House Votes for Repeal of Health Law in Symbolic Act

[giblets]

Yes, that is why all the polls show that Obama couldn't win a general election against the current front runners of the GOP, McCain only picked up three diehard republican states in 2008, and Bush lost in 2000 and 2004. Drake, I thought you were smarter than this.

I'm pretty sure Bush won in 2004

[DaShi]

Dammit!

[giblets]

Bush's approval rating plummeted long before the economy collapsed. Republican unpopularity allowed the Democrats to take the House in 2006. I guess economic events in the future can affect approval ratings in the present?

[Hauldren Collider]

The economy is one of the most important factors for any president. I disagree with Drake in that it's almost always the deciding factor. We don't have enough data points to demonstrate that. But if the economy stays where it is now Obama is going to face an uphill battle. I think currently the riskiest thing for the Republicans is that they nominate a poor candidate, but in presidential elections the Republicans have a much better history of picking electable candidates than the Democrats.

[Elok]

The economy is one of the most important factors for any president. I disagree with Drake in that it's almost always the deciding factor. We don't have enough data points to demonstrate that. But if the economy stays where it is now Obama is going to face an uphill battle. I think currently the riskiest thing for the Republicans is that they nominate a poor candidate, but in presidential elections the Republicans have a much better history of picking electable candidates than the Democrats.

I'm going to go ahead and mention Palin here to save someone else the effort. Albeit she's only one candidate among many.

[Hauldren Collider]

I'm going to go ahead and mention Palin here to save someone else the effort. Albeit she's only one candidate among many.

I don't think Palin can win the primary. Her popularity has waned and even many of her supporters prefer her as a pundit than a president.

[Elok]

Oh, sorry, I meant that she was one argument against the GOP having a better history of picking electable candidates. The woman made Joe freaking Biden look like a distinguished elder statesman just by comparison. But I should have bolded the relevant sentence. No, I don't think the Republicans are silly enough to nominate her. Even Gingrich would be a better choice. Though still terrible, and I don't think they'll nominate him either.

[giblets]

House GOP Moves to Defund Health Care Law

Unable to get their bill to repeal last year's health reform law through the Senate, House Republicans are taking another tack and trying to use the power of the purse to stop it or at least slow it down.

Rep Eric Cantor, R-Virginia, the House majority leader, told reporters today he expects the House to vote next week to bar any government funds from being used to implement the law. This would likely come in the form of an amendment to a measure to fund the government after March 4th, when temporary funding passed during last December's lame duck Congress runs out.

Republicans have already promised that measure will make deep cuts to non-defense government programs for the rest of the fiscal year (which runs until the end of September), setting up a confrontation with the Democratically-controlled Senate and President Obama. By targeting spending in programs Mr. Obama has said represent his priorities (including education, infrastructure and clean energy), the House Republicans are throwing down the gauntlet.

And by adding a provision designed to shut down implementation of the health reform law, they are pretty much guaranteeing that the bill won't pass the Senate or be signed by the president.

The result will be a high-stakes game of political chicken during the first few days of March as negotiations between the House, Senate and White House over the spending bill run up against the deadline when funding runs out -- raising the prospect of a government shutdown if agreement isn't reached.

The Republicans are threatening to shut down the government because the House can't repeal legislation without the cooperation of the Senate. They either don't understand or don't care about the concept of separation of powers.

[Hauldren Collider]

House GOP Moves to Defund Health Care Law


The Republicans are threatening to shut down the government because the House can't repeal legislation without the cooperation of the Senate. They either don't understand or don't care about the concept of separation of powers.

I think they understand it perfectly well, though I'm not sure that you do. Congress has the power of the purse. If I recall correctly, one of the main functions of Parliament when the king in England still mattered at all was to approve funding for the government.

The power to raise taxes and appropriate spending is traditionally legislative.

[giblets]

I think they understand it perfectly well, though I'm not sure that you do. Congress has the power of the purse. If I recall correctly, one of the main functions of Parliament when the king in England still mattered at all was to approve funding for the government.

The power to raise taxes and appropriate spending is traditionally legislative.

The House of Representatives isn't "Congress". In order for "Congress" to do something you need both the House and the Senate. The government is designed to be stable by giving the status quo an advantage. edit: in hindsight maybe "separation of powers" was the wrong term to use

[N35t0r]

Hm? Over here, if (until) congress doesn't approve a new budget, it defaults to the previous year's...

[giblets]

More dishonesty from the Republicans

A long and rather dry discussion of nation's budget outlook at the House Budget Committee has exploded with a frenzy of politics after a brief exchange, highlighted in the video clip above, between Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) and Congressional Budget Office director Douglas W. Elmendorf. The CBO last August had estimated that the new health care law over the next decade would reduce the number of overall workers in the United States by one-half of one percent, and Campbell got Elmendorf to utter the words "800,000."

CAMPBELL: "That means that, in your estimation, the health care law would reduce employment by 800,000 in '20-'21. Is that correct?"

ELMENDORF: "Yes. The way I would put it is that we do estimate, as you said, that the household employment will be about 160 million by the end of the decade. Half a percent of that is 800,000. That means that if the reduction in the labor used was workers working the average number of hours in the economy and earning the average wage, that there would be a reduction of 800,000 workers."

House Republicans have spent weeks criticizing the CBO and its estimate that repealing the health care law would increase the deficit. But somehow this estimate--reached with the same assumptions the CBO has used before--met their approval.

Within hours, conservative publications such as the Weekly Standard and the National Review had posted commentaries lauding Elmendorf's statement. "Job Killing," declared the National Review. The National Republican Congressional Committee made it a campaign theme, sending out an email on Friday attacking Democrats: "Jay Inslee Doesn't Get It: ObamaCare Will Cost 800,000 Jobs: Washington Democrat Refuses to Repeal the Law the CBO Admits Will Destroy Jobs." The Washington Post's conservative blogger Jennifer Rubin approvingly linked to the youtube video.

So what's the truth? Did Elmendorf really say the new health care law would "destroy" jobs?

The Facts

Note that Elmendorf never said the words that the GOP has attributed to him, such as "destroy" or "kill." He used the phrase "reduction of labor." It doesn't quite roll off the tongue like "destroy" -- and it does not mean the same thing.

The CBO first discussed this issue, briefly, in a budget analysis last August. Boiled down to plain English, the CBO is essentially saying that some people who are now in the work force because they need health insurance would decide to stop working because the health care law guaranteed they would have access to health care.

Think of someone who is 63, a couple of years before retirement, who is still in a job only because they are waiting to get on Medicare when they turn 65. Or a single mother with children who is only working to make sure her kids have health insurance.

Now some might argue that despite these heartwarming stories, the overall impact of the health law on employment is bad because it would be encouraging people -- some 800,000 -- not to work. Moreover, the argument could go, this would hurt the nation's budget because 800,000 fewer people will pay taxes on their earnings. That's certainly an intellectually solid argument -- though others might counter that universal health care is worth a minimal reduction in overall employment -- but it's not at all the same as saying these jobs would be "destroyed."

We asked a spokesman for the House Budget Committee for a response, but have not heard one. If we get one, we will add it at the end.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fac...o_testimo.html

The bill will cause some people to choose to work less and the Republicans try to spin it as "job killing".

[Tupac Shakur]

The bill will cause some people to choose to work less

[Darius871]

The House of Representatives isn't "Congress". In order for "Congress" to do something you need both the House and the Senate.

Eh, no, we're talking about refraining from an affirmative appropriation bill here, not passing a repeal bill. Do try to keep up.

[Dinner]

The bill will cause some people to choose to work less

If someone is truly sick then they should concentrate on getting well instead of working.