Sunday, July 7, 2013

A Government Of Men, Not Laws

John Lott asks what is really a very important question about Obama's decision to delay implementation of one part of the health care law:

If Obama can keep making up health care law as he goes, why was it even necessary to pass the law to begin with?

If the Republican Party had any intelligent people running it, they would be preparing ads right now that pointed out that Obama is delaying an obligation that injures corporations, but not delaying the individual mandate, which injures individuals (and generally individuals who aren't rich).   But the Republican Party leadership doesn't seem to have the intelligence of a toaster.

6 comments:

Jim said...

Not only that, but the date of implementation was written in the law so he is defying his own law when he postpones its implementation. That sounds illegal to me!

Sigivald said...

If the Republican Party had any intelligent people running it, they would be preparing ads right now that pointed out that Obama is delaying an obligation that injures corporations, but not delaying the individual mandate, which injures individuals (and generally individuals who aren't rich).

Which is ironic, since it would imply that he actually sort of at some level understands how businesses work or that business is necessary.

Which I don't see any real reason to believe is true, sadly.

Windy Wilson said...

I was thinking not of toasters, but a cast iron skillet.

Josh said...

It's an obvious thing for Republicans to do. Are you so certain that the Democrats are unaware?

When people criticize the administration for not delaying the individual mandate, then the administration will -- quite happily -- delay the individual mandate, or otherwise change the rules there. Probably for quite some time, since it's gloriously unpopular.

Or if the administration really wants to twist the knife, it'll leave a huge number of quasi-legal loopholes, then attack anyone that uses them.

Aaron said...

Obama's creating quite the string of precedents now isn't he? Apparently so long as a president doesn't like a law, he can choose not to enforce it or to modify its implementation dates unilaterally.


Of course this new precedent might be reserved solely for Democrat presidents. At least it is if you ask the media and the Democrats themselves....

Gladorn said...

The problem I see is that there are no consequences if the law is not followed. (Sort of like that pesky requirement to have a budget passed every year, sarcasm intended.)

On that note, I agree that the Republican party is pretty stupid. I remember the whole kerfluffle about the "Confederate Flag" over the SC State House a few elections back. It wasn't a confederate flag, it was a battle flag and it was put there due to Massive Resistance. But few really know there history and they were scared to speak against it until it was too late. And then they still got the facts wrong.