Front Page
NMJ Search
Editorials
Commentary
Archive
NMJ Radio
Constitutional Literacy
Islamofascism
Progressivism
Books
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...
Facebook
Twitter
Site Information
About Us
Contact Us
  US Senate
  US House
  Anti-Google






Archive Email Author

About Andrew C. McCarthy
Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor at National Review. For 18 years, Andy was an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York. He held several executive staff positions and, in 1995, led the terrorism prosecution against Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and a plot to bomb New York City landmarks. In his final five years in the Justice Department, he was the Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney of the Southern District’s satellite office in White Plains. He also continued to make major contributions to national-security cases, including the investigation of the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Following the 9/11 attacks, he supervised the Justice Department’s Command Post near Ground Zero in New York City. In 2004, he worked at the Pentagon as a Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense. http://www.nationalreview.com/author/52265
Social Bookmarking
Print this page.
What's the Establishment GOP's
Strategy Against Obamacare?

Andrew C. McCarthy
September 26, 2013
In mounting their case against Senators Ted Cruz, House conservatives, and the grass-roots campaign to defund Obamacare, the Republican establishment and its like-minded scribes pound an oft-repeated talking point into conventional wisdom: Cruz cannot win.

In this telling, the senator has recklessly embarked on a populist campaign that taps into public anger over Obamacare but has no winning endgame. The Beltway clerisy elaborates that Cruz and his defunding partner, Senator Mike Lee, have failed to account for the Democrat majority and procedural rules that control the Senate. These purportedly immovable obstacles guarantee that the defunding measure they spurred the House to pass cannot be enacted into law. Therefore, conventional wisdom now holds, the only outcomes Cruz & Co. can hope for are (a) an ignominious, demoralizing defeat that will strengthen President Obama's hand or (b) a stalemate between the House, on the one hand, and the Senate and Obama, on the other -- a stalemate that will result in a government shutdown that, in turn, will grievously harm Republican electoral prospects.

There is a good deal wrong with this analysis. I've already described some of it in a recent post, and there will be more to say on it. But I want to explore a different topic that the establishment potshots at Cruz, Lee and House conservatives have obscured:

What is the GOP establishment's strategy for undoing Obamacare?

No conservative supporter of defunding suggests that the defunding strategy is a sure thing. It involves orchestrating a high-stakes confrontation that spotlights Obamacare's calamitous consequences and corrupt insider deals. The resulting political pressure -- coupled with the fact that even Obamacare supporters concede the program is not ready for implementation -- must be intense enough to convince congressional Democrats and the president that fighting to fund the program at this time is not in their interests.

No doubt, this is an uphill fight. Yet, conservative defunding proponents are not mounting it idly. They have an urgent reason for acting now, despite the challenges. Obamacare subsidies start to pour out next week. Once government "entitlements" begin, the likelihood of their ever being withdrawn is nil. Thus, if Obamacare is not stopped right now, it will not be stopped -- we will be burdened for years, probably permanently, with its catastrophic effects on both our already reeling economy and the quality of American healthcare.

If conservatives are right about this, we are in desperate times and defunding, even if it prompts a risky government shutdown, is the only desperate measure available -- the only chance of success, however uncertain the chance may be.

The Republican establishment disagrees, insisting that the defunding plan pushed by Cruz, Lee and House conservatives is implausible. Fine ... but then, what is the establishment's plausible plan?

Here's what they say: Elections.

You think Cruz is implausible? Here's what passes for plausible in Beltway GOP thinking:

The defunding strategy depends on a government shutdown, or at least the threat of one. A government shutdown is certain to be extremely damaging to Republicans. Public anger over it will result in poor GOP performances in the 2014 midterms, and probably beyond -- including the all-important 2016 presidential election. But if we refrain from the unrealistic defunding quest and avoid a shutdown, electoral success is assured. After all, in the next two or three cycles, Republican campaigns will be fueled by the implementation of Obamacare, which will be increasingly unpopular. Once Republicans build commanding congressional majorities and win the presidency, they will repeal Obamacare.

