Just one more Obamanation in Obamacare that the Republican establishment are too flustered to do anything about now.*
Jonah Goldberg addresses The Obamacare Blame Game in today’s National Review Online. He provides some useful analogies about the possibility of repeal of legislation. However none of the examples were comparable to the Obamacare legislation hydra passed unilaterally by a Democrat Congress and President. Nor were recent examples presented that had the scope and built in dependency inducing “features” designed to eliminate alternatives for citizens (and do so sooner rather than later).
The chief virtue of the Goldberg article is his expose’ of the vacuity of Democrat arguments blaming Republicans for opposing Obamacare and therefor being responsible for it being a debacle. Of course the predictability of its problems is why we opposed it. But given the analogies and reasoning Goldberg uses beforehand, we have a problem with the leap of logic he makes to conclude:
Republicans should have a little more confidence in their own arguments. If you believe that Obamacare can’t work, you should expect that it won’t. Forcing a debt crisis or government shutdown won’t kill Obamacare, but it will give Democrats a lifeline heading into the 2014 elections, which could have the perverse effect of delaying the day Republicans have the political clout to actually succeed in repealing this unworkable and unpopular law.
OK, Goldberg sums up Obamacare as unworkable, and, the politically more pertinent summation, it is unpopular. But he concludes with that context that it is important to wait to do something about it?
From an array of mainstream news reports, important Democrat constituencies have some big problems with Obamacare as it unfolds. Republicans, if they play their cards right this time (always the main problem for GOP success) have an available portfolio of neutralized and now even newly hostile interests that can be leveraged to do the right thing . . . not to mention general public opinion, especially aggravated by rising disgust with the highhandedness of Obama.
Goldberg’s comments seem to reflect the establishment conservative Republican approach, to the effect: trust us, we will do the right thing after the next election. If you make us do something now, we will not get elected and you will be worse of.
One problem with any assurance to their argument is that we effectively need 65 Republicans in the Senate, not just 60, not just 51, in order to do something momentous. The reason . . . the filibuster rules, entrenched Democrats who have nothing to lose going to the mats to keep Obamacare, and the inevitable formation of some Republicans into a “gang ” which serves to accommodate Democrats and undermine conservative Republicans. The power of a substantial cohesive minority in the Senate (40 plus) to stop funding, with the lead of the House, is arguably more dependable then the vagaries of the next election.
In addition, conservative voters are already distrustful of Republican leadership in the Senate, why should they believe Republican leadership now when recently they have not been stellar on the “nuclear option” filibuster controversy, or immigration?
In conjunction with de-funding Obamacare we do need a replacement health insurance policy options to tell people about dealing with the most problematic aspects that fanned the flames for a government takeover. And we have them. Light that candle and use it to burn down Obamacare. A case can be made that stopping the funding now, as we propose alternatives, while requiring Obama to do his duty to administer all other aspects of government and not “shut government down ” is the politically superior approach, not just the economical approach.
Perhaps restructure Obamacare “de-funding” proposals from one bill with a restriction to a strategy of a plethora of individual spending proposals from the House. As such it may be easier for the public to identify the culprit. Something like: “the funding bill for Social Security is on Obama’s desk (or make Democrats vote against it or bottle it up) . . . and similarly, the funding bill for defense is on Obama’s desk (or has been sent to the Senate. . . a funding bill for Medicare is on Obama’s desk, etc,etc,etc.” The one that is missing is Obamacare. Make Obama veto or ignore individual spending bills to fund acceptable programs. Doing so enhances our prospects by identifying Republicans as responsible and Obama as irresponsible.
Goldberg’s article does not appreciate the soon to be entrenched parasitical nature of Obamacare. Some tentacles do not have a grip as yet, but enough is all that are necessary to make repeal politically problematic even untenable down the road. Arguably, given the minimum of two more years for the dependency, real and psychological, to take hold before repeal is legislatively possible in Goldberg’s scenario, there is no guarantee it will be politically possible even with Republican victories.
The history of Medicare for seniors is an example better suited to de-funding Obamacare now, not letting it fester. Medicare is a fraud and abuse prone expensive system in reality, but it is limited as to the population sector it directly effects. Throwing money at it can prop it up while maintaining a semblance of workability. Not so with universal government controlled health care. The rhetorical advantage of don’t mess with my private healthcare succumbs to fear of losing any healthcare.
Goldberg sort of taunts conservatives to the effect, because Obamacare is as bad as we say, and is so unpopular now, of course the country will support ending it later. Our response is then why would they not support ending it now, at a time when we can prevent its inculcation?
The idea that Republicans will be blamed for shutting down the government is a rhetorical capitulation that is pathetic when you think about it. De-funding proposals can be structured for maximum rhetorical effect in support of Republican efforts. Placing the onus properly takes will, and less repetition of the Democrat talking points and threats.
R Mall
* Because of Senate rules, the need to pass funding to continue something gives the minority (conservatives) the advantage. Fixing aspects of Obamacare gives the upper hand to Obama and recalcitrant minority liberals to protect anything their pointy little heads deem desirable.
