On Thursday, Speaker Boehner got the go ahead from the House Rules Committee to file a lawsuit about Presidential overreaching, specifically regarding the non-enforcement of the employer mandate. Whether or not the lawsuit proceeds, I think the action is important, mostly because of my feeling of a Presidential ICK-factor, an unpleasant sense of sliminess I associate with the conduct of our Democrats in government.
I believe it’s this ICK-factor that has Obama’s approval rating at 40 percent based on a three-day rolling average, “Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval,” http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx.
A great part of this ICK factor is just a feeling that the President is not being honest. As an example, I considered his third round at making the assertion that, “In fact, for the first time in over a decade, business leaders worldwide have declared that China is no longer the world’s best place to invest – America is,” http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/07/19/weekly-address-equipping-workers-skills-employers-need-now-and-future, 7/19/2014.
As I mentioned in my post, “Health Insurance Week 7/13/2014 to 7/19/2014,” http://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/p/health-insurance-week-7132014-to-7192014.html, these words were lifted from the text of his January 2014 State of the Union Address and for the third time used in his July 2014 Weekly Address, “and for the first time in more than a decade, business leaders around the world have declared that the world’s number one place to invest isn’t China; it’s the United States of America,” http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/07/26/weekly-address-closing-corporate-tax-loopholes.
The recycled message is more tiresome because even when it was first uttered in January of 2014 it was deemed only “MOSTLY TRUE,” by PolitiFact, http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jan/29/barack-obama/business-leaders-declared-china-no-longer-worlds-n/.
Yet it is Obamacare that is one of our best tangible expressions of the ICK-factor, the still stinging wound of a marketing wonder of half-truths (lies) that inspired a people desperate for improvement in our healthcare system to get on the bandwagon of Obamacare catapulting this President into office twice.
Obamacare and its “convenient” timing issue that meant we didn’t feel the brunt of many provisions of Obamacare until AFTER the President was re-elected in 2012 with a myriad of provisions becoming effective in January 2014.
Additional insults have followed such as enforcement of the individual mandate (which directly impacts enrollment, the only criterion important to this President) while delaying the counterpart of the individual mandate, the employer mandate.
It’s this Presidential ICK-Factor that I believe House Speaker John Boehner taps into with his intention to try to sue the President on behalf of the House regarding the failure to enforce part of Obamacare, specifically the provision of the law that REQUIRES the employer mandate to become effective on December 31, 2013, (PPACA 4980H(d) “EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013”).
I’ve noted the President’s timing game before, in posts such as “Obamacare: The Wrong Side of History,” 3/6/2014, where I noted, “Obamacare is a testament to the President’s love of timing games. After all, Obamacare was passed in 2010, but by putting off its most disruptive features until 2014, after his re-election…” http://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/2014/03/obamacare-wrong-side-of-history.html, or last July (July 2013) I addressed the change in my post, “Gullible this Week? Obamacare Employer Mandate Delay,” http://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/2013/07/gullible-this-week-obamacare-employer.html.
At that time I stated, “This is not a change in the law but instead is a government statement that it will not enforce the law this year.” (Naturally, that was before the second IRS delay of 2/2014 until 2016 for certain employers.)
My focus then was that Republicans weren’t using the delay as, “as a jumping off point for a consideration of parity, arguing for the delayed enforcement of the individual mandate penalty similarly to the delay of the employer mandate penalty. Republicans could also use the determination not to enforce the law as an example of why more laws are not always the answer by focusing on the failure to enforce existing laws on everything from Medicare fraud to illegal immigration to gun laws, in addition to this week’s enforcement failure for Obamacare,” http://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/2013/07/gullible-this-week-obamacare-employer.html.
What a difference a year makes as we’ve seen frustration with Presidential bullheadedness, seeming disconnectedness and contempt gaining momentum and it’s REPUBLICANS who are showing nascent signs that perhaps they’re ready to reconnect with the American people by daring to retire Tea Party politics to its place in history and recognize more traditional Republican values and restraints (emphasis on PERHAPS).
For me, Speaker Boehner’s planned lawsuit is just such a sign of nascent rebirth of reasonableness in the Republican Party, (though it’s still very early in the rebirth).
Instead it’s Democrats who have proven themselves unreasonable, even with the latest stunt with their sudden ability to quickly draft legislation to bring back all forms of contraception under Obamacare in a post Hobby-Lobby world, while remaining singularly unable to rescue the poor who have fallen through the loopholes created by Obamacare’s Supreme Court loss that will result in millions of indigent and poor people receiving lower quality medical care because they lack Medicaid expansion coverage but will still be suffering under the provisions of Obamacare cutting funding ACROSS THE BOARD to hospitals for care of indigents.
Or the sudden ability of the government to ignore the text of Obamacare that excludes subsidies for individuals signing up for Obamacare through the Federal exchange.
Speaker Boehner is addressing a real issue, that Democrats seem to be willing to do what they want regardless of the law.
Instead of addressing the genuine concern of many people expressed by Speaker Boehner, our Snarky Schoolyard Leader President responded, “So sue me,” Dana Davidsen, “Obama to Republicans: ‘So sue me,’ CNN Politics, http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/01/obama-to-republicans-so-sue-me/, 7/1/2014.
