”to learn” what the philosophy of other side’s position is.
    I didn’t know that when I signed up. I just thought that if i only listened to( and read) leftist views, I would get a one- sided story. I presumed that this site would give me the other side, and to some extent,, it has….very eloquently , I might add.
    You guys are very astute when it comes to backing up your arguments. I have enjoyed what little debate you have been willing to give me, and for sure, your arguments are well researched.
    I thank you for what you have taught me so far.
    Can you recommend another site for me? One where the constituents welcome a bit of argument from the left without the feeling I am stepping on anyone’s toes?

    Respectfully,
    Counselor

  • MF

    Note that I did not attack you (nor did you attack me). But what you’re failing to see (whether intentional or not) is that we can debate/discuss, but you refuse to accept the fact that your question is extremely biased in its starting point. If you really want a discussion, try using a question that doesn’t assume your viewpoint.

    For example, going back to your original posting, you might have come in here with this approach:


    [Can someone tell me] why the right would rather put insurance company profit over the health of our citizens?

    Instead:

    I believe that the healthcare reform makes health insurance more affordable for everyone. Without this legislation, insurance companies are making unreasonable profits. Why does the right not agree with this?

    Note the start with I believe instead of why. The rest of your post was pretty reasonable, at least in its approach, for which we can provide reasonable responses.

    You see, it all started with your opening pseudo-question, which had an underlying statement / assumption.

  • MF

    Note that I did not attack you (nor did you attack me). But what you’re failing to see (whether intentional or not) is that we can debate/discuss, but you refuse to accept the fact that your question is extremely biased in its starting point. If you really want a discussion, try using a question that doesn’t assume your viewpoint.

    For example, going back to your original posting, you might have come in here with this approach:


    [Can someone tell me] why the right would rather put insurance company profit over the health of our citizens?

    Instead:

    I believe that the healthcare reform makes health insurance more affordable for everyone. Without this legislation, insurance companies are making unreasonable profits. Why does the right not agree with this?

    Note the start with I believe instead of why. The rest of your post was pretty reasonable, at least in its approach, for which we can provide reasonable responses.

    You see, it all started with your opening pseudo-question, which had an underlying statement / assumption.