jerryskids 5,206 Posted April 28, 2011 As we peel back this turd, the latest thing we've learned is that there is no limit on the amount of money the president can use to implement it, or more specifically, anything loosely tied to "activities related to establishing" it. Discovered: An UNLIMITED Obamacare Slush Fund By Dean Clancy on Apr 28, 2011 Just when we thought there were no more brazen audacities left to report about in Obamacare, here comes a doozy. House Republicans have uncovered, tucked away in Section 1311(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), an UNLIMITED Obamacare implementation slush fund. That's right. Unlimited. An open tap on the US Treasury, this little gem -- discovered by Representative Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee -- can be used for anything the President wants to spend taxpayer money on, under the guise of "actitivites related to establishing" Obamacare health benefit exchanges. Here's the relevant legal language from 1311(a): (1) PLANNING AND ESTABLISHMENT GRANTS.—There shall be appropriated to the Secretary, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, an amount necessary to enable the Secretary to make awards, not later than 1 year after enactment of this Act, to States in amounts specified in paragraph (2) for the uses described in paragraph (3). (2) AMOUNT SPECIFIED.—For each fiscal year, the Secretary shall determine the total amount that the Secretary will make available to each State for grants under this subsection. (3) USE OF FUNDS.—A State shall use amounts awarded under this subsection for activities (including planning activities) related to establishing an American Health Benefit Exchange, as described in subsection (. . . . (4)(.-- “No grant shall be awarded under this subsection after January 1, 2015.” While this language thankfully shuts down the slush fund in 2015, it provides absolutely no limit on how much can be spent before then, and only the vaguest guidance on how it's spent. It's so vague, in fact, that any determined socialist could sail an ocean liner through it. And he is. Under Mr. Obama's approving eye, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), Kathleen Sebelius, is already busy using this uncapped fund to seduce states into collaborating in the implementation of Obamacare. She's issued nearly $50 million in grants to help states "plan and evaluate" how they'll set up exchanges by 2014 as the law requires them to do. That's just the appetizer. Dr. Donald Berwick, the chief administrator of Medicare and Medicaid, has hinted at even more ambitious plans to tap the slush fund to bail out state governments, which are currently groaning under out-of-control Medicaid spending. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has confirmed that the "state-based exchange grants" fund is an "indefinite appropriation," meaning it's open-ended and requires no further action by Congress to be tapped by the President. If he wants to, Mr. Obama could increase the cost of his health care law by not just billions, but hundreds of billions, of dollars, unilaterally. As you might guess, some in Congress are not sitting still for this. Next week, the House of Representatives will vote on a bill drafted by Mr. Upton, H.R. 1213, to shut off this particular tap and weld it shut. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates Chairman Upton's bill would save taxpayers about $14 billion over the next 10 years; but this is only a guess on the agency's part. The savings could be much greater, because, as we've said, the slush fund is not subject to any controls or meaningful limits. Under our Constitution, only Congress has the power of the purse. To formally delegate to the President the power to appropriate funds from the Treasury without stint or limit breaches the separation of powers in fact, if not in form. In short, Section 1311(a) of PPACA is a dangerous, irresponsible, and arguably unconstitutional delegation of money and power to the Executive Branch. Regardless of one's opinions about government-run health care, surely all Americans can agree that this slush fund gives the President -- any President -- too much power. The vote is next week. To learn more about this bill and related issues, visit our Obamacare Repeal War Room. Or go straight to our petition page to send an email to your Congressman. Dean Clancy is Freedomworks's Legislative Counsel and Vice President, Health Care Policy. My link Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted April 28, 2011 I can't believe this turd wasn't fast tracked to the SC. It met each and every condition required to be fast tracked. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DankNuggs 305 Posted April 28, 2011 How did the CBO estimate the cost of this little tidbit? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted April 28, 2011 How did the CBO estimate the cost of this little tidbit? No doubt Obama/Reid /Pelosi put this on the "Cost Savings" side of the ledger. Could this be grounds for a legal challenge? The Constitution says spending comes out of Congress. Seems to me giving the POTUS a blank check is unconstitutional. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted April 28, 2011 Im sure one of the bright liberals around here will come clarify how this is a really good thing at any moment now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
heavy-set 39 Posted April 28, 2011 Im sure one of the bright liberals around here will come clarify how this is a really good thing at any moment now. we gonna default anyways, might as well get some extra charges in beforehand. screw china Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SUXBNME 1,335 Posted April 28, 2011 Im sure one of the bright liberals around here will come clarify how this is a really good thing at any moment now. I posted this story on my FB page, and the first response was from one of my goofy lib frineds: Freedom works, any surprise the sham organization set up by the Koch brothers is still fighting the health care proposal that was originally proposed by Richard Nixon in 1973, and then later re-proposed by Dole and McCain in 1993? Why because it will cost them $$$$$$$! Way to address the facts of the story, Will. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 5,206 Posted April 28, 2011 I posted this story on my FB page, and the first response was from one of my goofy lib frineds: Way to address the facts of the story, Will. Ask him if he had to take George Soros' d1ck out of his hand to type that response. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SUXBNME 1,335 Posted April 28, 2011 Ask him if he had to take George Soros' d1ck out of his hand to type that response. His latest response to this article: Chris my point was that the health care reform act is not Obamacare as you ignorants like to call it but was originally proposed by Republicans 2x. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 5,206 Posted April 28, 2011 His latest response to this article: My FB friends are boring, I'm jealous. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SUXBNME 1,335 Posted April 28, 2011 My FB friends are boring, I'm jealous. I'll trade you Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
