“My whim is my command“:
…the sudden demand that businesses stop adjusting for regulatory policy is nearly the height of hypocrisy for this administration, which has repeatedly offered short-term gimmicky tax credits for business decisions that boost its policies, including an ill-considered credit for hiring that ended up costing taxpayers millions for hiring decisions that would have been made anyway. Suddenly, the Obama administration has to take action outside of the law because employers respond to regulatory signals more predictably than one-off credits.
In other words, it’s a demonstration of arbitrary power, of precisely the kind predicted by Hayek. And it’s no longer just opponents of the ACA noticing.
At National Journal, Major Garrett blasted the latest unilateral changes in enforcing statutory law by noting, “The Affordable Care Act means what it says and says what it means. Until it doesn’t. … [T]he arbitrary is the norm.”
The editorial board at The Washington Post blasted Obama for his “increasingly cavalier approach to picking and choosing how to enforce this law. “ Garrett’s colleague Ron Fournier and the Daily Beast’s Kirsten Powers both declared their patience at an end to the arbitrary changes and continuing incompetence from the Obama administration – and all of these people support the law in principle.
The attempt to create a command economy in the health-insurance market has failed, in the same manner that Hayek predicted, and resulted in the same arbitrary use of power to attempt to compensate for those failures. The demand for businesses to “self-attest” that they aren’t following standard business principles foreshadows the later stages of unreality that will take from F. A. Hayek to George Orwell on a long enough continuum.
This is what tyranny looks like.
[Update a while later]
“Obama is legislating without the legislative branch. This is corrosive of self-government, counter to our constitutional system and contemptuous of the rule of law.”
Nothing new for him.
Elements of Medicare Part D were delayed as well, but for some reason that wasn’t denounced as tyranny.
You realize Obama just literally made up a law on his own. Businesses cant make a change if they say it is due to Obamacare? What law is that breaking other than the one Obama just made up? What is the punishment for it?
Is it the same punishment that insurance companies were going to get when Obama ordered them to reinstate all the policies cancelled by Obamacare? He mandates they cancel the plans and then when they do he issues a dictate that they reinstate them or face an unknown punishment.
This isn’t anything like Medicare Part D. And what does Bush have to do with Obama’s policies? Judge Obama’s performance based on its own merits. Just because Medicare Part D had some problems doesn’t excuse the type of crap Obama is pulling.
You realize Obama just literally made up a law on his own.
No, he didn’t.
Just because Medicare Part D had some problems doesn’t excuse the type of crap Obama is pulling.
When Medicare Part D had problems, Democrats helped fix them. When Obamacare had problems, Republicans denounced efforts to fix them as tyranny. The contrast is illuminating.
Medicare was a bi-partisan bill, not one shoved through by one party using legislative legerdermain.
Ha! To pass Medicare Part D Bush illegally suppressed an unfavorable CBO report, Tom Delay bribed a House member with campaign funds for the member’s son (for which Delay was later reprimanded) and held the vote open for an extra 3 hours when it appeared the bill would fail. The ACA legislative process was spotless by comparison.
“The ACA legislative process was spotless by comparison.”
Really now…
For each of the things you listed, we could all name things that Obama and the Democrats did that were at least on par if not worse. But once again you say Bush did something bad so it is OK for Obama and the Democrats to one up him.
For each of the things you listed, we could all name things that Obama and the Democrats did that were at least on par if not worse.
Then name them. Were Pelosi or Hoyer sanctioned by the Ethics committee for bribing members to vote for the ACA? Of course not. The passage of the ACA was politically contentious, not ethically compromised.
But once again you say Bush did something bad so it is OK
No, I’m just reminding Rand of things he’s apparently forgotten.
one should not watch sausage or law being made.
Jim the liar wrote: When Obamacare had problems, Republicans denounced efforts to fix them as tyranny.
Fact: when Republicans offered to pass a clean bill that delayed the mandate one year; President Obama chose to shutdown the government and claimed Republicans were suicide bombers.
