The Panicked Democrats

…of ObamaCare:

Now a central tenet of the fundamentally flawed law, the employer mandate, is collapsing. What ever will Democrats do?

In a word: panic.

Actually, panic and break the law. The unambiguous start date for Obamacare’s employer mandate, according to Section 1513, is the “months beginning after Dec. 31, 2013.” With the delay, however, President Obama has declared that he is not bound by mere law. All he is missing are mirrored sunglasses and a big military hat.

Obamacare’s employer mandate is a microcosm of liberalism itself. What may sound good at first ends up harming the most vulnerable among us. Businesses that dare to provide jobs to 50 or more employees face steep fines unless they provide expensive government-sanctioned health insurance. Because Obamacare now defines 30 hours a week to be full time, the result is entirely predictable: Businesses are laying off workers and cutting back work hours.

Gee, if only someone who understood economics, human nature and incentives had predicted this?

Oh, wait.

4 thoughts on “The Panicked Democrats”

  1. There’s a huge Pandora’s box here. As someone noted last time this came up, we’ve had presidents deliberately break law before (Andrew Jackson was the example given, who illegally forced most Cherokee out of the western Carolinas). But do we really want to give more precedent for doing this? Sure, I wouldn’t mind a President Paul ending all entitlements for the two terms of his presidency. Who would? But somehow I think such blatant disregard for law will end up not in my favor.

    I also find it galling how we have law and leadership so terrible that the President who advocated for the bill and signed it into law would rather break that very law than implement it. I think we’re going to be the butt of historian jokes for the rest of the century.

  2. What evidence is there that Obama didn’t know his bill would have these effects but thought it was worth the price?

    Look at how the economy has limped along due to Obama’s progressive policies and how unconcerned he is (in actions not rhetoric) but how pleased he is with the ideology of his actions. The same could be said about Obama’s foreign policy or environmental policy.

Comments are closed.