In a ruling issued earlier this month, the Office of Personnel Management, at the behest of President Obama, issued a ruling that would allow Congress and their staff to escape parts of the Obamacare threat that would have left them facing a possible loss of benefits and sharply higher costs for premiums.

These are the same threats the rest of America also worries about.

The fact that Congress was able to back out of a health care reform law that they took part in forcing upon the American people is a stunning, yet consistent abuse of power carried out by Democrats under this administration, since the debate was intitiated.

The act, as Public Policy intern, Andrew Montgomery, points out, is ensconced in hypocrisy.  

"Congress should have to live under the same laws it makes for the rest of us," he writes.  "If Congress can legislate upon the American people and be free of the consequences, they become an 'elitist class' out of touch with reality and their constituents."

True.  The fact remains however, that our lawmakers do not abide by the same rules and regulations that they decide for us.  And they have lost touch with their constituents.  It has and always will be, Obamacare for thee, but not for me.

The question now becomes, what can Republicans do to turn this into a polling advantage heading into 2014?

In Iowa last week, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) may have provided a glimpse at the proactive fight coming to Democrats running for election in the upcoming election cycle.

A new series of ads and on-the-ground outreach is targeting Iowan Rep. Bruce Braley and the Obamacare exemption, highlighting the Democrat's efforts to pass the health care legislation at the expense of some vulnerable groups amongst his constituency.

An NRSC mailing explains:  "This will be a major issue in the 2014 elections and we are wasting no time informing voters about the Democrats' hypocrisy."

"It starts today in Iowa where we are launching several grassroots initiatives."

The grassroots initiative involves multiple billboards across the Hawkeye State, walk cards to be distributed to fairgoers at the Iowa State Fair, and a website designed exclusively to highlight Braley's "reckless record" as a key supporter of Obamacare.

Each of these efforts has a baseball theme.  But unlike the famous Field of Dreams in Dubuque County, Braley's record represents more of a Field of Nightmares.

There are four billboards, each with a scoreboard that has "Braley's Obamacare" up 1-0 on constituents such as farmers, families, seniors, and small businesses.

The walk cards continue the theme by representing baseball cards.  Each has Obamacare leading the game over Iowans, and shows a three pitch strikeout by Braley in his votes regarding the law.

And the website, WrongTeamBraley.com, combines all of these elements, giving a more extensive view of why being on the side of Obamacare, means being on the "wrong team."

NRSC Press Secretary, Brook Hougesen, explains, "Bruce Braley stood with President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to force ObamaCare into law, ignoring the objections and concerns of family farmers, doctors, and hardworking Iowans."

She added, "Braley is on the wrong team for Iowa."

While the effort to highlight Obamacare hypocrisy begins in Iowa, it certainly won't be limited in-state.  Democrats can expect to see more of this heading into 2014.

"We will not stop there -- all Democrats running for Senate will be forced to explain," an NRSC e-mail reads.

As well they should.  Braley and his collegaues on Capitol Hill have no right to breathe a sigh of relief by escaping the clutches of Obamacare, while the rest of America collectively holds their breath nervously, awaiting the true impact this law has on their health care and personal finances.

Follow Rusty on Twitter @rustyweiss74

Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Indiana continue wrangling with the Obamacare Medicaid expansion, a policy that should’ve been dead on arrival in every state with a Republican governor.

Who would have guessed so many states that sued DC for the freedom to opt out of Medicaid expansion would even consider opening their gates for new entitlement funding from a government that’s effectively bankrupt?

To describe the arguments for Medicaid expansion as “bad” would be like calling Oedipus Rex “kind of a downer.” Consider the latest example from here in the Buckeye State: “Medicaid expansion would cost Ohio less than doing nothing, study shows.”

That’s not a satirical blurb I made up to mock liberals – that’s a headline from The Columbus Dispatch, the most influential newspaper in the state.

See, in January the Dispatch, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Cincinnati Enquirer, Toledo Blade, and Akron Beacon Journal each endorsed the Obamacare Medicaid expansion, and every paper did so while leaning on projections from a Health Policy Institute of Ohio (HPIO) study.

The January HPIO study was a shining tribute to The Broken Window Fallacy, framing Obamacare funding as free money that would create jobs and pump up tax revenues in the state.