Even the pro-Obama CNN couldn’t characterize those words as anything but a DARE, by our President to our Speaker of the House, http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/01/obama-to-republicans-so-sue-me/. For this the President earns no respect as he gives no respect…The ICK-factor.
To me, it’s remarkable that this ICK-factor wouldn’t garner more support for Boehner regarding the President’s inability in action and word to RESPECT our system of government and the people who put him in office within it.
There is also a particular STRENGTH TO THE EMPLOYER MANDATE NON-COMPLIANCE and THE EXPRESS USE OF LANGUAGE THAT DISREGARDS THE LAW.
In contrast, look at the government’s response concerning enforcement of laws regarding the legalization of marijuana in certain states, which arguably also is an example of nonenforcement of laws.
Did the Federal government IGNORE the unspoken challenge or decide to change the Federal law to accommodate those states that legalized marijuana? Of course not.
In addressing the marijuana issue the Federal government reinforced its commitment to law. Last year, The Deputy Attorney General, James M. Cole, issued a Memo entitled, “Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement,” http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf.
The memo about marijuana enforcement began by stating, “As the Department noted…Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug and that the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime…The Department is also committed to using its limited investigative and prosecutorial resources to address the most significant threats in the most effective, consistent and rational way,” http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf.
Laying out the Federal Drug priorities and the role that states and local governments play in addressing the law, the memo stated: “These priorities will continue to guide the Department’s enforcement of the CSA (compliance, safety, accountability) against marijuana-related conduct,” http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf.
There was no governmental choice of non-enforcement of laws made regarding marijuana, quite the contrary. Naturally, we have many laws that are not well-enforced such as Medicare Fraud or HIPAA, or dare we say our immigration laws for reasons relating to shortages of resources for enforcement. However, it is when the government says it chooses to NOT enforce the laws that there is trouble. Much like the President’s executive order providing amnesty for young illegals, we found that that message of open-door no law immigration opened the floodgates to a lawless border.
Similarly with the employer mandate. It’s not whether the enforcement will be effective, we KNOW that enforcement is often not effective, it’s the arrogant and expressly stated INTENTION NOT TO ENFORCE THE LAW that is problematic.
Back to the marijuana-Obamacare comparison.
Regarding the government’s marijuana memo, first the government reiterated that the law was unchanged, marijuana is considered a dangerous drug. Second it reiterated that the Federal government is committed to enforcing the law based on an established system of priorities that take into account its “limited” resources, and third, the memo directed the government commitment to enforcement in the most effective, consistent and rational way,” http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf.
Compare this to what was done regarding Obamacare’s employer mandate by IRS Notice 2013-45, http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-13-45.pdf. For Obamacare, instead of a commitment to the law, the memo provided exactly the opposite, a specific statement that there would be NO governmental compliance with enforcement of the law’s effective date.
IRS Notice 2013-45 stated, “This notice provides transition relief for 2014 from (1) the information reporting requirements applicable to insurers, self-insuring employers, and certain other providers of minimum essential coverage under § 6055 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) (§ 6055 Information Reporting), (2) the information reporting requirements applicable to applicable large employers under § 6056 (§ 6056 Information Reporting), and (3) the employer shared responsibility provisions under § 4980H (Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions)… employers and other reporting entities are encouraged to voluntarily comply with the information reporting provisions for 2014.”
The IRS delivered a memo that expressed, contrary to what is provided in the law, a deliberate statement of the intention to not enforce a mandatory provision of Obamacare by changing it to a VOLUNTARY provision rather than a mandate for the next period of time contrary to its legal date of enactment.
On 2/10/2014 the IRS released final regulations that again changed the employer mandate for businesses with 50 to 99 employees by putting off the compliance date until 2016, “US Treasury Fact Sheet,” http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Documents/Fact%20Sheet%20021014.pdf.
Regardless of your political view of either set of laws, both are still the current law. Marijuana is considered a dangerous drug AND Obamacare required the employer mandate to become effective on 12/31/13.
In both instances there is an acknowledgment of limited resources and ability of the Federal government for enforcement.
BUT, for marijuana the relevant memo declares that “The Department is committed to using its limited investigative and prosecutorial resources to address the most significant threats in the most effective, consistent and rational way,” http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf, while for Obamacare the government ABDICATES its enforcement role required by law for year beginning January 1, 2014 stating, “…employers and other reporting entities are encouraged to voluntarily comply with the information reporting provisions for 2014," http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-13-45.pdf.
Significantly the memo on marijuana does not pick and choose from among its provisions to be enforced and not enforced, (selective enforcement of the law) while noting that there are “limited” resources that require certain prioritization of activities in the enforcement of Federal drug laws.
No such luck with the IRS Notice 2013-45, which specifically carves out an exception to the employer mandate while STATING that its new law changing a mandate to a voluntary “…has no effect on the effective date or application of other Affordable Care Act provisions, such as the premium tax credit under § 36B and the individual shared responsibility provisions under § 5000A,” http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-13-45.pdf.
For me, Speaker Boehner is rightfully attempting to use our process and our system of government to address the conduct of this Administration (the ICK-factor). I think that the arrogance and petty form of government in which this Administration indulges was best expressed by President Obama’s contemptuous challenge, “So sue me,” and so they should.
