Jun
29
2012

#rsrh QotD, The Great Obamacare Health Tax Hangover edition.

Datechguy notes that, contra the somewhat misogynistic and certainly low-rent exuberance coming out of the DNC over having the Obamacare health tax upheld, Democratic street monsters are quietly freaking worried about how the ruling will interfere with their candidates’ electoral chances.  The problem is that nobody likes to run on tax increases, and Obamacare is an at minimum five hundred billion tax increase* on the middle class. After noting that, and the large sums of money being raised by the GOP on short notice, Datechguy concludes.

As General Nathanael Greene said after Bunker Hill: I wish we could sell them another hill at the same price.

Ayup.

Moe Lane

*The US Supreme Court also defanged the Obama administration’s plan to foist Medicare costs off on the states, so expect it to become a heck of a lot more obviously fiscally irresponsible, very soon.

14 Comments

  • NotSoBlueStater says:

    I was just thinking about this. Before yesterday, I was watching Obama’s ads about Romney, and thinking “okay, so I need to hire Romney to fix the economy, but obviously he didn’t make Massachusetts into a “boom” state.” Also, I’ve assumed Congress is going “R” for many reasons. Therefore, as a fan of divided and ineffective government, I could justify re-electing the president as a relatively benign act. Question for the left: Can I do that today?

  • NotSoBlueStater says:

    To put it more simply: Before yesterday, there was a potential that you could vote for Obama without voting to keep ACA in place. Today that’s impossible. Because of this, yesterday may have been the high-point of the entire progressive era. If the backlash looks anything like the gay marriage backlash, this will decide a lot of elections for a lot of years. I live in NC now, and there is exactly 0 possibility that Obama wins here now…

  • acat says:

    @NotSoBlueStater, a side question. How long do you think a GOP-dominated Congress, who are painfully aware of the Tea Party, would keep the gloves on while dealing with a re-elected Obama?

    Hint – the other big news of yesterday is a drop in the bucket.

    Mew

  • NotSoBlueStater says:

    @acat: Wouldn’t matter. Obama is ideologue enough to protect ObamaCare at all cost. He won’t care if his approval rating drops to 20% after Novemeber, or if the Senate goes 59-41 Republican. He believes he’s achieved a once in a generation victory. This will be legacy enough for him. He’ll simply veto everything for four years, then ride off into the sunset.

  • Brad S says:

    NotSoBlueStater,

    No, you wouldn’t be able to justify a split ticket vote such as the one you describe, mainly because such a tactic has (Like a lot of things in politics and society) passed the Point of Diminishing Returns.

    We must keep in mind that the passage of Obamacare is the classic case of the Law of Diminishing Returns. Think of all the effort that was undertaken to pass (and uphold) this law, when the benefits were so meager.

  • NotSoBlueStater says:

    The problem, @Brsd S, is that the last time we handed the keys to the Republicans, they simply did what politicians always do. What Republicans say about many things makes sense to me. Problem is: Electing them has yet to make any of those things happen. Therefore, we’re better off when they pass nothing at all. I actually think yesterday sealed Obama’s fate, so the this theory will get tested sooner than later.

  • BCochran1981 says:

    They may enjoy the tears of the conservatives in the short term…but come November we will enjoy the best thing in life: to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

    And by women I mean Bawney Fwank.

  • NotSoBlueStater says:

    ACA allowed Scott Brown to win easily in MA. But yesterday was a win? Another random thought for the day: Guiliani for VP!!! He’s is brilliant and articulate on market-based solutions to the real healthcare crisis: Cost.

  • OU812 says:

    I like teh idea of Guiliani for VP – NYers (the #1 reason that state votes Democrat) love him, and NY could potentially go red. A longshot yes, but c’mon.

  • Darin H says:

    Guiliani is pro-choice and thus like Condi Rice, will not be the VP. An interesting selection would be Bobby Jindal who did wonders with the Louisiana DHH (at age 24!) – at the time Jindal took it over, the LDHH was 40 percent of the state budget and employed over 12,000 people. During his tenure as secretary, Louisiana’s Medicaid program went from bankruptcy with a $400 million deficit into three years of surpluses totaling $220 million (wikipedia, so grains of salt).

    He’s not a big personality, so I think that would play into Romney’s strategy of keeping the focus on the failed policies of Obama.

  • Skip says:

    Giuliani? Not only no, Hell no. Two northeastern liberal Republicans on the ticket and you can basically kiss off any enthusiasm in the base. Oh, they’d still end up winning the south, but the negative coattails they’d have in the downballot races would kill the party for a decade, win or lose, at best, and at worst they’d split the party at a time when it really, really does not need to be split.

  • Mikey NTH says:

    I don’t pay any attention to what Nancy Pelosi or Debbie Wasserman-Schultz say – the first is in a safe seat and can indulge a rich fantasy life and teh second just indulges in a rich fantasy life. The reality of ObamaCare is that it was deeply unpopular – see the 2010 midterm elections for proof. The fact that the USSC just said the three-letter word that the Democrats twisted themselves into knots to avoid saying gives me pause to think that the unpopularity of ObamaCare will only deepen. Making the thing that caused the greatest midterm upset in 70 years even more unpopular has got to have many Democrats both panicked and depressed.

    Buy stock in Seagrams, Jack Daniels, etc.

  • NotSoBlueStater says:

    Giuliani is the politician whose statements best reflect my world view (that’s may be why only liberals have ever accused me of being part of “the base”). That said, YouTube Giuliani on Health Care” and watch how comfortably and fully he articulates the right answers on what (as of yesterday) became THE big issue. It’s like watching Milton Friedman. He really “gets” it.

  • Murgatroyd says:

    James Taranto makes an interesting observation in the Wall Street Journal‘s “Best of the Web Today” column:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304058404577496662674376768.html#printMode

    Can ObamaCare Be Repealed?
    ObamaCare passed the Senate by a 60-40 party-line vote, during the seven-month period when the Democrats had 60 votes. After Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts took his seat in February 2010, the Dems had only 59 votes, not enough to bring a new bill to the floor. That’s why the Senate bill had to be pushed though the House. But the House and then the Senate enacted a series of “fixes” to the bill, which required only a simple majority in the Senate because they were passed under a process known as budget reconciliation.

    So can Republicans repeal ObamaCare next year? There’s a reasonably good chance that they’ll hold their House majority, and it’s well within the realm of possibility Mitt Romney will win the White House. But the Senate is the sticking point. To get to 60 votes, they’d need a net gain of 13 seats. While this is mathematically possible–23 Democratic seats are up this year–no one considers it within the realm of plausibility.

    But Lachlan Markay of the Heritage Foundation–the conservative think tank that, ironically, began championing the individual mandate way back in 1989–reports that “now that the Supreme Court has ruled that Obamacare’s health insurance mandate is in fact a tax levied on those who do not purchase insurance, Senate Republicans will look to repeal the full law through the budget reconciliation process.” [http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/28/senate-gop-will-use-reconciliation-in-attempt-to-repeal-obamacare/] He quotes Heritage exec Marc Franc:

    The mandate is now a revenue provision. Therefore, it is germane and not subject to a Senate parliamentary point of order to strike it from a repeal bill. The Senate’s filibuster process that would require a supermajority of 60 Senate votes to approve repeal is now irrelevant.

    It seems clear the mandate could be repealed through reconciliation, but could the entire law be? Not every provision of it is tax- or budget-related. Nonetheless, a “senior Senate Republican aide involved in the repeal effort” tells Markay that the caucus intends to do just that.

RSS feed for comments on this post.


Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com