The Republicans offered to delay the mandate for everyone, particularly individuals; while Obama is only bowing to big business. Obama has decided individuals and small businesses haven’t ponied up enough money to lobbyists to deserve a delay in the mandate.
Fact: Republicans tried to use a shutdown to force Democrats to delay Obamacare for a year, as a prelude to killing it altogether. Nobody in their right mind thinks that the GOP was trying to help Obamacare succeed. So of course the Democrats did not go along with it.
Jim, you can’t have your fact and make the lie that Republicans did nothing to try to fix the problem. If what Obama is doing is the right thing, then what is it about only catering to big corporations makes what President Obama is doing better than what Republicans offered in October?
what is it about only catering to big corporations makes what President Obama is doing better than what Republicans offered in October?
The employer mandate — the thing that Obama is delaying — affects a tiny fraction of companies, and is not important to the success of the law. The individual mandate — the thing that the House GOP wanted to delay — is a central pillar of the law, and without it the success of the law would be endangered. So of course what Obama did is better for Obamacare than what the Republicans “offered”.
“No, he didn’t.”
What law did congress pass that allows the President to punish companies for making personnel changes due to Obamacare and what are the statutes that say what that punishment is? Are you saying his decree isn’t law just a threat? Will that threat be realized? Wouldn’t that make it a punishment and law he made up?
“When Medicare Part D had problems, Democrats helped fix them. ”
You brought it up as an excuse for why it is ok that Obamacare has major problems not as an example of bi-partisan law making. And if you want to go that route, Democrats have refused all Republican efforts to help fix the law. Not only did Obama refuse congress implementing Republican suggestions, he then later did the same thing by dictate.
“When Obamacare had problems, Republicans denounced efforts to fix them as tyranny.”
One of the problems of Obamacare is tyranny. Lets get both parties to get together and solve the tyranny aspects of Obamacare.
What law did congress pass that allows the President to punish companies for making personnel changes due to Obamacare and what are the statutes that say what that punishment is?
You’re imagining things. The rule gives qualifying companies a 1 year exemption from the mandate if they certify that they aren’t making personnel changes to dodge the mandate. If they don’t certify, they don’t get the exemption. There’s no punishment.
And he has no authorization from either Congress or the Constitution to create such a certification form. Nor would such a certification form be consistent with the First Amendment even if Congress made such a form. So it is de facto lawlessness.
If Bush did the same thing then it was wrong then as well. I don’t give a crap if you think it’s just political theater by the other party at the current time. There are bigger issues now at play.
If you believe the first point about Bush and Medicare D, then the point is we should all be worried that there are now two presidents in a row who have not faithfully executed the laws according to their oath to the founding document of this country and have usurped lawmaking authority in violation of their oath. And no one in the media is taking about it.
“…The rule gives qualifying companies a 1 year exemption from the mandate if they certify that they aren’t making personnel changes to dodge the mandate. If they don’t certify, they don’t get the exemption. There’s no punishment.”
Jim, would you be OK if the Obama Administration issued the following new regulation?
“Each person who purchased a policy through the Exchange and claims eligibility for a subsidy shall certify that he/she made no intentional income-affecting decisions during the past year in order to avoid a reduction of his/her potential subsidy amount.”
And he has no authorization from either Congress or the Constitution to create such a certification form.
He has authorization to administer the law, and that includes things like generating new forms. Do you really want Congress to micromanage the creation of forms?
Holy crap Jim, it’s like you are deliberately obtuse or willingly dumb to not understand this point.
If the form was a straightforward application of the law, you would have a point. For example, applying for the subsidies by listing income would be a form consistent with a straightforward application of the law.
This certification form is different in substance than just a straight administration of the law. Nowhere has Congress authorized a condition that a business has to not make hiring decisions based on the law or any delays to it to take advantage of the new delay.