Through some combination of ideology and ignorance, the editorial boards all agreed HPIO’s study proved Governor John Kasich, supposedly a small-government conservative, had made a bold, pragmatic choice by caving to Obamacare – and it showed in each paper’s news coverage.

Fast forward to the August legislative recess, after “flint-hearted,” “off-the-chart right” House Republicans dashed the hopes of Gov. Kasich, progressive activists, the hospital lobby, the Chamber of Commerce, and the media by stripping the Obamacare Medicaid expansion from Kasich’s biennial budget.

The big papers have ensured no criticism of Medicaid expansion sees the light of day in their reputable publications, but in a state where all 88 counties voted for a Healthcare Freedom Amendment in 2011, the Obamacare Trojan horse needs a little extra varnish.

What better way to rustle up support for a key component of President Obama’s imploding health law than with another HPIO study founded on ridiculous fallacies?

The Plain Dealer editors have openly encouraged “casting Medicaid expansion as Medicaid reform,” telegraphing which lies Obamacare advocates should tell. This month, HPIO delivered with a report designed for muddling Medicaid expansion and Medicaid reform in the minds of low-information voters.

In its new study, HPIO compared Ohio’s estimated future Medicaid spending with two scenarios that both assumed Ohio adopts the Obamacare expansion while putting ambitious caps on Medicaid spending growth.

The study concluded that by holding spending growth far below its expected trend, Ohio could save enough money to cover the cost of the Obamacare Medicaid expansion… and the press reported this as “YOU GUYS, expanding Medicaid would save money!”

Think about that: Ohio reporters think Ohioans are so stupid, we’ll believe it would cost less than nothing to expand Medicaid to unknown hundreds of thousands of able-bodied childless adults under the age of 65.

Unfortunately for Obamacare backers and the state-worshiping press, it gets easier every day for citizens to find information online, check competing arguments for themselves, and reach out to friends, family, and their elected officials with what they learn.

To those of you in Michigan, Indiana, and Pennsylvania dealing with equally invertebrate Republicans and shameless journalists, Godspeed!

Follow Jason on Twitter: @jasonahart

Scroll down to see signers lists.

The Continuing Resolution (CR) that allows funding for the federal government expires on September 30th and must be renewed in order for the doors to stay open in Washington. The CR is the best chance we will get to withdraw funds from ObamaCare. This can be done by attaching bills by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) or Congressman Tom Graves (R-GA) to the CR, which will totally defund ObamaCare.

But for the Cruz/Graves effort to have teeth, Republicans in both chambers of Congress must all be committed to absolutely refusing to vote for any spending bill that contains funding for ObamaCare.  Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and Congressman Mark Meadows (R-NC) are leading the charge to get their colleagues to commit to this approach, by putting their signatures to a letter affirming that they will refuse to vote for a CR that contains ObamaCare funding.

Support for the Cruz/Graves bills is absolutely meaningless without also signing the Lee/Meadows letter. Harry Reid and his Democrats will have no incentive to compromise unless they know the Republicans are willing to take a hard stance - even allowing the government to be shut down, if necessary - in order to stop the catastrophically unworkable and unaffordable health care law from taking effect this January.

But Republican leadership is either afraid or unwilling to defund ObamaCare, and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is personally leading the effort to keep senators away from Lee's letter. He has even succeeded in convincing five Republicans who had signed to take their names off the letter. In the House, Congressman Meadows' letter is getting no support from Republican leadership, and only about a third of the Republican House Members have signed his letter.

This cannot stand.  Republicans have spent the last three years working to get rid of this unpopular, unaffordable, unworkable law, and there is no excuse for giving up now. Accordingly, FreedomWorks has taken the extraodrinary position of issuing a Key Vote on the letter - signatories will be scored on our online scorecard.

Below is the list of Republican Senators and where they stand on the Cruz bill and the Lee letter. 14 Senators have signed the Lee letter thus far, while five others have signed the letter but then taken their names off.   (Updated: 8/22)

And below is the list of Republican Congressmen, and where each stands on the Tom Graves bill and the Meadows letter. So far 80 Representatives have signed the Meadows letter:

TAKE ACTION and tell your Members of Congress to promise that they will commit to defunding ObamaCare by signing the Lee/Meadows letters HERE.

