Can Mitt Romney "Waive" ObamaCare Via An Executive Order?

Grace-Marie Turner wrote an article called, "Mitt's Mistake: ObamaCare Is Not 'Waivable'" in which she erroneously claims that Mitt Romney made a grave error in making a promise he knows he cannot keep: 

"As a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Business School and as the Republican governor who convinced the Democratic Massachusetts legislature to pass RomneyCare, he surely knows a president can't use an executive order to wipe out two massive new entitlement programs, $550 billion in new and higher taxes, vast Medicaid expansion, and mandates on individuals, businesses and the states to comply with President Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."

She asserts that Mitt Romney cannot keep his promise of using executive orders to allowing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue ObamaCare waivers since it cannot be used to defeat laws that Congress have passed:

"Simply put, executive orders cannot contradict statutory law. Waivers are not a solution and might well detract from the ultimate goal of repealing ObamaCare and replacing it with a truly free market alternative that puts patients — not bureaucrats — in charge of their health care."

Ms. Turner is wrong in her assertion that a President cannot legally use executive order an executive order to over turn statutory law.

The answer is that it is legally realistic for a President to use an executive order to overturn a statutory law.  Presidents have long been using executive orders to defy or overturn laws that Congress has passed. Lets look at the most recent example of a President using an executive order to overturn a federal law. President Obama recently used a "signing statement" to overturn a law requiring the President to defund his czars.

Not only is Ms. Turner incorrect that a President cannot use an executive order to overturn statutory law, but she intentionally misconstrues what Mitt Romney  wants to do with an executive order. She claims that Romney would use an executive order to completely overturn ObamaCare. Yet, that's not what Mitt claimed in his op-ed  in the National Review:

"If I were president, on Day One I would issue an executive order paving the way for Obamacare waivers to all 50 states. The executive order would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services and all relevant federal officials to return the maximum possible authority to the states to innovate and design health-care solutions that work best for them.

As I have stated time and again, a one-size-fits-all national plan that raises taxes is simply not the answer. Under our federalist system, the states are “laboratories of democracy.” They should be free to experiment. By the way, what works in one state may not be the answer for another. Of course, the ultimate goal is to repeal Obamacare and replace it with free-market reforms that promote competition and lower health-care costs. But since an outright repeal would take time, an executive order is the first step in returning power to the states."

What Mitt Romney said is that he would use an executive order directing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to grant a waiver to all 50 states as a temporary measure while Obamacare was in the process of being repealed in Congress.

What Mitt Romney is proposing is not to overturn ObamaCare with the a stroke of a pen via an executive order. Nor is he saying that he will repeal a portion of it  law either. He simply wants to tell the Secretary of Health and Human Services to grant a waiver to all 50 states. If Mitt Romney becomes the next President of the United States, it would be Constitutionally permissible for him to use an executive order in this manner. 

Under the three branches of government, the executive branch has the power to enforce or not enforce the laws that Congress passes. If you look at the statutory language in ObamaCare, you'll find that under Section 2711 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, it grants the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to determine who gets the waivers and who doesn't: 

"The entire act is filled with the phrase, “The secretary shall determine” or equivalents, meaning that HHS can essentially make up and change rules as they go along.  No one knows what to expect from this vast expansion of regulatory power precisely because it’s based on executive whimsy rather than sound and objective law."

The President is the head of the executive branch of the government and the President oversees many departments and agencies that make up the executive department. One of those department under the executive branch is the Department of Health and Human Services. 

Executive Orders "are legally binding orders given by the President, acting as the head of the Executive Branch, to Federal Administrative Agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies."

As a result, not only is Grace-Marie Turner not only intentionally misconstruing what Mitt Romney plans to do if he was President, she is flat out wrong in claiming that what he plans to do is illegal and unconstitutional.  

What Mitt Romney proposes to do is entirely legal and constitutional since a President can use an executive order to direct an executive department that is under his executive authority to use a power that was granted to them by statue by Congress. 

In essence, Mitt Romney would be using ObamaCare against itself and seriously undermine its impletmentation by directing the Secretary of the HHS to grant the waivers to all 50 states until it is fully repealed by Congress. 