A business of 102 people has every right to fire 3 people to get to 99 employees to take advantage of Obama’s delay, and they have every right to go on the news and shout it from the rooftops. There is nothing in law that makes that illegal. It’s not part of the ACA or APA.
This is why these delays are dangerous to the principles of the rule of law. Not only does nothing authorize the delays, but even if the APA did there is definitely no authorization to attach new conditions to those delays. New conditions would require Congressional authorization. But here is Obama making up new rules pulled out of his butt. If we wants to delay it, and if he has authority to delay it, then that’s all he can do. But ,he will have to accept that some businesses will change themselves to fall within this new category, and talk about it on the news, whether he likes that or not.
Put it this way, can Obama “just generate a form” making me sell all of my guns in order for me to have a business of 50-99 employees that can take advantage of this one year delay?
I hope you are going to answer “no”, because the above scenario is exactly the same thing as regards consistency to current law as what the President has done.
A business of 102 people has every right to fire 3 people to get to 99 employees to take advantage of Obama’s delay
If Treasury was ready to enforce the law as written, no company could take advantage of the delay, because there’d be no delay. But since Treasury isn’t ready, the mandate has to be delayed for some companies. It’s entirely reasonable for Treasury to issue rules that stipulate for whom the mandate will be delayed, and it’s entirely reasonable for those rules to take into account attempts to game the system.
What would you propose as a better alternative?
Jim wrote:
“If Treasury was ready to enforce the law as written…”
Jim,
Why isn’t Treasury ready? Wasn’t there a decision by the Executive Branch sometime in 2013 to defer the Employer Mandate a year, to 2015? So did Treasury tell POTUS within the last year it would be ready to go on Jan. 1, 2015, and two weeks ago they went back and told POTUS, “Oops, make that Jan. 1, 2016.”? I’m only asking because delaying the Employer Mandate will cost the Treasury (i.e., the taxpayers) MONEY. An Employer Mandate delay can also result in disadvantageous health insurance outcomes for employees of companies the Mandate applies to, right? So, who’s @ss did POTUS kick at Treasury for causing two slips to the Employer Mandate deadline within a year?
Are you personally angry about all these delays that are costing taxpayers like you and me money, and costing some of your fellow citizens better health insurance options? When will the LAW, that is so good it must be protected by violating it, be faithfully executed, Jim? I’m amazed that supporters of PPACA, such as you, are not demanding answers to that question and also demanding heads roll in multiple Departments of the Executive Branch.
Lol, did Jim just say something about gaming the system being wrong? First of all, maintaining a workforce under the Obamacare cap isnt gaming the system. Second, he is totally unaware of the hypocrisy.
Elements of Medicare Part D were delayed as well
For how long?
In comparison, the Obama adminstration punted on substantial, mandated portions for a year or more. And it’s painfully clear that they did so to keep some votes in the 2012 election (a widespread transition to part-time jobs in 2012 would have torpedoed Obama’s chances).
In comparison, the Obama adminstration punted on substantial, mandated portions for a year or more.
So at how many days precisely does administrative flexibility morph into tyranny?
At what point, precisely, did the colonists decide they should go to war with King George?
There isn’t necessarily a clean dividing line. But, it has a lot to do with substance of the rules coming out and whether it is a rote application of the law or new rules that Congress has not authorized the administration to make.
Days or years? Cause we are talking about years here.
Anti-Government activists don’t really know how Government works, in the world we live in.
There is the 7th Grade civics lessons that gives kind of a broad fuzzy picture, but, in the
modern era, Laws usually come with some sort of “Enabling Statute” that directs
the agencies to write regulations. The regs then oftentimes come with
a waiver to the states to pass laws that meet the regulatory requirements and if so,
the feds pass enforcement down to the states.
So in the PPACA, the DHHS has to write a lot of regs, the IRS has to write a lot of regs, and
the states that are doing exchanges have to write a lot of regs.
Many dead trees later, things start happening.
“Anti-Government activists don’t really know how Government works, in the world we live in.”
