With Capitol Hill wrapped up in a debate this week regarding looming fiscal fights and the possibility of a shutdown over the health care law, it’s worth remembering that shutting down the government would likely have little impact on the Affordable Care Act. According to a Congressional Research Service report released at the end of July, much of the law’s implementation is separate from annual discretionary appropriations.
The CRS report was issued at the request of Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who has not been shy about his opposition to the shutdown strategy. “[A government shutdown] would be committing ritual suicide on an altar of bad strategy,” Coburn’s communications director, John Hart, told National Journal Daily. “The idea that we can fully defund Obamacare through the continuing resolution is a Washington gimmick to advance political funding goals.”
The report substantiates the argument that a shutdown would not be an effective tool to stop the law. This is because much of the law relies on mandatory funding and multiple-year and no-year discretionary funds, which are not beholden to annual budget debates.
In fact, a government shutdown is quite different from the way it is commonly viewed by the public. Although the lapse in discretionary budget authority would likely impact some day-to-day routine operations of the government — such as the National Park Service — essential and necessary functions of the government and ones that have relevant health-based concerns would continue. Social Security and Medicare would likely continue in large part because they are mandatory programs; health reform under the ACA would also be considered essential for public health and would largely continue to be funded.
“Funding for state-operated insurance exchanges [in the ACA] is a distinct mandatory funding source,” Center for Budget and Policy Priorities Senior Fellow Paul Van de Water said. “In the case of all the federal government’s direct activities — including funding for federally run exchanges — it looks like the bulk of it could continue with no obvious end in sight if there were a shutdown.” Although some smaller effects are possible, this means that the main elements of the law would continue for some time, including the insurance exchanges, subsidies, and the individual mandate.
Also, agencies have prepared contingency plans in the event of a government shutdown, and the Health and Human Services plan maintains funding for many of its programs. “The HHS shutdown contingency plan that was prepared in anticipation of a possible government shutdown in FY 2012 indicated that ACA implementation activities at CMS would continue because of the mandatory funding provided in the law,” the CRS report says. The only real way to strip the law of these mandatory funds would be to repeal the full law.
And while Congress has the power to precipitate a shutdown, much of the jurisdiction over how a shutdown would be implemented lies with the agencies and executive branch, and is written into these contingency plans. Even some Republicans supporting the strategy of tying Obamacare to the CR debate recognize that it would not have the practical effects they truly want. “It’s mostly symbolic,” Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma said recently. “We want to have something out there so people continue to talk about it…. That’s a way of keeping the issue alive…. It is something you have to keep doing because you have strong beliefs, and even if logically it isn’t going to work out the way you want it, you still try.”
What We're Following See More »
The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.
"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."