The last question Mr. Will asks is if Obama can ignore part of the ACA law,
could a future President ignore ALL of it? I sure hope so.
You guys are pretty late to the party. This tactic has been used extensively in
the past.I work in healthcare, where we have HIPAA patient privacy
requirements, enacted into law under Bill Clinton in the 90s. HIPAA basically
withered on the vein during the presidency of George Bush, because he was of the
opinion that requirements should be voluntary, (like the voluntary industrial
pollution regulations in Texas). In our group, we used to say
"HIPAA, SchiPPAA". A nice ideal, but nobody paid any attention to the
actual regulations or penalties.With a Democratic president in
office, HIPAA enforcement has gotten legitimate again, we've all gotten
religion on protecting patient data, with increasingly steep fines threatened
for breaches of private patient data.I don't remember George
Will grinding his axe when Bush was ignoring healthcare privacy laws.
The rule of law has suffered considerable damage under Obama. Insurance
providers now find themselves in an impossible position: they can either obey
the law, or they can obey the president.Things will only get worse
when people begin to ask, if the president won't obey a law he signed
himself, why should we?
Unfortunately, the parade of liberals, progressives (both Democrat and
Republican),and the ignorant will yawn, give up more of their liberty for a
fascist regime or any other "savior" so as not to live in the real
world--you know--the one where God, the Constitution, and laws exist.
Are you kidding. Our King accused of misuse of power. Why he is the pillar of
truth and honesty. If we like our king we can keep our king.
One would hope that congress would do SOMETHING at SOME POINT to show that
they're really a branch of government and worth some fraction of all we
contribute to them in the form of salaries, benefits, and expenses. We could
get a rubber stamp for a whole lot less money than we're devoting to these
The more congress allows presidents (Clinton, Bush, Obama) to disregard law and
absorb more power into the executive branch the more we become a constitutional
Re: "I don't remember George Will grinding his axe when Bush was
ignoring healthcare privacy laws."That's probably because
President Bush DIDN'T ignore healthcare privacy laws.That some
individuals or providers may have, certainly doesn't prove Mr. Bush did. I
know that HIPAA has been taken seriously in federal government medical practice
since its passage.This is nothing more than a common, cynical
liberal trick. It's a pathetically transparent, disingenuous attempt to
suggest Mr. Obama's truly breathtaking enlargement of federal executive
power is no big deal.It IS, however, a big deal.
Just as George Bush's imperial presidency spurred reaction, Mr.Obama's
imperial presidency is bound to have consequences. Both men have an enduring
conviction that their political philosophies are correct and that the end
justifies the means. Even FDR tried to pack the SCOTUS. It is not our democratic
tradition and can only lead to the abuse of power. Venezuela and the Ukraine are
current examples of this behavior. Let us hope that the balance of power between
the branches of government is restored in the US.
This is exactly what I've been trying to point out to BOTH sides for years.
Don't give any powers to YOUR guy that you wouldn't want the OTHER
side to have.I was against the Patriot Act, not because I thought
Bush would abuse it... but because I thought some president maybe hundreds of
Presidents down the road may abuse it. I didn't know it would only take
one election for it to be abused.But the moral of the story is...
don't give powers to your guy you don't feel completely comfortable
with the other side having, and don't put limitations on the other side
that YOU don't want to live under when YOU are in the minority some day. I
suspect Democrats are going to wail and complain the next time THEY are in the
minority and realize the limitations THEY passed on the minority now apply to
THEM instead.It's just the golden rule... applied to politics.
I know... crazy talk.
The problem is that most of them, both Dems and Republicans are in this
Say it ain't so Joe. The King, the pillar of truth and honesty suspected of
misuse of power? Who would have thunk.
George Will sound more and more like Rush Limbaugh all the time.
one old manOgden, UTGeorge Will sound more and more like Rush
Limbaugh all the time.12:50 p.m. Dec. 19, 2013=======
I was thinking the very same think...
Seriously??? This George Bush's fault??? Isn't hat well pretty much
Liberals never have a coherent suggestion, but they think that everyone waits
for their "enlightened" rhetoric. Obama is an abomination to our system
of government. Those who have never read the Constitution continue to support
him, but those of us who have studied the Constitution know that he has abused
his authority and that the ignorant who use his cell phones and eat the crumbs
that fall from his table cheer him on. Freedom requires that WE, THE PEOPLE,
stand for freedom. Obama does not know the meaning of the word.
The time has come for congressmen to raise their approval ratings by putting
this dictator (BHO) in his proper place.
Mike Richards: Mike, I've read a lot of your comments. Thanks. The
silent majority, as long as it chooses what is right, will rise again. The last
few years have brought forth a "silent majority" that is stepping up!