Actually we know all too well how government *operates* today. That’s why we have a problem with it. We like the way it was originally designed to operate and wish to return to that. We want this for a myriad of reasons but one of which is that while we more or less followed those rules (more at the start..less as time went on) the US was unbelievably prosperous.
Once we strayed from those precepts in a major way, we’ve suffered…as we are now.
If you wish to return to the past, please tell me what past that was?
1820: Where blacks and women were chattel?
1880: Where Women were chattel?
1930: Where blacks were denied the right to vote?
As Gregg pointed out, we’re very aware of how it works. We understand that Obama is using the EPA to destroy the coal industry so he doesn’t have to pass any pesky laws.
In 2007 the Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Air Act gave the EPA responsibility for regulating CO2 emissions. The “pesky law” — signed by Republicans, and upheld by Republican justices — has been on the books for decades.
The Supreme Court upheld it based on junk science. It would be worth revisiting it.
Is this the same EPA that took away the sovereign rights of 3 towns and put them under the control of the Wind River Indian Reservation? Ya, the EPA would never abuse its authority when it comes to “regulating CO2”.
The problem isn’t necessarily that the EPA can regulate but the manner in which its regulatory powers are abused by partisan political activists.
Bravo, Wodun. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Jim will watch them. What could go wrong?
You democrats have this weird, obsessive desire to destroy the coal industry. How damned convenient you can do it under the guise of a supreme court mandate. Just like Obamacare, you think you have carte blanche to run over the constitution through legal wrangling.
If you spent more time reading our founding documents than cherry picking legal documents to fit what you say, you’d have more constructive comments.
You democrats have this weird, obsessive desire to destroy the coal industry.
Burning coal is estimated to cost the U.S. 13,000 lives and $500B in health costs each year. Of course the coal industry should be accountable for that.
“Burning coal is estimated to cost the U.S. 13,000 lives and $500B in health costs each year”
By whom?
The coal industry is dying because their costs of production
are rising, while their price points are staggering.
Things like Mines exploding and killing dozens of miners or
Chemical spills that poison the drinking water of hundreds of thousands
of people
Coal slurry spills, all these costs are starting to impact the industry.
Notice how Jim doesn’t deny it. He thinks they deserve it and therefore will cheer them on and at the minimum, overlook how it is done.
This is a direct example of the effects the Democrat’s otherization strategy has on the human psyche. As long as they don’t like a group of people, a business, or an industry, it doesn’t matter how horrible you treat them. Right out of the Jim Crow South.
“The coal industry is dying because their costs of production”
No sh** buddy. That is Obama’s plan. Go watch some youtube clips of him explaining it.
Leftism is truly a form of mental illness. Leftists are very good at destruction; not so good at building. They are laying waste to the greatest and most prosperous country the world has ever seen, and replacing it with what? Venezuela? Cuba? Zimbabwe?
They want people to be dependent, rather than independent. They want people to suffer shortages and privation, because that gives the Leftist rulers more power over them.
When people must struggle for the basic necessities of life, they don’t have the time or energy to oppose or challenge their rulers. This is by design.
Now the Left has complete, total, uncontested power over us. There is no way that this will not end in violence, either armed revolt or mass graves.
Jim the Gullible writes:
“Burning coal is estimated to cost the U.S. 13,000 lives and $500B in health costs each year. ”
Where did you get those statistics?
Even if they were true (and I doubt them), note that Germany is going BACK to coal because all their hairbrained Green Energy gambits have utterly failed — and failed in exactly the ways predicted by a lot of us. And German coal is not the best type one would want to burn.
DN the clueless writes:
“The coal industry is dying because their costs of production
are rising, while their price points are staggering.”
Oh? Then how do you explain Germany’s return to coal when the price – PRICE mind you – if Green Energy production skyrocketed and drove everyone’s energy costs so high they had to abandon the knuckleheaded attempt.
You can’t.
By whom?
The American Lung Association.