So far, under the Obama Administration, the number of waivers that the Obama Administration has granted is over 1,000 and climbing. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has been granting waivers to big businesses, big unions and big  health insurance companies.  

Under ObamaCare, it allows states to seek waivers from ObamaCare. There are six types of waivers: (1) MLR waiver for mini-med health insurance plans, (2) Annual limit waive (3) MLR waiver for States, (4) State innovation waiver, (5) ACO anti-trust waivers and (6) Individual mandate waivers. 

States can either seek a MLR waiver or a state innovation waiver. 

Govenor Nikik Haley contemplated on getting an state innovation waiver but realized that there were strings attached to the waiver. However, the entire state of Maine successfully obtained a MLR waiver:

. . . [T]he Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s mandatory medical loss ratio (MLR) provision, which requires health insurers to spend either 80 or 85 percent of their premium revenue on “clinical services” as determined by federal regulators, is a roundabout form of price control. So it wasn’t terribly shocking when the Congressional Budget Officewarned that particularly high MLR requirements would be “likely to substantially reduce flexibility in terms of the types, prices, and number of private sellers of health insurance.” It’s a pretty straightforward concept: When the government controls prices, private firms exit the market or offer fewer products.

Now it seems the federal government has finally caught on to the idea. The Department of Health and Human Services issued a waiver to the state of Maine exempting its individual health insurance market from from the 80-percent spending requirement. Why the special exemption? According to Steve Larsen, the Obama administration’s deputy administrator of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, the rule “has a reasonable likelihood of destabilizing the Maine individual health insurance market.”

Not only did Maine get a waiver from Obama Care but Florida, New Jersey, Ohio and Tennessee also got them as well. More states such as New Hampshire, Nebraska, and Kentucky have applied for waivers from ObamaCare.

It appears that if Mitt Romney follows through with his promise to issue an executive order on the first day of his Presidency, the best way for his Secretary of Health and Human Services to undermine ObamaCare would be to grant all 50 states an MLR waiver.

The reason why a MLR waiver, rather than state innovation waiver, is the best way to undermine ObamaCare is because every state can demonstrate that it would suffer destabilized insurance markets if ObamaCare was fully implemented. In a letter to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners stated expressed their concerns about the effect of ObamaCare on the insurance market in individual states: 

"...we continue to have concerns about the potential for unintended consequences arising from the medical loss ratio. As we noted in our letter of October 13th, consumers will not benefit from higher medical loss ratios if the outcome is destabilized insurance markets where consumer choice is limited and the solvency of insurers is undermined."

In conclusion, Grace-Marie Turner's article is completely inaccurate. Presidents can use executive orders to override statutory laws as many Presidents have done in the past. She's also incorrect in asserting that Mitt Romney, as President, would be granting waivers to states via an executive order.

Mitt Romney would simply use an executive order as a temporary measure to undermine the implementation of ObamaCare while Congress works to overhaul the law. More importantly, Mitt Romney has the legal and constitutional power to as head of the executive department to tell an executive department, via an executive order, to go ahead and use his or her statutorily authorized powers to grant those waivers as given to them under ObamaCare.

Former Alabama Judge Roy Moore Forming Exploratory Committee

Former Alabama Judge Roy Moore has announced his that he will be running in 2012 and that he will form an exploratory committee: 

"Moore is holding a press conference at 10:10 a.m. today, said Danny Carroll, a former state legislator who is now with the Family Leader, a socially conservative advocacy group.

He is about to embark on a tour of Iowa, home of the nation’s earliest caucuses, according to MoorePAC, a Gallant, Alabama-based political action committee."

Roy Moore was a former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. He is well known for his refusal to follow a court order requiring him to to remove a large granite monument of the Ten Commandments from the state Supreme Court building. As a result of his refusal to obey the court order, he was removed from office as a judge and faced ethics charges for disobeying the federal court order. He's also made two attempts to become elected as Governor of Alabama but failed each time.

Quiet honestly, this is a very surprising and unexpected announcement. But it does make the 2012 elections more interesting for conservatives. Roy Moore faces a very tough battle if he wants to win the Republican nomination.  

