Is Obamacare Repealable?

Yesterday’s Obamacare decision has prompted seemingly endless comment. I will largely refrain, except for one big point, one small point, and one observation about repealability.

Big point: Chief Justice Roberts put an end (for now) to unlimited government power unrestrained by the Commerce Clause. The government, he reassured us, cannot force us to eat or even buy broccoli. But he may have unleashed a monster at least as large as he restrained, since now the government obviously can TAX us for not buying broccoli. Indeed, the power to tax may pose a much more ominous threat of unrestrained government than a toothless Commerce Clause ever did. Thanks a lot, John.

Small point: The Obamacare mandate tax ($95 on everyone — no matter how rich or poor — who doesn’t buy insurance for now, I think, plus some small difficult to figure out percentage of something) is a regressive tax. Democrats don’t usually like regressive taxes.

Much of the discussion today has dealt with the question of whether or not the Republicans will be able to repeal Obamacare if they win in 2012. Some say no — because they will almost certainly not win a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate — and some say yes because they can repeal it through “reconciliation” the same way the Democrats, bending the rules, passed it through reconciliation, which requires only a majority vote. Mickey Kaus discusses some high- and low-lights of this discussion here, and as usual has smart things to say about it.

He did not cite today’s Charlottesville Daily Progress, which contributed to that discussion by quoting some local experts. One of them, Eric Patashnik, associate dean of UVa’s Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy, said “repealing the law outright will be extremely difficult.” Agreeing with the nay-sayers cited by Kaus, he argued “They’d have to pass a repeal law through the Senate and would need a supermajority to do it.”

I’ve just sent in a Letter to the Editor pointing out that the good dean (like other nay-sayers) ignores the enormous usefulness to President Romney of the creative (if law- and tradition-bending) precedents set by President Obama of legislating by Executive Order whenever confronted by an uncooperative Congress. Certainly no fair-minded person, or even any Democrat in Congress, who failed to object to President Obama’s directing Homeland Security not to enforce the law calling for the deportation of a large swath of illegal immigrants could have any objection to President Romney instructing the IRS not to collect the “tax” on anyone refusing to buy health insurance.

Say What? (1)

  1. CaptDMO June 29, 2012 at 10:13 pm | | Reply

    Which is exactly why I take Senate/House/Governor/Zoning Board elections more seriously than POTUS placeholder.
    Sadly, there’s always that “appointed” (i.e.)department head thingy.

Say What?