As long as they don’t like a group of people, a business, or an industry, it doesn’t matter how horrible you treat them.
Regulating deadly pollution is not treating a business “horribly”, it’s protecting public safety. Is it treating airlines horribly to insist that they maintain their planes? Is it treating farmers horribly to insist that they not sell food contaminated with e coli?
The American Lung Association is a pack of liars. They went along with the bullshit campaign in California to pretend that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, bad for the lungs.
“The coal industry is dying because their costs of production”
No sh** buddy. That is Obama’s plan. Go watch some youtube clips of him explaining it.
=====
A few weeks back the entire city of Charleston started drinking bottled water brought in by the Federal Government because Freedom Industries contaminated the entire drinking water supply.
Do you think Rosebud Mining should pay for that cost? and how much do you think that will add to a ton of coal?
The Coal Industry just 2 weeks ago contaminated the Elk River shutting down
all water to 9 counties in WVa plus Charleston.
I notice a studied silence when i mention the cost of that spill or related
harm.
The Feds under FEMA had to truck water in for 300,000 people for a week.
Should the Owners of that chemical plant be responsible for paying for that?
It isnt about regulating a business but using the power of the federal government to use regulations with the intent of destroying an industry. Big difference.
Wodun already mentioned it, but to your specific example, poisoning the water supply is already a criminal act and could be prosecuted as such. You could use standard criminal negligence approaches to the problem.
That has nothing to do with what Obama is doing when he says things like “electricity prices will necessarily go up”. That is using regulation for a different objective that the plain purpose of the regulatory power, namely to destroy the coal industry wholesale.
Jim doesn’t even deny that this is the goal. and I doubt you would either. That is blatant tyranny to destroy private businesses and private wealth, not just to make sure the water supply isn’t poisoned.
I don’t think you understand the monster you are supporting. You think you won’t be next. That’s not how these things work. Once the existing 1% is destroyed, you are now going to be the new 1%, and treated as such. Heck, you are already in the 1% when taking the whole world into account. So, unless you want to be eventually next against the wall, you should really understand what is actually happening here, and how this is just a specific instance of a much larger ideology that ends up with the person having two crusts of bread considered the rich guy since everyone else now has only one crust of bread because the government took it all on the Democrats’ holy quest for income equality, meaning everyone making the same amount regardless of hours worked or what the job is actually worth.
It isnt about regulating a business but using the power of the federal government to use regulations with the intent of destroying an industry. Big difference.
How can you detect this “big difference”? If the law says you can’t do X, and an industry can’t function without doing X, competent regulation will destroy the industry. Regulation destroyed the asbestos industry — is that a bad thing?
“Bill Gates’ Texas energy company has filed for bankruptcy protection as the depressed power market results in untenable financial losses.
The company, Optim Energy (EnergyCo LLC), owned by a Gates investment fund, filed Chapter 11 Bankruptcy papers on Wednesday for its three power plants in eastern Texas, citing their inability to counter growing losses in the current market.
“The current depressed economic environment of the electric power industry – particularly with respect to coal-fired plants – and the debtors’ liquidity constraints have resulted in continuing losses that, simply put, have left the debtors without alternatives,” media quoted Optim CEO Nick Rahn as saying in court documents.”
I imagine Rand will Blame this on the Hippies.
Hippies sit around and smoke weed and otherwise do nothing with their lives.
Leftists use government to destroy anything and everything an independent and free people have built for themselves. See the Soviet Union, North Korea, and Cuba for examples.
We aren’t dealing with hippies, we are dealing with leftists.
And it is possible for individual private energy businesses to go out of business. Your anecdote has nothing to do with Obama’s plain public statements.
“Wodun already mentioned it, but to your specific example, poisoning the water supply is already a criminal act and could be prosecuted as such. You could use standard criminal negligence approaches to the problem.”
So who is under arrest? Who is facing 300,000 acts of criminal negligence?
I don’t know. I’m not the prosecutor. If I was I would be looking into it.
