(My only disagreement with the following writer is over the fact that he was so late in coming to the table. -hh … excerpted from: http://www.jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/?p=15585)
I’d been mildly against the current House Republican confrontation over delaying Obamacare, on the grounds that it’s a worthwhile goal but I wasn’t at all sure it was tactically wise.
Harry Reid just converted me to a full-fledged supporter of doing whatever it takes – enduring this “shutdown”, delaying a debt-limit increase, walking barefoot over hot coals – to enforce the House’s will over what does and does not get funded.
How did Reid do this? There’s a minor fuss today over his saying “why would we want to” in answer to a loaded question about funding NIH and helping kids with cancer. In context, what he said wasn’t nearly as crass as it’s being portrayed.
But in the same video, he said something far far worse. Harry Reid, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0lFyFJeZSY, starting about 45 seconds in: “What right do they [the House] have to pick and choose what part of government is going to be funded? … They have no right to pick and chose.”
Uh, Harry, ever read a little thing called Article 1, Section 7 of the US Constitution? And the discussion of that in the Federalist Papers, and 224 years of subsequent practice? The House has every right to decide what does and does not get funded in the Federal government.
Reid has gotten away with bypassing this since 2010 by refusing to have the Senate pass normal Appropriations bills which would be subject to detailed haggling with the House, forcing reliance on catchall Continuing Resolutions instead. Now the House is calling him on that, insisting again on their right to choose what does and does not get funded in the US government, CR or not.
If the Dems in fact see this head-butting contest as an opportunity to permanently remove that right from the House – and that’s what Harry Reid is saying here – then I say to the House Republican caucus, you go!
Do what it takes to win. The actual issue at stake is far larger than a few details of implementing Obamacare.