States Spending $880 Million To Enforce Obamacare

by JASmius



Remember "Original Authority," my friends?  Good times, good times:

State and local governments have spent more than $35 billion and 75.5 million paperwork hours enforcing laws signed by Barack Obama — with the [Una]ffordable Care Act eating up $880 million and 27.1 million hours alone, according to a report released Friday.

And with other parts of ObamaCare taking effect soon and new EPA regulations on small streams, tributaries, and wetlands issued last week, "these burdens will only escalate," the American Action Forum (AAF) said in its report.

States "often have to carry the heaviest load dealing with federal requirements," concluded Sam Batkins, the organization's director of regulatory policy, concluded. "At $35 billion and more than seventy-five million hours from the Obama administration alone, there is a reason that many States employ hundreds of compliance personnel dedicated to navigating red tape.

"It's unlikely that these burdens will dissipate soon," he said.

Barack Obama signed both ObamaCare and the Dodd-Frank banking reform legislation into law in 2010, imposing eighty-six unfunded federal requirements on States, according to the report.

However, seven other mandates to both laws have since been imposed beyond the statutory minimum — and those are costing States $77 million a year, the report says.

You know that joke about showing a film of the birth of a baby in reverse?  Or the backwards-vomiting scene from Family Guy?



That is the "state" of affairs today in early twenty-first century Obamerikastan.  The cart is before the horse.  The tail is wagging the dog.  The inmates are running the asylum.  The children are running the national household.  The federal government - the creation of the States - has vassalized its "parents," brainwashed them to such an extent that few, if any, Americans realize just how bass-ackwards this situation really is.

I'd say something like "I can only imagine what the Founding Fathers would think about this sorry 'state' of affairs," but I really don't have to:

"Societies exist under three forms sufficiently distinguishable. 1. Without government, as among our Indians. 2. Under governments wherein the will of every one has a just influence, as is the case in England in a slight degree, and in our states in a great one. 3. Under governments of force: as is the case in all other monarchies and in most of the other republics. To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the 1st. condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has it’s evils too: the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem [I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery]. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.1 Unsuccesful rebellions indeed generally establish the incroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medecine necessary for the sound health of government." [emphases added]

Yesterday, former House Majority Leader Tom "The Hammer" DeLay joined the growing chorus of conservatives who are calling for mass civil disobedience against the coming imposition of sodomarriage.  That civil disobedience needs to be vastly expanded to every aspect of the grotesque decree to which the federal government has overstepped its constitutional boundaries.  And who better to lead that "peaceful revolution" than the "parents" of the federal government that has turned into a Frankenstein's monster the size of Godzilla?

Not that the States will rise up and take back their original authority, you understand; not any time soon, anyway.  But unless the feds would be willing to destroy the country in their maniacal efforts to retain their dictatorial grip over it, nullification, Republic Review, and/or an Article V convention might be an easier corrective measure to effectuate than many of us think - provided, of course, that the bulk of "We, The People" were on board.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem, and all that.