congressmanreality 1 Posted April 28, 2011 Why would anyone want to peel a turd? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745 Posted April 28, 2011 I can't believe this turd wasn't fast tracked to the SC. It met each and every condition required to be fast tracked. Hell, the SC still hasn't gotten around to declaring the Patriot Act unconstitutional. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted April 29, 2011 Hell, the SC still hasn't gotten around to declaring the Patriot Act unconstitutional. WTF does that have to do with this thread? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MedStudent 56 Posted April 29, 2011 I can't believe this turd wasn't fast tracked to the SC. It met each and every condition required to be fast tracked. You mean fast tracked BY the Supreme Court. they decide if it warrants fast tracking and they rejected it. But I guess you know more than the supreme court justices. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745 Posted April 29, 2011 WTF does that have to do with this thread? Meaning that the supreme court still hasn't "fast tracked" a blatantly unconstitutional statute passed a decade ago. Meaning they are slow. Meaning don't hold your breath. Got it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted April 29, 2011 Meaning that the supreme court still hasn't "fast tracked" a blatantly unconstitutional statute passed a decade ago. Meaning they are slow. Meaning don't hold your breath. Got it? Yo Perry Mason, the SC has already ruled the Patriot Act to be Constitutional. Oops! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 5,206 Posted April 29, 2011 I'm no lawyer, but I'm not sure what the SC would do if they fasttracked it? It's so massive that we are all still figuring it out (for example, this thread topic). Probably makes more sense to let it get there the old fashioned way, where the states and feds hash out specific constitutional arguments that they can get their arms around. Also, I'm not sure it has the urgency... yet. That being said, the topic of this thread seems like a potential topic for constitutional challenge. There should be some precedent on it, and if not... I'd say we need one. Again, perhaps the SC lets a lower court rule on that first. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted April 29, 2011 I'm no lawyer, but I'm not sure what the SC would do if they fasttracked it? It's so massive that we are all still figuring it out (for example, this thread topic). Probably makes more sense to let it get there the old fashioned way, where the states and feds hash out specific constitutional arguments that they can get their arms around. Also, I'm not sure it has the urgency... yet. That being said, the topic of this thread seems like a potential topic for constitutional challenge. There should be some precedent on it, and if not... I'd say we need one. Again, perhaps the SC lets a lower court rule on that first. I can't remember all the things that would make it a candidate for being fast tracked, but I was listening to some attorney on TV the day they decided against it and it seemed yo fit under many of the conditions. The most compelling is that the states are required to spend millions this year to implement it. I'm on the phone or I would google the requirements. If anything meets them it's this turd. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted May 2, 2011 You mean fast tracked BY the Supreme Court. they decide if it warrants fast tracking and they rejected it. But I guess you know more than the supreme court justices. Didn't say I knew more than the SC, Dr. Hamhands. Bump so you can explain how Obama can claim Obamacare is revenue neutral when he can spend as much as he wants. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted May 3, 2011 Stayed up late and got into the vodka watching the Mavs beat the Lakers last night. Consequently, I'm having some trouble with math this morning. Can someone explain how libs can claim Obamacare is revenue nuetral when Obama has a blank check to spend as much as he wants? Dr. Thumbs...................paging Dr. Thumbs.............. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DankNuggs 305 Posted May 3, 2011 I'm no lawyer, but I'm not sure what the SC would do if they fasttracked it? It's so massive that we are all still figuring it out (for example, this thread topic). Probably makes more sense to let it get there the old fashioned way, where the states and feds hash out specific constitutional arguments that they can get their arms around. Also, I'm not sure it has the urgency... yet. That being said, the topic of this thread seems like a potential topic for constitutional challenge. There should be some precedent on it, and if not... I'd say we need one. Again, perhaps the SC lets a lower court rule on that first. I don't understand how an unconstitutional act came become law, and only stay law because it is so massively deceptive and complex its like digesting raw soviet iron. I suppose having a rigged deck of hyperliberal SC justices that care more about defining the country in their own terms than upholding the duties they swore a oath to. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penultimatestraw 473 Posted May 3, 2011 Stayed up late and got into the vodka watching the Mavs beat the Lakers last night. Consequently, I'm having some trouble with math this morning. Can someone explain how libs can claim Obamacare is revenue nuetral when Obama has a blank check to spend as much as he wants? Dr. Thumbs...................paging Dr. Thumbs.............. He chooses not to write the check for more revenue than is available? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted May 3, 2011 He chooses not to write the check for more revenue than is available? He has the worst track record in history at doing this. Also, the bill would have a figure in it as a cap if this were the case. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DankNuggs 305 Posted May 3, 2011 He chooses not to write the check for more revenue than is available? you are answering a question to an event that hasn't happened yet, and its probably as weak a response as humanly possible... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penultimatestraw 473 Posted May 3, 2011 you are answering a question to an event that hasn't happened yet, and its probably as weak a response as humanly possible... This question was asked about future spending, what else can any of us do but guess? I was being sarcastic, Nuggs. But your response is pretty hurtful considering the amount of time we've spent discussing such cerebral topics as the birther controversy, among others. I don't support most of the ACA, and this revelation doesn't really change my opinion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DankNuggs 305 Posted May 3, 2011 I was being sarcastic, Nuggs. But your response is pretty hurtful considering the amount of time we've spent discussing such cerebral topics as the birther controversy, among others. I don't support most of the ACA, and this revelation doesn't realize change my opinion. sorry, quick read... "Obama has blank check but won't spend it" sends up the BS flag like a 4th of July fireworks display... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted May 6, 2011 Still waiting for Medstoopid to explain how this is revenue nuetral. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted May 9, 2011 Dr. Thumbs obviously has no answer. Any of you Obamacare supporters feel free to explain how unlimited spending gets offset to make this revenue nuetral. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
heavy-set 39 Posted May 10, 2011 Dr. Thumbs obviously has no answer. Any of you Obamacare supporters feel free to explain how unlimited spending gets offset to make this revenue nuetral. unlimited taxes. are you a doofus? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted May 10, 2011 unlimited taxes. are you a doofus? You just described Obamatopia. And yes Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MedStudent 56 Posted May 10, 2011 I can't believe this turd wasn't fast tracked to the SC. It met each and every condition required to be fast tracked. I can't remember all the things that would make it a candidate for being fast tracked, but I was listening to some attorney on TV the day they decided against it and it seemed yo fit under many of the conditions. Keep backtracking Jethro. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MedStudent 56 Posted May 10, 2011 The article is pretty funny. You have to be pretty stupid to read and believe that tripe. The law says that money can be spent to help setup the exchanges but this author says it allows the President to spend it on whatever he wants and that he may end up spending 100s of billions of dollars! LOL at the idiot republicans in this thread that believe this biased website crap. You guys are a bunch of lemmings!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Voltaire 4,560 Posted May 10, 2011 Does anybody know how much money has been spent though this loophole and for what purposes? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MedStudent 56 Posted May 10, 2011 Does anybody know how much money has been spent though this loophole and for what purposes? Obama spent 50 million setting up a Pakistan health exchange. He exchanged one burned up helicopter for a tall Arab with a hole in his head. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Voltaire 4,560 Posted May 10, 2011 Obama spent 50 million setting up a Pakistan health exchange. He exchanged one burned up helicopter for a tall Arab with a hole in his head. If we put a hole in the head of more people, we'd save a lot on health care expenses. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted May 10, 2011 The article is pretty funny. You have to be pretty stupid to read and believe that tripe. The law says that money can be spent to help setup the exchanges but this author says it allows the President to spend it on whatever he wants and that he may end up spending 100s of billions of dollars! LOL at the idiot republicans in this thread that believe this biased website crap. You guys are a bunch of lemmings!!! The author cites specific sections of the law to prove his position. What specific section of the law limits the amount he can spend setting up these exchanges, and what is that limit? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BudBro 117 Posted May 11, 2011 is the program going to be called "obamacare"? as in: "hey, did you sign up for obamacare plan f or plan c?" that's not even his real name...and we're probably gonna get stuck with it for eternity. either way, satorocare or hilarycare, it still sounds stupid. hilary still has to be mad that she worked all those years on this project, and this dude is getting credit for it...or props or whatever the rapper white house crowd chirps these days. why did lou alcinder go with kareem abdul-jabaar or whatever instead of something like world b. free, you wonder. you gotta wonder why world b. didn't choose mohamed or tarek? remember world free? he could shoot from anywhere on his side of the court. name changers are weird dudes. other than sometimes taking married names, do women change names? like michele would become barecky or marihammod? is that even allowed in whatever religion the name changers are in? you know, women changing names? i was told on this bored it's not muslim. maybe women don't matter in their religion. so mahmoud would just say, "hello, this is my wife georgette." mahmoud and georgette. there was even a white rocker, maybe cat stevens, which wasn't even his real name, changed his name to barack or mohamed or something. that had to be interesting at the govt name-changer desk that day. "mr. cat sir, you're requesting to change your already fake name to kasher?" ocho cinco (ochenta cinco would've been correcter) is the grand poobah of the "look at me" sect of the narcissistic personality disorder cult. name changers are weird. jesus comes back on may 21st. look it up. the guy was wrong once already in 1994, but he says he has it right this time cause he hadn't read the book of jeremiah the first time. so, it's not blasphemy if you didn't read it all. hey, that just tied it back to the topic. not having read it all makes obamacare not a blasphemy. jesus will save us from obama on may 21st. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