Maybe you can ask your friend Obama. He’s the master at arbitrary law enforcement.
Ah, so you don’t know if any criminal charges are even being investigated,
but you are sure it’s Obama’s fault.
why don’t you call this guy?
http://www.wvago.gov/
and ask him why there isn’t a grand jury or a set of arrests?
The Obama comment was an analogy about selective law enforcement, not linking Obama to this specific instance.
Why don’t you call him? Or any other West Virginian?
I have my own state to deal with.
“Elements of Medicare Part D were delayed as well, but for some reason that wasn’t denounced as tyranny.”
Do you have anything to say that rises above the debating skills of your average 6th grader?
Not that I accept your false premise but if one did:
If situation A is not flagged, and a similar situation B is flagged – and both are egregiously wrong – should that end all discussion/action on situtation B?
Now how about contributing something befitting an adult – such as:
Was it within Obama’s legal and Constitutional rights to change a clause in a law passed by Congress which uses the word “shall”? Be aware that the word “shall” has well known highly specific, ironclad meaning in law.
If so, why?
You’ve argued that Obamacare is settle law and therefore should not be altered (when the House tried to pass a 1 year delay – ignored by Harry Reid in the Senate). Do you agree that Obama should have delayed the implementation as done this week? If you do, how can you justify altering “settled law”?
Do you see any hypocrisy in Harry Reid ignoring the House Bill delaying implementation of these very mandates (several of which Obama has delayed), yet not complaining that Obama did it?
Those are just for starters – there are scores of questions like that.
If situation A is not flagged, and a similar situation B is flagged – and both are egregiously wrong – should that end all discussion/action on situtation B?
What if neither one was egregiously wrong?
The executive will always need a certain amount of flexibility to administer laws, it isn’t a black and white issue. But politics being politics, it will always be tempting for the party that doesn’t hold the White House to complain that the other party is going too far. The fact that Republicans complain now, when they didn’t complain about Medicare Part D, goes to show that the complaint is about politics rather than principle.
Was it within Obama’s legal and Constitutional rights to change a clause in a law passed by Congress which uses the word “shall”?
Obama did not “change a clause in a law”. If Congress passed a law saying that NASA would test the SLS by the end of 2014, and the test slipped into 2015, would that mean that NASA had changed a clause in a law? Of course not.
Obama delayed the implementation of one part of a law due to the challenging nature of that implementation. That isn’t a change in the law, it’s a recognition that things don’t always happen when Congress wants them to. It is fair to attack Congress for writing a law that couldn’t be implemented on schedule, and to attack Obama for failing to execute the law more quickly, but the idea that a delay in implementation is equivalent to a change in the law is ridiculous.
Do you agree that Obama should have delayed the implementation as done this week?
It seems like a reasonable decision, given the relative unimportance of the employer mandate. Similarly, HHS delayed the rollout of the Spanish language version of Healthcare.gov, because it was more important to get the English language site working.
You’ve argued that Obamacare is settle law and therefore should not be altered
On the contrary, there are a number of things that should be changed in the ACA.
Do you see any hypocrisy in Harry Reid ignoring the House Bill delaying implementation of these very mandates (several of which Obama has delayed), yet not complaining that Obama did it?
The House passed bills that delayed the individual mandate, not the employer mandate. You’re conflating completely different things.
“What if neither one was egregiously wrong?”
Then you should have started with that tactic instead of bringing Medicare Part D up the way you did. Think through your argument a little more before you present it.
“The executive will always need a certain amount of flexibility to administer laws, it isn’t a black and white issue.”
The executive does not have the limitless powers it is claiming. Saying they have some flexibility is not the same as them doing whatever the f they want regardless of any law or the intentions of congress or the constitution in limiting the powers of the executive.
“The fact that Republicans complain now, when they didn’t complain about Medicare Part D, goes to show that the complaint is about politics rather than principle.”
The actions of the two administrations are not even comparable. When did Bush make up laws and threaten companies?