A government with moral and legal authority promulgates written rules and universally, impartially and uniformly enforces those rules, which provides a predictable and stable legal order on which to base economic and personal decisions. The law prevails, not the proclamation or arbitrary decision of a ruler, government bureaucrat, enforcer (e.g., policeman) or judge.

Democratically elected governments have failed horribly in America.  As explained in Democracy's Great Flaw, elected politicians curry favor with their voting constituents at the expense of future workers.  Politicians give goodies to present voters – lavish pensions and retirement benefits – and make future workers pay for the unpaid and mostly unfunded, promised benefits.  How big is the catastrophe?  The New York Times reports:

A study issued this year by the Pew Charitable Trusts found 61 of the nation’s major cities wrestling with $126 billion in retiree health costs, all but 6 percent of that unfunded.

Openly, governments as diverse as Chicago, Detroit, Sheboygan County, Wisconsin and Stockton, California, and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, intend to dump their pension debts into ObamaCare.  Pff!  The debt created and owed by these cities became the debt of every American taxpayer.  ObamaCare magically shifted the cities' past corruption and incompetence into the American taxpayer's lap. As Dan Miller of Harrisburg said:

“I’m applauding Detroit,” said Dan Miller, the controller in Harrisburg, Pa., who added that in the future a similar plan might interest his city, where a state-appointed receiver is seeking to restructure hundreds of millions of dollars of debt. “I’m hoping that Obamacare turns out to be a great solution, and I would love for our city to have the opportunity to do that.”

Again, shifting the burden on  every American taxpayer is expressed by an aid of Chicago's Mayor Rahm Emanuel:

Sarah Hamilton, a spokeswoman for Mayor Rahm Emanuel, adding that most of the city’s retirees over 65 were already covered by Medicare. “We will ensure that they have all the information needed to navigate the options available going forward, while saving vital taxpayer dollars.”

More correct  is “vital” Chicago “taxpayer dollars.”

Almost every city will attempt to shift the cost to all American taxpayers, as stated by the National League of Cities.

“The Affordable Care Act does change the possibilities here dramatically,” said Neil Bomberg, a program director at the National League of Cities. “It offers a very high-quality, potentially very affordable way to get people into health care without the burden falling back onto the city and town.”

Through Obamacare, insolvent cities are abrogating and destroying the rule of law, and the consequences will be very bad for America.  

First, if this backdoor bailout of the cities  prevails, the federal government will take on more debt.  Consequently, tax receipts will be severely reduced for many other federal programs – education, welfare, roads, Medicare, defense, medical research and the rest. 

Second, this will increase the power and control of the federal government, which inevitably destroys freedom and prosperity.  Why?  This scheme violates the rule of law and government's duty to protect and honor contracts.
The solution is for these cities to follow the law and go through bankruptcy.  Ultimately, the judicial process will decide how to reduce these terrible debts.  Most likely, the bond holders will be wiped-out and municipal pensions will be reduced.  Tragically, there will be harm, misery, and sorrow.  

However, the ObamaCare bailout will quickly lead to more federal control and a further decline of our freedom and prosperity. Individuals, families, and communities will all become dependent on a central government.  Federal taxes will need to be increased.  Americans will have less power to utilize their money – to spend, save, and invest.  The power and control of the federal government will further erode the essential elements that enable freedom – the rule of law and private property.   

Private property and the rule of law facilitates limitless exchange of ideas and products, which fosters more knowledge and ingenuity.  Competing ideas and products propels commerce, science, and art – and society advances.  Restoring private property and the rule of law is essential to restore liberty and prosperity in America.

Detroit, Chicago, Illinois, Harrisburg, Stockton and the rest must go through the bankruptcy process.  Otherwise the federal government will grow and the corruption and incompetence of big and centralized government will continue to destroy freedom and prosperity.

A government with moral and legal authority promulgates written rules and universally, impartially and uniformly enforces those rules, which provides a predictable and stable legal order on which to base economic and personal decisions. The law prevails, not the proclamation or arbitrary decision of a ruler, government bureaucrat, enforcer (e.g., policeman) or judge.