Not only will he find himself in a large crowd of Republican candidates but he will be competing against other more well known social conservative candidates like Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum and other candidates. 

Moreover, given that the only thing that will distinguish himself from other candidates is the fact that he refused to obey a court order to remove the Ten Commandment monument since all the candidates will all claim that they support lower taxes, limited government and supports the war on terror. He has a real danger of becoming a single issue candidate. As a result, his chances of winning the Republican nomination will be very slim. 

Did Sarah Palin Just Announce Her Candidacy For 2012?

Sarah Palin gave a rousing speech to Tea Party members in Madison, Wisconsin this afternoon at a tax day rally. You can watch the entire speech in the clip below. 

Not only did she draw conservatives but also drew Union protesters as well who were reported to have surrounded the Tea party members during her speech. 

In her speech, she took on President Obama, Unions and Republicans who didn't push for more spending cuts. A lot of people are talking about her speech and the clash of Union and Tea Party protesters at the event. However, her speech has jump started another round of speculation of whether or not she will be running in 2012 when she concluded her speech with these lines:

"The 2012 election begins here. We will fight for America and it starts here in Madison, Wisconsin. Mr. President, game on!” 

Do you think this speech is her announcement that she's running in 2012?

Chris Matthews Praises Mitt Romney For Not Being A Birther

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

It is not too often that you will see members of the liberal media praise a conservative, especially when it comes from someone like Chris Matthews. Although you won't hear him say he's got a thrill up his leg for Mitt Romney, you'll hear Chris Matthews praise Mitt Romney for being the only serious and straightforward candidate among the many Republicans running in 2012.  

My favorite line from Chris Matthews comes at the end:

"But he will be a presidential candidate, a proud and serious one and if it's not too old-fashioned to say so, he'll be a man."

The reason for Chris Matthews must have been impressed with Mitt Romney's appearance on the Kudlow Report in which the former governor gave his position on the birther issue. Watch the clip below: 

As Mitt Romney explained in the Kudlow Report, there are so many reasons why President Obama ought to be taken out of office. Its just that the birther issue isn't one of them.

Chris Matthews is correct. Mitt Romney is a man for focusing on the most important issues that concerns all Americans which are jobs and the economy. And that's why America needs Mitt Romney in the White House in 2012.

President Obama Has Never Been Serious About Reducing The Deficit

Yesterday, President Obama gave a speech in that responded to Representative Paul Ryan's plan to reduce the deficit. The speech revealed what conservatives have always known about President Barak Obama in that he has never serious about creating jobs and reducing the national deficit.

Obama has made several promises that he would the economy the main priority of his Presidency. He made a promise to tackle the economy during the early days of his presidency and yet went on to push ObamaCare through the legislature. He repeated that promise almost a year ago after Scott Brown was elected to represent Massachusetts but still kept fighting for ObamaCare. And he has recently made that promise in September of 2010 that he would focus exclusively on the economy.  Obama has always been good at making promises but has never been good at following through with them. He makes promises and then moves onto other "important" projects like Obamacare.

Another example of Obama's lack of leadership on reducing the deficit is that he created an 18 member strong bipartisan commission to address the deficit and they came up with some bold recommendations on how to reduce the nation's debt.  However, Obama completely rejected their proposals. Now Obama wants a brand new commission to take a look at ways to reduce the debt which is what the earlier commission did. What gives the American people confidence that President Obama will listen to this new deficit commission if he rejected the proposals of the earlier commission that he created?

Even when President Obama was a Senator, he didn't take the deficit seriously since he admits that his vote against raising the debt ceiling was for political reasons. 

Which brings us back to Obama's speech given yesterday. Even in this speech was not serious about addressing the nation's deficit. Conservatives don't like it since Obama offers solutions that actually make the economy even worse. 

Liberals aren't thrilled with it either since Obama is essentially punting the job of fixing the economy down the road and that the proposals he does make do nothing to fix the economy because America will still be in debt. What this means is that even liberals are starting to realize that Obama has never made fixing the economy his number one priority.

