Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Stephen Green

Bio

July 31, 2013 - 6:47 am

President Obama’s diktat to delay ObamaCare’s employer mandate will cost $12,000,000,000 and decrease employee coverage:

The Congressional Budget Office has released its cost estimate of the Obama administration’s one-year repeal delay of ObamaCare’s employer mandate and anti-fraud provisions. The CBO expects the Obama administration’s unilateral rewriting of federal law (my words, not CBO’s) will increase federal spending by $3 billion in 2014 and reduce federal revenues by a net $9 billion, thereby increasing the federal debt by $12 billion. If President Obama keeps this up, Congress may have to raise the debt ceiling or something.

Where is that $3 billion of new spending going? The CBO estimates the administration’s action will lead to about half a million additional people receiving government subsidies, including through ObamaCare’s Exchanges.

Remember how the law’s real name is the “Affordable Care Act”?

If the Framers had had any clue to the depths to which our “leadership” would someday sink, I like to think they’d have added a provision to the Constitution. In it, any law achieving the opposite of its title would be considered null and void.

And wouldn’t you love to have seen Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid trying to push through the “Cost a Bundle and Screw Everything Up for Everyone Act”?

Stephen Green began blogging at VodkaPundit.com in early 2002, and has served as PJMedia's Denver editor since 2008. He's one of the hosts on PJTV, and one-third of PJTV's Trifecta team with Scott Ott and Bill Whittle. Steve lives with his wife and sons in the hills and woods of Monument, Colorado, where he enjoys the occasional lovely adult beverage.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (6)
All Comments   (6)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
"And wouldn’t you love to have seen Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid trying to push through the “Cost a Bundle and Screw Everything Up for Everyone Act”?"

God, I hope this idea doesn't get out... there's nothing unconstitutional about a law that legally re-names a prior law. They don't do it, because of the chaos it would unleash. But there is no prohibition against the next administration renaming the Obamacare blunder something like that.

Or maybe just "We really screwed the pooch on heath care" act.

Chaos, pure chaos, with each government renaming all the f***ups of the previous government.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Remember how the law’s real name is the “Affordable Care Act”?"

Well, they got it partially right. It IS all an act.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Why is this news? Anyone capable of fogging a mirror placed beneath their nose knew this was coming. It's not news, it is simply more proof of an incompetent administration flexing it's muscles and telling us, "Shut up and eat your gruel. I won."
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
...and here I thought the mirror analogy was mine, and mine alone.
How in hell did anyone figure the costs were anywhere near realistic, if they actually stopped and read the entire bill. If it were a real contract, it would have been thrown out of any corporate or legal firm's compliance office after 5 minutes of a cursory examination.
But this bill and others like it [see : Gang of 8 immigration bill] are so packed with assumptions, wishful thinking and generalized B S that is boggles the mind how anyone can/could endorse it.
...and then Barry would blow off what he doesn't like in the finished product, and we've ample evidence he'd do exactly that.
So, from now till early 2015 , the House majority should just say "no" to everything Barry and his guys want, propose or 'see a need' for.
Attach a schedule of what he has-been and is doing to subvert The Constitution at every twist, juncture and opportunity.
Call it : A Line In The Sand, or other-such colorful symbolism. But do it, and don't back off.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I take that back. I'm blind.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Your language for the hyperlink says $12 trillion, but the quoted part from the article says $12 billion. I think that's a magnitude difference of about 1000%.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All