Since ObozoCare is designed to fail, what is Obozo actually trying to do?
(Wherein we walk back our Sensenbrenner-bashing but propose another theory.)
Before we get into the technical stuff on ObozoCare, keep some other things in mind: the politicization of the IRS and its database, the use of NSA and its database for domestic spying (not to mention drones), Obozo's increasingly strident class- and race-war rhetoric, and the rear-guard actions of Tonto Holder. It's also very
important to recall that Obozo is, and always has been, an Alinskyite revolutionary who ran with a crowd of bomb-throwing Communists. He's not just a rabble-rouser with a pretty face
. And despite the focus on ObozoCare, this is NOT just about ObozoCare
...The far bigger portions of the program, including the
billions and billions of dollars in subsidies that will start going to
Americans on Jan. 1, are mandatory spending, an entitlement
funded by an automatic appropriation which is written into law and runs
without further congressional action. To change that, Congress would
have to change Obamacare.
In the Senate, that would take 67 votes — the amount needed to
overcome a guaranteed presidential veto. If the 46 Senate Republicans
voted unanimously to end the Obamacare entitlement, they would have to
persuade 21 Democrats to go along
....Human Events quoting
On that point, Sensenbrenner was correct.
But that's not all that York wrote.
...Money to fund Obamacare comes from two sources. A relatively small
part of it, including some of the funds used to get the program going,
comes from Congress’ regular yearly appropriations. Congress could raise
or lower the amounts without changing Obamacare itself. The
defund-Obamacare Republicans in the Senate hope to strip out that
discretionary funding from a continuing resolution needed to fund the
government that Congress will debate in September.
They know they won’t succeed. Democrats, with 54 votes, have enough
to pass anything that requires a simple majority, and won’t have much
trouble getting to a filibuster-proof 60 votes, either
IOW, the Pubbies could tug at ObozoCare's cape, but not really derail it.
There are consequences either way.
Karl Rove...warned he was
nervous about the effort because “it gives the President the bully
pulpit and a gigantic stick on which to beat us, because all he has to
do is say, ‘Look, this law was passed, it’s on the books, I’m going to
veto your continuing resolution that doesn’t fund ObamaCare, and it’s on
you for shutting down the government.’
No kidding, Karl. Really? Will pResident Divisive really
do that? My stars!
In fact, Karl, that's exactly what he's hoping to do.
Weakening this parasitic system before it takes root is vitally
important. Karl Rove may be overestimating the threat ObamaCare’s
failure poses to the grand design. It’s supposed to fail, and the answer proposed by its authors will be more government control, not less
Review again: IRS, NSA, Holder, race- and class-war rhetoric, and then think
Why is the Gummint buying every round of ammo that it can??
Hayward, our essayist, is subtle, but makes the point and invokes a couple of the right images:
...is ObamaCare really an irreversible mistake? It’s difficult to
repeal a Big Government program with billions of dollars in subsidies
and slush funds, but this whole notion of Americans as slaves to
political destiny is both offensive to our traditions, and untrue.
Everything can be changed. Even the Constitution can be amended. The
people who say the Constitution is a meaningless old scrap of parchment
also claim a law passed in 2010 is chiseled in stone, and hung around
the neck of every American for the rest of history with an unbreakable
What’s needed to effect meaningful change is determination....Remind Americans that forcing them to finance the propagation of ideas they disagree with is tyranny
God help us all, because "determination" may not be the only necessity here.