Americans are tired of having to put up with four years of an inexperienced President who has no interest in fixing the economy. If Obama isn't going to take the economy seriously, he's going to see that Americans are going get serious about putting President Obama in the unemployment line in 2012. 

Rick Santorum Throws His Hat Into The Ring For 2012

The crowd of Republican 2012 presidential contenders keep getting bigger and bigger. The latest Republican to officially announce his intention to run in 2012 is Rick Santorum:

Former Sen. Rick Santorum on Wednesday announced a fundraising committee that allows him to take the first steps toward a presidential campaign.

Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican who served two terms in the U.S. Senate, has been busy laying the groundwork for an expected presidential bid for months. He lacks the name recognition and fundraising organization of his better-known rivals, but he is a favorite among the social conservatives who hold huge sway in some of the early nominating contests.

"Now, the only test for me is whether we can raise the money that's necessary," Santorum told Fox News Channel, where he worked as a contributor until the network put him on leave while he mulled a White House bid. "We're going to determine over the next few weeks as to whether the resources are going to be there."

Santorum, a blunt-talking conservative who once was the No. 3 Senate Republican, has made frequent visits to the early nominating states of New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina. On Thursday, he was scheduled to lead a town hall-style meeting on the economy at New England College in Henniker, N.H.

His campaign slogan - "Fighting to make America America again" - was likely to resonate with voters who doubt President Barack Obama's patriotism. A familiar conservative criticism of Obama is that he isn't proud of the United States; a smaller segment falsely claims that Obama was not born in the United States, but rather his father's native Kenya.

"It's time for America to be America again - an America that rewards innovation and hard work, that stands by our allies instead of our enemies, that protects even the most vulnerable of our society, and an America that says every life is to be cherished," Santorum told supporters in an email that was sent as he announced his plans on Fox News Channel. "That's what I believe in and that's why I'm taking this next step in a possible run for president."

Good luck Mr. Santorum! 

Mitt Romney Wins California Straw Poll!!

Mitt Romney won the California Republican Party straw poll after several rounds of voting: 

"At the California Republican Convention late last month, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney won a poll of preferred GOP candidates for president in 2012.

After eight rounds of voting, Romney came out on top, besting former House speaker Newt Gingrich (who garnered the second-highest amount of votes) and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton. Big names like former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty and former Alaska governor Sarah Palin were knocked out in early rounds of voting."

California is a crucial state for anyone hoping to become the next President of the United States since it carries a whopping 55 electoral votes. Although Mitt Romney lost to John McCain in the 2008 California primary, the advantage goes to Mitt Romney when it comes to competing in California for the 2012 Presidential Elections.

Mitt Romney decided to make California his home and bought a $12 million dollar beach front house in San Diego. Despite buying a nice home in La Jolla, Mitt Romney is really a down to earth guy. When his book, "No Apology: The Case for American Greatness", was first published, he made three stops in California to promote his book during his book tour.

Romney has also been active in California politics. He's endorsed a number of candidates during the 2010 Primaries. He endorsed Meg Whitman, Tony Strickland, Van Thai Tran, and Carly Fiorina and other political candidates running in the California 2012 midterm elections. 

Many political observers thought that Mitt Romney came out as the biggest loser in California since most of the candidates he endorsed lost. However, various polls in the past year or so proves that Mitt Romney is actually the biggest winner in California. In March 2010, Mitt Romney won the Magellan early 2012 Presidential Preference poll. He was also found to be the top Republican contender in California in a Public Policy Poll taken in  November 2010. He also came out on top in the Public Policy Poll taken in February 2011

"In the presidential race, Mitt Romney continues to show strength in the West and in blue states. He leads California’s primary contest nominally, but the top four are all statistically tied. Romney has 22% over rare second-place finisher Newt Gingrich’s 18%, Sarah Palin’s 16%, and Mike Huckabee’s 15%. 12% prefer an unnamed candidate or are undecided. Ron Paul has a somewhat unusually high 10%, with Tim Pawlenty (3%), Mitch Daniels (2%), and John Thune (1%) about where they usually are."

If you are in California and would like to help Mitt Romney in California, join the Californians for Romney 2012 on Facebook and be prepared to help Mitt Romney become the next President of the United States!!