| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Obamacare bill includes $105B of self-funding for next five years |
| 2011-03-06 |
| Given the contentious nature of this legislation, I guess we should have seen this coming. I just have one question: Is this self-funding something that is common or has any kind of relevant precedent? This basically ties this Congress' hands, which I would think would be highly unethical and illegal. Suppose we will see any arrests made? My simple solution: Immediately pass legislation through the house to immediately invalidate any self-funding aspects of Obamacare. If it doesn't make it through the Senate, shut down the government until it does, and whoever authored that section of the bill gets arrested on felony charges. Since Pelosi and Reid are responsible for that bill, they ought to be arrested, too. They should know better in their positions. And I'm sure they do. Bills should be limited to some reasonable size with a requirement that all language in the bill be directly related to a short title. No pork. This is why all legislation must be read cover-to-cover in front of Congress before it is passed, and anybody who has not been there for the whole thing should not be allowed to vote in a way that results in a non-reduction of federal spending. |
| Posted by:gorb |
| #17 Man doesn't change. The FF were brilliant. Defend HHS by that amount + some.......... |
| Posted by: anonymous2u 2011-03-06 22:18 |
| #16 George III, Lord Bute and Lord North come to mind. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2011-03-06 20:43 |
| #15 Maybe they had some world-class a-holes and morons back then? |
| Posted by: gorb 2011-03-06 18:10 |
| #14 they anticipated Pelosi, Reid, and Obama 225 yrs ago? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2011-03-06 17:19 |
| #13 If that is the case, why was Art 1, Sec 7 necessary? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2011-03-06 16:40 |
| #12 But as the government, through the Senate, is continuous in operation, it may make commitments beyond the term of the current congress I'd have to politely disagree on part of that. The Senators have terms of 6 yrs, but each Congress is reconstituted every two years, and spending commitments cannot be enforced past the terms of each Congress. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2011-03-06 16:32 |
| #11 I suspect you're thinking of Art 1, Sec 7 To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; Now if no congress might commit a future congress, as no parliament may commit a future parliament, this limitation would be unnecessary. But as the government, through the Senate, is continuous in operation, it may make commitments beyond the term of the current congress. So legislation may be passed that does make commitments beyond the current congress. But there is nothing to preclude future congresses from reneging on those commitments legislatively. There may be consequences that disincent congress from doing so. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2011-03-06 15:54 |
| #10 This isn't illegal or even unconstitutional. Congress has the right to appropriate funds and allocate them to programs and departments. That is part of its job. Last I checked, there are constitutional checks on Congress budgeting more than two years or so at a time. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2011-03-06 15:16 |
| #9 a Congress cannot force obligations and spending on future Congresses. This is nonsense. Overturn this crap-on-a-stick and send Sebelius packing |
| Posted by: Frank G 2011-03-06 15:05 |
| #8 A poison pill in the bill? I thought that was a Capitalist concept? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2011-03-06 14:45 |
| #7 I like that idea, OS. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2011-03-06 13:04 |
| #6 What we need is a constitutional amendment that sunsets all laws, regulations and budgetary items after 4 years (50%+1 majority) or 6 years (60% supermajority) or 8 years (2/3 +1 majority) Both houses. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2011-03-06 11:03 |
| #5 This isn't illegal or even unconstitutional. Congress has the right to appropriate funds and allocate them to programs and departments. That is part of its job. However, what this shows is that Team Bambi and friends knew this turd wouldn't fly long out of the gates and put funding in so it would be implemented no matter what. I suspected they knew that defunding calls would be made and they funded it as law as it was heading out the gate. You will get Obamacare whether you like it or not and Team Bambi are hoping this becomes too entrenched to be moved after several years of court fights. Really the only way to get rid of Obamacare is to have the supreme court nullify the whole thing. Oh, and be sure to thank Snowe and the rest of the RHINOs that allowed this to be made into law come 2012. Send those fuckers to the unemployment line. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2011-03-06 10:57 |
| #4 Whats written in there is not something that is illegal, in the arrest people sense. That would send a crazy precedent that nobody would want to see followed through. It might be unconstitutional however, and the way to remove it is to have it struck down as so by the Supreme Court. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2011-03-06 09:30 |
| #3 Maybe someone in congress should have read it. |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2011-03-06 09:12 |
| #2 After the experience with Cromwell, the former Englishmen known as the Founding Fathers made sure that written into the Constitution were specific limitations on the time that the Army could be funded. "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;" Guess its time for another amendment to cover all departments. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2011-03-06 09:09 |
| #1 The planned usurption of congressional authoriity would indicate the Obama administration had at least some doubt about the future Democratic congressional makeup even while writing the bill. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2011-03-06 01:25 |