It has never been this way. Conservatives and God fearing people have been
asleep at the wheel for many years and now they have been awakened. There has
never been so much division in the electorate and I couldn't be more
pleased. Jesus Christ cannot bring peace to a world that promotes evil as good
and good as evil or that wants to delegate Christianity to government. The
division is a good thing and to see it happening in the political world is fun
to watch. There is hope.
one old manI'm sure Mr.Will would take that as a compliment, as
Mr. Limbaugh has an audience many times bigger than Mr. Will does.
Why doesn't Will just say what he reaaly means, Waaaaaaa. In actuality,
after protracted negotiation a law was created with a lot of holes in it. Even
when it was signed everyone including the POTUS agreed things needed to be
tinkered and repaired. Instead of doing just that, a faction of the R's
have spent the last 3 years trying to undo the law. As a result, in the vacuum,
the POTUS acted and began the process of enforcing the law as best he could.
The alternative would be to ignore the law and that would be just as
constitutionally suspect. None of the congressional factions have enough votes
to get what they want, so they only thing possible is the dirty C word,
compromise. Of course, what comes next is a round of whining that the POTUS
won't compromise. If he'd just agree to gut the law, then the parties
can happily start over. PHFFFT.
Liberals are starting to sound more like Baghdad Bob everyday that this
presidents abuse of power and scandals are getting exposed. Bombs are falling
all around and you are ignoring the truth and blindly telling yourself
everything is okay.
It is a shame. There was a time when George Will was a respected
journalist….but now with tabloid journalism, it seems the entire industry
is racing to the bottom and turning America into nothing more than a giant
Springer episode. You read the silly rhetoric above - comments like
"king" - and you wonder just how much farther American society can slide
into the gutter.Political disagreement is a noble and justified
activity. What separates us though from others is our humanity, and sense of
morality. Never should one need to lower their argument to lies, slander,
immature name calling, to make ones point. Doing so only degrades ones own
argument. How can you take anyone seriously who claims any American president
views themselves as a king…. or that if someone disagrees with their
statement, they must not be a constitutional "expert". Good grief,
this country was founded upon disagreement. That is the reason we exist today,
the free expression of dissent. But one can dissent without loosing their
morals…. and it seems that today, talk radio and entertainment news has
taught us to value shock value rather than sound reasoning and respect for the
I read about 10 to 20 papers a day in my research. I find it interesting that
DN constantly changes headlines to the more dramatic. In most other
publications the headline for this piece is "Executive discretion to the
extreme". It is interesting to see what the DN thinks its readers want...
or at least I hope that is their agenda and not something more nefarious. To Georges point, every administration, from your local Mayor all the
way up through to the President of the United States uses discretion on how they
enforce laws that their legislative body passes. We couldn't afford to
have the "letter of the law" enforced. How many tickets would Utah
State Troopers need to write daily if they had to enforce the letter of the law.
It comes down to priorities. Not saying Obamas priorities are right, but this
is nothing new.@SCFan..... WWF has audiences many times the size of
George Wills... not sure size of audience implies "goodness". Gerry
Springer has large audiences as well... not sure any comparison their is a
compliment. BTW, are Limbaugh's audiences still looking for that $3,000
and ounce for gold? Hang in there, it will happen someday...
Who holds the standards. Who should be in compliance.
@UtahBlueDevil "...every administration...uses discretion on how they
enforce laws...."Obama is doing more than just using discretion.
He's omitting or delaying substantial portions of the law. His latest
rule-by-decree will allow everyone whose insurance has been terminated to buy
catastrophic coverage and to be exempt for one year from the penalty imposed by
law. Where does he get the authority to do that? He claims it comes from the
hardship exemption written into Obamacare. The problem is, Obamacare is what
caused the hardship.This is about the eighteenth time he has
unilaterally decreed changes to the law. If Obama wanted to write legislation,
why didn't he just stay in the Senate? And if he can't follow a law he
signed himself, why should it not simply be repealed?
A little precedent..."The Reagan Administration's decision
to delay a sweeping new set of rules governing sea lanes and the mineral wealth
of sea beds was greeted here today with dismay and concern."New
York TimesPublished: March 5, 1981* Two decades after Congress
ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to identify and regulate
"hazardous air pollutants," the agency has issued emission standards for
only seven chemicals.* In 1987, Congress established a comprehensive
program of assistance to homeless people. But recently U.S. District Judge
Oliver Gasch accused the administration of a "complete failure" to
comply with the law, saying "pitifully few" unused federal properties
had been made available to assist the homeless.* A 1986 law
requiring health warnings in advertisements for snuff and chewing tobacco was
not fully enforced until this month, when the Federal Trade Commission issued
final rules. Federal courts have castigated the agency for the delays.* The government has yet to issue final regulations for cleaning up waste
storage sites under a 1984 law. As a result, thousands of companies are
operating "under a cloud of doubt and uncertainty," said Theresa Pugh,
director of environmental quality at the National Association of
Manufacturers.March 31, 1991 - By Robert Pear - BaltimoreSun
@UtahBlueDevil "A little precedent..."And your reaction to
these offenses was...what? Cheerleading and excuse-making? Or condemnation?A little consistency, please.