“I was promised health care for myself and my wife for life,” said Michael Underwood, 62, who retired from the Chicago Police Department after 30 years of service.   However, in May, the city of Chicago announced they needed to remove some of the city's 11,800 pensioners, making them ineligible for Medicare coverage by 2017.  Frightened and angered, Mr. Underwood is suing the city of Chicago in order to keep his promised benefits.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel has not respond to Mr. Underwood's lawsuit or the additional lawsuits brought on by other retirees.   Instead, he employed a bureaucrat to explain Chicago's philosophy and assistance.

Sarah Hamilton, a spokes person for the city, was quoted by the New York Times as saying, “With the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, our retirees will have more options to meet their health care needs.” Hamilton continues, “We will ensure that they have all the information needed to navigate the options available going forward, while saving vital taxpayer dollars.”  

Mr. Underwood, who has diabetes and Parkinson's disease, certainly did not jump up and say,“Woopie!  Chicago is going to send me brochures explaining ObamaCare!”   No, the city of Chicago has broken their contract with Mr. and Mrs. Underwood and thousands of other retired, city workers, which should make every American appauled and outraged.

In order to preserve and sustain a free society, the primary duty of government is to protect people and their property.  Honoring the contracts we make is absolutely essential. 

In an attempt to save millions of dollars per year, the city of Chicago is attempting to break their contracts with retired workers.  Assuming Mr. Underwood was promised “health care for myself and my wife for life,” Chicago's breach of  their contract is not only immoral, it violates the basic rule of law: 

A government with moral and legal authority promulgates written rules and universally, impartially and uniformly enforces the rules, which provides a predictable and stable legal order on which to base economic and personal decisions.

What is most egregious is Chicago's unilateral breach of their contracts, which is clearly a direct attack on our basic rule of law. The law should prevail, not the proclamation or arbitrary decision of a ruler, government bureaucrat, enforcer (e.g., policeman) or judge.

By breaking contracts with former workers and forcing ObamaCare on to them, Chicago is shifting the cost onto taxpayers, which is horrifying.  The New York Times quoted Neil Bomberg, Program Director at the National League of Cities, explaining the Affordable Care Act: 

“The Affordable Care Act does change the possibilities here dramatically.  It offers a very high-quality, potentially very affordable way to get people into health care without the burden falling back onto the city and town.”

Therefore, over of years of mismanagement and corruption, the city of Chicago took money from city workers, sent money to politicians, who then set salaries and lavish retirement benefits.  Now, Chicago intends to have every American taxpayer pay for their immoral practices.  Shame on them.

Not only does this violate the rule of law,  it is destroying freedom in America.

If there’s one piece of evidence that ObamaCare is wonderful, it’s the fact that lawmakers and congressional staffers are eager to have it for themselves, right? 

Oops! It turns out the folks who wrote this controversial law—which tells us we have to buy-in or face the consequences—have been granted an exemption from it. And the reports suggest folks on Capitol Hill are heaving a massive sigh of relief. 

What? Eager to be out from under their own health care scheme?  Why wouldn’t they be first in line to enjoy the benefits of government-run health care? Could it be because it’s a train headed for the cliff and they want off?

Last week, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) announced it will be issuing a ruling soon that will give U.S. Senators, Representatives, and their aides an exemption from ObamaCare. These federal employees will still have to buy health insurance through state-run exchanges, as the statute requires, but OPM will allow the government to make generous employer contributions (aka taxpayer money) towards the health benefits of lawmakers and congressional staff. That’s a privilege denied to all other Americans under the health care law.

Prior to this surprise announcement by OPM, folks on the Hill were facing significantly higher costs for health care, thanks to ObamaCare: around $5,000 more for an individual plan and $11,000 more for a family plan.  Currently, the federal government subsidizes 75 percent of the cost of congressional health care benefits.  OPM’s decision spares them from those higher costs and lets them keep that gold-plated subsidy.

Why did OPM do it? Politico reports that the agency was “under heavy pressure from Capitol Hill” to give a special exemption to the Hill, and that “President Barack Obama … was personally involved in finding a solution.”  The Washington Examiner calls it a “backdoor effort.”    