Note that, in outlining the GOP establishment game-plan, I am not arbitrating the competing claims about whether prior government shutdowns, especially in the mid-nineties, have badly hurt Republicans. For argument's sake, I am fully accepting the GOP establishment's argument that a shutdown would be disastrous for Republicans. I am also indulging the establishment assumption that -- although it ran utterly ineffective campaigns in 2006, 2008 and 2012, and although it has embittered the TEA Party that singularly drove its successful 2010 campaign -- Republicans are now an electoral juggernaut: they'll hold the House and win the Senate in 2014, win the White House in 2016, and even solidify those gains in 2018.

Unlikely as it may be, let's give them every bounce of the ball and assume all these things will happen. We're not done yet. Beyond buying all of the above, here is what you have to believe to accept the GOP establishment position: In 2016 or 2018 -- by which time Obamacare subsidies will have been doled out for three to five years (i.e., they will now be deemed entitlements); and businesses and insurance companies (the ones that have not been killed off) will already have made their long-term arrangements around Obamacare; and a huge government bureaucracy employing thousands of federal workers will have grown up around Obamacare; and a massive statutory and regulatory monster whose tentacles stretch deep into other sectors of the economy will have cemented Obamacare -- intrepid Republicans are going to pull the plug on the whole thing.

Really?

Mind you, we are talking about a Republican establishment that enacted a new prescription drug entitlement in 2003 that, by some calculations, has burdened the nation with over $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities. We are talking about a Republican establishment that has historically collaborated with Democrats in the explosive growth of entitlements -- that, in fact, ran in 2012 as the champion of Medicare. We are talking about a Republican establishment that has always qualified that it wants not to "repeal" but "repeal and replace" Obamacare. It does that because it wants to maintain popular elements (e.g., mandatory coverage despite pre-existing conditions) regardless of the fact that these elements entail government regulations that distort the market -- even though it is precisely such distortions that, they otherwise claim, make Obamacare unacceptable.

That is to say, we are talking about a Republican establishment that is Progressive in orientation, albeit not as radically so as the Democrats. Unlike Conservatives, the GOP establishment accepts the Progressive premise that healthcare (including health insurance) is not a commodity in a free market. It is, instead, corporate property the consumption of which must be regulated by government -- including redistributions of wealth to require productive members of society to subsidize "the uninsured," an amorphous category that outstrips, by leaps and bounds, the fringe of society that cannot fend for itself. Further distancing themselves from Conservatives, the Republican establishment accepts the Left's premise that healthcare regulation is a central government responsibility -- adopting an extravagant reading of the Constitution's General Welfare Clause that not only permits a federal role but vanquishes the role of the states.

Those Republicans -- the guys who enthusiastically expand government; sneer at Conservative demands to cut spending and pare the bureaucracy; insist that enticing "moderates" is the way to win elections; and quake at media suggestions that they are the Party of the Rich, out of touch with the struggles of ordinary people -- will boldly dismantle Obamacare after it has been up and running for several years. Oh, and the Democrats -- the guys who rammed intensely unpopular Obamacare through in a down-and-dirty, party-line slugfest, and who are so notoriously moderate, reasonable and bipartisan -- will just meekly roll over and let it happen.

That's the plan.

And they say Ted Cruz is dreaming!

This article was originally published at PJMedia.com. Refer to original article for related links, author bio and important documentation.








The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a sustaining donation today.







Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of NewMediaJournal.us, its editorial staff, board or organization.  Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to NewMediaJournal.us.  NewMediaJournal.us is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations.  NewMediaJournal.us is not supported by any political organization.  Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by NewMediaJournal.us is copyrighted. NewMediaJournal.us supports BasicsProject.org and its goal: the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


The Media Journal.us © 1998-2014    Content Copyright © Individual authors
Powered by ExpressionEngine 1.70 and M3Server