” It is fair to attack Congress for writing a law that couldn’t be implemented on schedule, and to attack Obama for failing to execute the law more quickly, ”
Democrats wrote that law. Don’t blame congress. Obama and the Democrats should get blamed for how they implemented the law.
“It seems like a reasonable decision, given the relative unimportance of the employer mandate.” If it is so unimportant, why did we need Obamacare? Why is it being delayed another two years if the requirements are so easy to meet and wont affect any businesses, period?
“Similarly, HHS delayed the rollout of the Spanish language version of Healthcare.gov”
Under Progressive orthodoxy this is a racist act that perpetuates the disenfranchisement of people of color who have been traditionally undeserved and persecuted.
“The House passed bills that delayed the individual mandate, not the employer mandate.”
The House passed bills to delay the individual mandate which Democrats refused to vote on in the Senate and Obama vowed to veto. Then Obama made a decree that did the exact same thing he refused to be done by legislation. No one has passed a bill regarding the delay of the employer mandate, yet Obama did it any way and twice just recently.
You are focusing a lot on the delay but the link that started this has nothing to do with the delay of Obamacare but rather the other lawless actions being taken by the Obama administration. I can’t blame you for not being able to keep track of all these lawless actions.
The executive does not have the limitless powers it is claiming.
The executive has not claimed limitless powers. It has not claimed the power to eliminate the employer mandate, just delay it.
The House passed bills to delay the individual mandate which Democrats refused to vote on in the Senate and Obama vowed to veto. Then Obama made a decree that did the exact same thing he refused to be done by legislation.
No he didn’t! Obama has not delayed the individual mandate, it is still in force.
Jim quit with the sophistry. The ACA has no provision for delay. Congress did not authorize delay in this or any other law.
Congress has certainly not authorized a certification form for the delay saying you have to meet conditions for being eligible for the delay, conditions which were not authorized by Congress. That is wholecloth new pulled out of Obama’s butt.
So should the president delay elections this year? That’s the kind of stuff this logic will lead to.
The ACA may lack “delay” provisions, but the
Administrative Procedures Act does. Because all laws get run through
the APA and the executive writes those.
now if you think the Administration is abusing it’s discretionary
executive power, you should sue. Hire an attorney, Rand knows a few
and sue.
You could be the next Heller, imagine “Someguy v Obama”, where
people talk about “Someguy”…
I don’t currently possess the resources nor would I have strict standing as I work for a large corporation so I don’t fall under the individual mandate as I have employer based health insurance.
Also irrelevant as expecting the President to faithfully execute the laws shouldn’t require a lawsuit.
As to your earlier APA points, you could maybe have made the argument for the first delay, but not anymore. The APA in no way authorizes the certification form saying you aren’t making hiring decisions based on Obama’s mandates. It’s not physically possible to do. At some point, you look at how much it costs to run your business. Obamacare is a cost. Therefore, it is looked at as part of the running of the business, which by definition eventually includes who to hire and fire or lay off.
Whether it is a direct line-item that is part of the decision, or buried in an expense report, where the only direct decisions are made based on the bottom summarized line of the expense report, Obamacare eventually affects hiring decisions.
So, here Obama is setting traps for anyone to fall into so he can create enemies to fight against. Whether or not a business eventually gets exonerated in court, the process of going to court is the punishment. The judgement is largely irrelevant as harassment is the game.
If Obama will stretch the Horse Act of 1884 (or whatever its called) to mean that he can regulate tax preparers, then he would just as soon hit a business up for perjury for making hiring decisions, directly or indirectly, based on existing costs, one of which is going to be Obamacare.
” It has not claimed the power to eliminate the employer mandate”
That Obama hasn’t acted to eliminate the employer mandate does not mean he doesn’t think he has the power to do so.
“The executive has not claimed limitless powers.”
Obama has claimed the right to rewrite legislation and make up new laws. Not sure where the limits are there.