The provision of ObamaCare that requires Congress to get its health insurance through the exchanges was offered by a Republican, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa. Congress approved the Grassley amendment easily, fearful that a “no” vote on it might suggest Beltway hypocrisy (“ObamaCare for thee, but not for we!”). However, to OPM, the language of the Grassley provision did not prohibit the government from continuing to subsidize the health plans of congressional members and staff. The actual legality of the OPM’s actions is questionable at best. The Heritage Foundation thinks “the Administration lacks statutory authority to pay those subsidies …”, and David Ermer, who has given legal representation to insurers in the federal employee program for the past 30 years, says, “I do not think members of Congress and their staff can get funds for coverage in the exchanges under existing law… You would need a law to appropriate money for that.”    

OPM has yet to actually issue or publicly defend the change—so far, we only know about it via second-hand news reports. But at the end of the day, we know the result: to bypass of the intent of Sen. Grassley’s amendment and grant clear preferential treatment to lawmakers and their staff. 

The reason that some in Congress claimed to want this exemption was to prevent a “brain drain,” in which the most talented staffers would flee the higher insurance costs for more profitable work in the private sector. This is a very sure possibility, since the Hill is notorious for underpaying staff, and the most qualified staffers often migrate to private sector work where wages are higher.  But it is symptomatic of Congress’s insulation from reality that they think the problem is their staffers having to pay the same for insurance as everyone else.  ObamaCare is going to cause costs to rise for millions of Americans, so if Congress is not okay with that then they should by all means exempt themselves—but they should exempt the rest of us too!

Congress should have to live under the same laws it makes for the rest of us. If Congress can legislate upon the American people and be free of the consequences, they become an “elitist class” out of touch with reality and their constituents. 

As a citizen, I’m glad our representatives recognize that ObamaCare is going to hurt them. Now if they could just feel their constituents’ pain as well. 

The Left doesn't seem too sure how to deal with the incipient ObamaCare resistance. But it's clear they don't like it.

That movement, launched by FreedomWorks last month, and quickly joined by other groups (including the Citzens' Council for Health Freedom and Young Americans for Liberty) urges Americans to do what’s best for them rather than blindly go into the government-run exchanges. 

Instead of buying what in many cases will be overpriced health insurance, we're urging folks to “burn your ObamaCare card": skip the exchange, pay the fine, defend your freedom.

If enough people do this, it will hasten the collapse of the government-run exchanges and thus the replacement of ObamaCare with patient-centered care.

Progressives are reacting to this unexpected resistance in various ways, including disgust (Mother Jones, Daily Kos), mocking disbelief (Stephen Colbert), angry disbelief (Salon), personal affront (Huffington Post). policy denial (Slate) and, my favorite, saddened bemusement (Ezra Klein/MSNBC).

If people don’t get their insurance through an ObamaCare exchange, these folks seem to assume, they’ll have to go uninsured, and thus go without needed health care, or else be financially saddled with costly medical bills. And anyone who advocates that must be a “nihilist.”

The most sophisticated left-wing responses (New Republic, Washington Post) have denied our argument that, under this law, you can wait till you're sick to sign up for insurance. No, they claim, you can't.

Really? Why not? Because of something called open season.

Open Enrollment Periods

Under ObamaCare, we will be able to sign up for government-approved health insurance only during two months at the end of each calendar year. Open season will run from October 15 through December 15 each year (except for the first year, when, it will run for six months, from October 1 through March 31). 

As the Washington Post’s Sarah Kliff puts it:

The Affordable Care Act has an open enrollment period, which is the time frame when Americans can enroll in health plans on the [exchange] marketplace. The whole point of this feature is to prevent people from signing up for coverage en route to the hospital.

Outside of “open season,” people with preexisting medical conditions who need insurance will be out of luck. 

Or so we're told. The truth is more complicated.

People who skip the exchange will actually have a number of perfectly legal alternatives for handling their medical bills, including: keeping their existing coverage (for example, job-based coverage, if their employer offers it); relying on personal savings; relying on friends and neighbors (as, for example, by joining a “health care sharing ministry,” a sort of faith-based cooperative for sharing medical bills); paying bills in installments; negotiating bills down with a willing doctor or hospital; or -- most important -- buying health insurance outside the exchange. 

