But appropriations must still go through the Senate, and the President.
So they must either compromise or have a stalemate that shuts down part or all of the government for a while. The House Republicans may indeed choose stalemate - they would love to shut down government.
That’s not bad, but I’d prefer them to frame it as a penalty for freeloaders and moochers - those that decide not to buy insurance until they are sick or expect the rest of us to subsidize their ER bills when they can’t pay them.
The problem with the credit for buying is that it sets a baseline of higher taxes for everyone and then rolls them back. Punishing moochers is a better political frame, IMO. If you get subsidies and can afford insurance but still choose not to buy it then you are screwing the rest of us - pay your penalty.
Yes. Do you know how many members of the Progressive Democrat Caucus will lose their Senate seats in the next few years?
On what grounds? He can’t just refuse to enforce a law unless he believes it is unconstitutional, perhaps - but it was just declared constitutional.
There is no such thing as the “Progressive Democrat Caucus”.
If you mean the “Progressive Congressional Caucus”, there is currently only one Senate member - Bernie Sanders of Vermont. And he’s not even a Democrat. And he’s the third most popular Senator in the country.
If you mean liberal Democrats in general, most of them are safe - it’s the moderate ones in conservative states that are more likely to lose their seats.
Executive Order.
That might work. But it won’t stop the parts that Democrats like. All it will do is increase the deficit.
ETA: I should add that conservatives in general seem to miss the point that liberals don’t give two shits about the individual mandate. Obama himself famously opposed one. We want universal coverage, employer mandates/penalties, state exchanges, community rating, Medicaid expansion, and subsidies for coverage. The individual mandate is just a means to an end - and one of the most viable ones if you want to keep the private insurance market without the freeloader death spiral.
Oops. I was refering to the Congressional Progressive Caucus which is an organization within the Democratic Caucus.
There is no quarentee that there will enough Congressional Progressive Caucus Democrats left in the Senate to stop a GOP effort to overturn the Obamacare TAX.
I’m not getting all unhinged here. First of all, Romney is NOT going to win. Secondly, Democrats WILL keep the Senate. Thirdly, if Boehner does keep the gavel, he will preside over a smaller GOP House majority with fewer batshit crazy teabaggers.
That would bankrupt private insurance companies, and result in single payer government health care like they have in Europe. Is that what you want?
Well, yeah, it would be an EO. But it would be unconstitutional. The President can’t just do whatever he wants with an EO. He can’t just declare that a law won’t be followed because he disagree with it.
EO is not some special magical power. It just means the President is giving an order. EO is not a grounds for a decision, it’s just a decision.
Yes. And the only Senate member is Bernie Sanders.
http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=71§iontree=2,71
I guarantee there won’t be. Because there aren’t any Senate Democrats in the CPC today. There is only one Socialist (I), and he won’t be losing election any time soon - he comes from a state that is in the process of implementing single-payer UHC.
I was answering a specifc question. I didn’t say an EO was a good or bad idea.
Obama recently used an EO to stop deporting younger undocumented workers regardless of what U.S. law says. What prevents a President Romney from using the same tactic?
The fact that the Supreme Court just declared the law constitutional, for one.
So if Romney isn’t going to suspend the law based on a claim that it is unconstitutional, what other grounds would he have? He has no legal basis to do so. There is nothing in the law that gives him that power.
Whereas Obama maintains his action was consistent with the law, and this hasn’t been challenged in court yet. It may not be, but he has claimed it is.
My mistake. Then I’ll say that there might not be enough members of the Senate Democratic Caucus after the next two elections to make effective use of a filibuster.
Just say “there won’t be enough Democrats.” Is that so hard?
Executive Orders have the full force of law. While they may result in legal proceedings, they would be in effect until the legal issues were resolved.
If Obama can “claim” that his EO was consistent with the law, so could a President Romney.
Apparently it is. 
Yes, but this doesn’t answer the question. What legal justification would Romney give for this EO?
Yes. That’s the question we’re considering. If he did, how would he? What could he possibly say to justify it?