“No he didn’t! Obama has not delayed the individual mandate, it is still in force.”
He decreed that insurance companies had to continue offering plans that Obama had already cancelled. That sir, is a delay of the individual mandate. Just because everyone blew off Obama’s decree doesn’t mean he didn’t do it! Republicans offered to do it through legislation and Obama said, “Nope, think we are gonna use us some dictates.”
He decreed that insurance companies had to continue offering plans that Obama had already cancelled. That sir, is a delay of the individual mandate.
No, it isn’t. A delay of the individual mandate would be saying that no one will be penalized for not having insurance in 2014. That has not happened, despite many predictions (including some on this blog).
Republicans offered to do it through legislation
Republicans offered to delay it in hopes of causing the entire law to collapse. Of course Obama wasn’t on board with that.
Jim the 6th grade debater writes:
“What if neither one was egregiously wrong?”
Then your comparison of the ACA action and Medicaid Part D action was baseless to begin with wasn’t it?
“The executive will always need a certain amount of flexibility to administer laws, it isn’t a black and white issue.”
I see you avoided the question regarding the fact that the word “shall” is used in the law – the very sentence used to compel the executive to execute the mandate.
These days I give you one or sometimes two responses – just to reveal how empty they really are. And to underline the silly tricks you use – such as contradicting your own sources, or contradicting yourself, or, as here, ignoring a question which destroys your position.
But two is all the time you are worth.
Then your comparison of the ACA action and Medicaid Part D action was baseless to begin with wasn’t it?
No, they’re both examples of laws that needed some administrative flexibility to be implemented. Republicans didn’t mind one, and are calling the other tyranny, which goes to show that their position is based on politics and not principle.
I see you avoided the question regarding the fact that the word “shall” is used in the law – the very sentence used to compel the executive to execute the mandate.
I’m sure the word “shall” appears in lots of laws, that doesn’t mean that the executive has no flexibility. The fact is that the Treasury isn’t ready to implement the employer mandate starting January, 2015. All the “shells” in the world don’t change that.
“shalls”, rather.
Whatever happened to “IT’S THE LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”?
If you are going to stand on principle and say nothing can be changed because it is law written in stone, you can’t then claim “administrative flexibility”, and then still stand on the first principle.
Who said that nothing can be changed?
The democrats themselves said nothing could be changed because…
IT’S THE LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You’re devolving into circular reasoning Jim.
The Law also says “You may only drive down a road in the directions indicated by a road sign”, yet when there is a fire or accident a cop will hop out and drop a few flares and reroute traffic around problems up one ways, etc…..
It’s just a temporary fix, but is the cop breaking “The Law” or are they acting
in such a way that they feel must be done to make the road system work?
I’m pretty sure the next sentence in those same laws is something like “in emergency situations an officer may redirect traffic as locally required and is reasonable.” In other words, there is active law allowing the situation to be resolved as needed without ambiguity.
When Obama shows where Congress has authorized the 50-99 sized business category, and has shown how existing law allows for years of delays, and where Congress has authorized Obama to demand no one is making hiring decisions based on those delays, then you would maybe have a point.
But, none of those conditions exist, and at this point it is just a farce with Obama pulling changes to the law out of his butt. It means some of the mandates will now be delayed for two whole years from when Congress set for a class of businesses Congress made no mention of.
That’s an idiotic analogy. Unsurprisingly, considering the source.
If the President’s actions are truly illegal, you can sue.
If the President’s actions are “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” you can impeach.
Rand thinks the 2014 election should be entirely on impeachment.
I’m okay with that.
The House GOP should pass a Bill of Impeachment that goes valid Jan 2015, and that the Election should be entirely on Impeachment.
You all should be laying out the case now and badgering the house GOP.
Rand thinks the 2014 election should be entirely on impeachment.
Stop trying to read my mind, you moron. You suck at it, as you do at all things.
While Baghdad Jim sinks even deeper into ridiculousness, here’s a “liberal” with some brains:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/347140.php