Yes, we’re still allowed to buy insurance outside the government exchange. For now, at least.

Here's where the argument gets interesting. The open season rules apply to the entire individual market, both inside and outside the local exchange.

The purpose of this is to prevent undue "gaming" of the exchanges, i.e., younger and healthier folks tending to gravitate to non-exchange plans, while older and less healthy folks gravitate into the exchange. By self-selecting out of the local government "marketplace," younger people could destabilize it, causing it to collapse. 

So, in effect to protect the exchanges from competition, the government feels it must force the private alternatives to operate under the same "open season" rules as itself.

But, as I said, the story is actually a bit more complicated than that. And the upshot is that it isn't quite accurate to say that "burning one's ObamaCare card" will lead to being uninsured or at risk of personal financial catastrophe. 

Counterpoint 1: Special Enrollment Periods

There are several exceptions to open season. You can get around the open season rules, at any time of year, through one of the following loopholes:

a. If you obtain a job that offers affordable health benefits, open season doesn't applpy to you. This is because, if an employers offers coverage, he has to offer it to everyone in the group equally, more or less from the time they’re hired. 

b. If you live in a state that creates one or more additional open periods, you can use them to get around the federal open season. As Timothy Jost, the Left’s favorite expert on the Unaffordable Care Act, explains:

The ACA authorizes HHS to prescribe open enrollment periods both in and outside of the exchange in the individual market.  [HHS] requires an annual, end of the year, open enrollment period … [But] States are permitted to establish more frequent open enrollment periods. [Emphasis added.]

(States that want to be more “compassionate” than the feds could, for example, create an additional open season that fills in the entire gap between federal open seasons.)

c. You can also trigger a “special” enrollment period for yourself, by reporting certain “life events.” As Sarah Kliff explains:

There are also special enrollment periods to accommodate those who have a major change in life circumstances. If a mother gives birth to a baby, for example, the child can enroll in coverage outside the open enrollment period. If the subscriber has a significant change in income, he or she will also be able to switch to a different (potentially more affordable) health plan.

So within federally defined limits, you can obtain insurance at any time of year, if your place of residence changes, or if your marital status changes, or if your employment situation changes, or if your income changes, or -- I love this one -- if either HHS or your local exchange bureaucracy decides to let you in as a sympathy case (“exceptional circumstances”). 

But other than that -- no exceptions!

Counterpoint 2: Non-Compliant Coverage

What if you miss open enrollment and don’t have a "qualifying event"? According to eHealth (a private, online health insurance exchange that has existed since long before ObamaCare, and the very existence of which shows why we don't need government exchanges, but that's another story):

You may be able to purchase a non-compliant plan or a short-term health insurance plan, but these won’t meet the standards of the Affordable Care Act and their benefits will likely not be as comprehensive. [Emphasis added.]

In other words, it is legally possible to obtain non-exchange coverage that may not meet all of ObamaCare's bells and whistles, but which might fit your needs just fine.

Counterpoint 3: EMTALA

Is the Left okay with people “dying on the sidewalk”? That would seem to be the logical implication of a hard-and-fast open season, wouldn't it? Well, at least until one remembers EMTALA. That’s the federal law passed in the 1980s that requires hospital emergency rooms to screen and stabilize every person who shows up, regardless of ability to pay. Obviously, EMTALA softens the blow of open season. It means nobody has to die on the sidewalk. It also softens the blow of burning one’s ObamaCare card. 

Counterpoint 4: Hypocrisy

How can progressives call ObamaCare resisters “nihilists” for urging John Q. Public to voluntarily skip the exchange, while giving themselves a pat on the back for involuntarily barring the same John Q. Public from insurance (inside or outside the exchange) when he applies for coverage one day too late. The effect for Mr. Public would appear to be identical. 

The difference would seem to be in the motives of left and right.

In urging resistance to this whole coercive scheme, conservatives want to help Mr. Public do what’s best for him, both in the short run (maximize control of his own health care decisions) and in the long run (hasten the collapse of government-run health care, which poses a threat to everyone’s health).

The progressives, by contrast, appear to be trying to force Mr. Public to do whatever they think is best for him, regardless of his actual needs or wants, so they can make their carefully constructed system "work."

