Moring Action: Obamacare Employer Mandate Delayed, Still a Job Killer

OBAMACARE.  The Obama administration will delay the employer mandate until 2015, Bloomberg reports:

The Obama administration will delay a crucial provision of its signature health-care law, giving businesses an extra year to comply with a requirement that they provide their workers with insurance.

The government will postpone enforcement of the so-called employer mandate until 2015, after the congressional elections, the administration said yesterday. Under the provision, companies with 50 or more workers face a fine of as much as $3,000 per employee if they don’t offer affordable insurance.

Heritage responded saying this begs the question, “If the employer mandate will prove so devastating to businesses that it can’t be enforced in 2014—following three years of implementation work—why should it be enforced at all?”:

However, the problem is not just Obamacare’s employer mandate—the real problem is Obamacare itself. The same individuals who said Obamacare would create jobs, not destroy them, are now the same ones who will say the Administration can “fix” the employer mandate, if only given another year to do so. Conservatives should not be fooled, appeased, or assuaged. Instead, today’s developments should provide every incentive for the American people to redouble their efforts to repeal, defund, and dismantle ALL of this bureaucratic, unworkable law.

The idea that selectively enforcing one provision of the law could “solve” all the problems inherent in Obamacare is absurd on its face.

They added:

It is hard to understate the impact of today’s devastating admission from the Administration that, after three years, it still cannot implement Obamacare without strangling businesses in red tape and destroying American jobs. That said, it is still not too late for Congress to do the right thing, and refuse to fund what the Administration has now—finally—admitted is a job-killing train wreck.

IMMIGRATION.  House leaders have made clear they have no intention of being influenced by the Senate’s amnesty bill:

The second act of the immigration debate is starting as a sharp reality check on the first, with House leaders bluntly declaring that they have no intention of being influenced by the Senate’s strong support of the bill last week.

“We shouldn’t feel pressured by the Senate, the president or anyone else,” Rep. Bob Goodlatte, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, told an audience at a town meeting here Tuesday night. “Getting it right is more important than passing a bill.”

His sentiment drew booming applause from a crowd at the Lynchburg Public Library, where objections to the sweeping overhaul of the nation’s immigration system were voiced loudly. He listened as several voters rose from their seats, smiling when one man said: “This immigration bill stinks to high heaven!”

While the Senate spent most of June making its case on the immigration bill, the month of July belongs to the House, where the debate will start taking shape next week. It is already unfolding as a rebuttal to the Senate, making clear the outcome of the immigration measure is deeply uncertain.

MARRIAGE.  Heritage’s Ryan T. Anderson explains what the three dissents in the Supreme Court DOMA case signal for marriage’s future:

Alito explains that the Constitution is silent on which of these substantive, morally controversial visions of marriage is correct. The Court, he says, should decline to decide; it should defer to democratic debate.

In a second dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasizes the limits of the majority’s opinion. He writes that “the logic of its opinion does not decide the distinct question whether the States, in the exercise of their ‘historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,’ may continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage.”

Roberts notes that the “majority goes out of its way to make this explicit” at the end of its opinion. And he argues that “the disclaimer is a logical and necessary consequence” of the fact that “its judgment is based on federalism.”

Roberts insists on this point to make clear that the Court refused to redefine marriage for the entire nation. The Court refused to manufacture a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Citizens and their elected representatives remain free to discuss, debate, and vote about marriage policy in all 50 states. They still have the freedom to define marriage in civil law as the union of one man and one woman.

But in the third dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia warns that this freedom is at serious and immediate risk. 

Read his whole explanation here.

Please Share Your Thoughts