You have to wonder about progressives. Are they really willing to deny health insurance to anyone who really needs it? If so, aren’t they implicitly admitting they care about something more than about people having health insurance? 

Could that “something” be, for example, a desire for power and control? 

But we're the "nihilists."

Championing an effort that is long overdue, Senators Mike Lee (R-UT) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) are leading a fight to put teeth into the cause of dismantling Obamacare. An effort that is ostensibly backed by every GOP member of Congress given the thirty odd votes the House of Representatives has taken to repeal Obamacare, Senators Cruz and Lee are exerting the only leverage available to Members of Congress, especially those whose party holds the majority in only one House of Congress: the power of the purse.

What is striking is the resistance Senators Cruz and Lee have received, not from Democrats, but from Republicans. Self-described budget hawk Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) declared the campaign to defund Obamacare to be “dishonest” and “hype”. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) called the effort “silly” and lacking “courage”. Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) likened the effort to defund Obamacare to a “temper tantrum” and Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) suggested that such an effort was the “dumbest idea I’ve ever heard.” Sen. Burr’s comment is truly ironic because his spokesman reminds journalists of the several stand-alone bills the Senator has co-sponsored seeking to repeal Obamacare, bills that have never and will never receive a vote in a Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate. Senate Minority Whip and former National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (R-TX) was an original signatory to Sen. Lee’s letter pledging not to vote for a spending bill that continues to fund Obamacare. However, Sen. Cornyn has since removed his name from the letter despite claiming to support the full repeal of Obamacare on his campaign re-election website and hiring a grassroots Tea Party activist to run his re-election campaign.

One reason proffered for why defunding Obamacare is a fool's errand is that the continuing resolution re-authorizing government spending at the end of September contains proportionally little spending on Obamacare. Perhaps. However, as Erick Erickson notes in RedState, there is nothing preventing Congress from attaching a rider to a continuing resolution rescinding subsidies for state exchanges and rescinding funding for Medicaid expansion. Further, there are considerable administrative and implementation costs yet to be incurred at the IRS and HHS that can be curtailed.

A second reason proffered is that President Obama will never sign a law curtailing his signature legislative accomplishment. Again, perhaps. However, with more Americans continuing to look disfavorably on Obamacare than ever before, it is incumbent upon Republicans to continue to make the case for why it should be repealed or curtailed. As Senator Cruz has said, Republicans “will lose 100% of the battles they begin by surrendering.” Further as Senator Lee points out, even President Obama has admitted that Obamacare is not ready for “prime time” by illegally delaying the employer mandate and choosing to selectively enforce the law. Consequently, since this selective enforcement benefits large businesses at the expense of individual consumers, Senator Lee argues that Congress should not reward this inequity by continuing to fund the implementation of the law.

Prominent Republican operatives like Karl Rove remain unconvinced by these arguments. Therefore the question remains, where do they draw the line? In National Review Online and on The Freedomcast, John Fund details the potential horrors of the new Federal Data Hub meant to combine the databases of several federal government agencies in order to help implement Obamacare. This data hub will be accessed by tens of thousands of Obama’s community activist supporters who will be permitted to view the confidential health and financial information of millions of Americans. If you are concerned about the abuses resulting from the recent IRS scandal, the Federal Data Hub has the potential to create abuses of that magnitude on steroids! Remember 2010 Delaware Republican U.S. Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell? Her tax records were accessed improperly by an unknown Delaware state official during a heated campaign season. Get ready for much more of that during the next election cycle.

Further, John Fund notes that contractors will not be subject to criminal background checks or be required to have earned high school diplomas. I imagine Karl Rove has confidence that President Obama will prevent felons convicted of fraud and identity theft from abusing their access to his confidential financial information or groups like Wikileaks from posting his confidential health records on the internet for all the world to see. If Republicans are unwilling to draw a line in the sand and defund the entirety of Obamacare, perhaps they might at least draw a line in the sand and defund the Federal Data Hub. Surely Congressional Republicans are able to articulate the inherent horrors of the Federal Data Hub and force President Obama and Congressional Democrats to explain their willingness to shut down the federal government over their insistence to fund this program.

As Senators Cruz and Lee have explained, the travesty of Obamacare is not just its effect on our health insurance market and our health care delivery system but on the broader economy. Obamacare is responsible for the largest expansion of part-time employment at the expense of full-time employment in our nation’s history and our lowest employment participation rate in decades. Even an Obamacare information call center in California is being staffed with part-time employees so as to avoid the requirement of having to provide these individuals with health insurance. Bankrupt cities like Detroit and near bankrupt municipalities across the nation are contemplating easing their financial burdens by dumping their employees into the health insurance exchanges thereby forcing federal taxpayers to subsidize the poor financial management of states and municipalities. Surely, Congressional Republicans can defend their decision to defund Obamacare by explaining how the law has contributed to persistently high unemployment.

The question remains, why are Congressional Republicans who claim to oppose Obamacare unwilling to stand tall and support this effort to defund the law? Perhaps the answer lies in a letter signed by over one hundred GOP donors urging Congress to pass so-called comprehensive immigration reform. Congressional Republicans seem so concerned that the possibility of a protracted fight with the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats over the budget might upset the possibility of passing a legislative priority for their donor base, that they have ignored the outcry from their voter base.

As Senator Cruz explained, this may be the last best chance to defund Obamacare before it goes into effect as President Obama’s strategy is to enroll as many people as possible getting them “addicted to the sugar” of subsidies. In fact, the Obama administration has announced that it will not verify income and rely on the honor system when determining whether new enrollees qualify for subsidies.

Americans need to let their voices be heard by calling their Members of Congress 202-224-3121, attending their townhall meetings http://congress.freedomworks.org/districtoffices and signing the petition not to fund Obamacare http://www.dontfundobamacare.com/. As of this writing, the petition has nearly 200,000 signatures!

Paraphrasing Martin Luther King, Senator Coburn once said, “Cowardice asks the question, is it expedient? And vanity asks the question, is it popular? But conscience asks the question, is it right?” Help Congress find its conscience!

Stephen Colbert is upset with us.

On last night’s Colbert Report, the comedian lit into those young people who are concerned about expensive health care, the crazy federal debt, and the fact that Obamacare makes both worse.

He singled out FreedomWorks in particular, ridiculing our efforts to let young people receive a better quality of care while keeping more of their own money. In his opening segment, Colbert ignored the dire warnings about Obamacare from the law’s former supporters. Instead, he mocked millennials for daring to question the wisdom of Washington politicians.

I might be slightly younger than Mr. Colbert — and certainly not as wealthy — but I do understand math. And if he wants to help his huge audience of twentysomethings, he should share this:

The average healthy young adult spends about $854 a year on health care — doctor’s visits, new glasses, dental check-ups, whatever. President Obama orders them to spend about $5,800 a year on an unwieldy, government-approved insurance plan.

That means already-strapped young adults, struggling to pay student loans and get started in life, are out $4,946. Where is that money going? To fund the health care of people Stephen Colbert’s age and older (after a healthy cut goes to huge insurance companies and rich D.C. middlemen).

That isn’t right. It’s mean and it’s immoral. I would hope even Stephen Colbert agrees with that.

But it gets worse. Politicians want every young person to cough up five grand so they can carry the weight of older Americans. If young people question authority, the whole system collapses. Of course, since the rules were written by politicians, they screwed this up too.

Say you decide not to get government-approved insurance. The penalty is about $95 for a young person. But what if the unexpected happens and you break an arm or need an appendectomy? All pre-existing conditions must be covered, so you just get insurance after the worst happens, if it ever does.

Everyone knows that $95 is a better deal than $5000, so that’s what they are going to pay. And that’s why the entire system will fail, hurting all Americans’ health care while increasing our debt.

FreedomWorks wants common-sense solutions and patient centered health care proven to reduce costs while increasing quality. We want everyone, young and old, to have access to the health care that best fits their needs and lifestyles. A college student doesn’t need the same plan as her grandfather, nor should it be anywhere near as expensive.

We also want a system that helps us get out of our nearly $17 trillion in debt instead of making young people pay that back with interest.

Help us fix this mess by signing our petition. And we invite Stephen Colbert to sign it as well.

Follow Jon on Twitter at @ExJon.