That is the question. Charles Krauthammer on Fox News said that he is “skeptical” about such a move. He would prefer to have a symbolic repeal vote – symbolic in that it wouldn’t pass the Senate. Then he said Republicans should then hold hearings to expose problems in Obamacare since they’ll now have the power to do that in the House.
Regarding defunding he said:
I am skeptical about taking away the funds because what it will do, it will poke holes in the system. It will make it more chaotic it will allow some things to be enacted, others to be more slowly or clumsily enacted and in the end, if healthcare collapses or if it becomes utterly unworkable, the Democrats will have a way of saying ‘well, it was all these injuries inflicted by the Republicans that made it not work.’ I think the smarter approach is to simply expose to the American people what’s in the bill….I think through hearings…you’ll expose that in a better way, whereas if you try to take away the funds, in the end you’re not going to succeed, but you may end up as the fall guy if the thing falls apart sort of in chaos and incoherence.
From a purely political point-of-view, I can see his point. I don’t believe voters gave Republicans majority status in the House and huge gains in the Senate just to have symbolic votes and hold hearings. They should employ that strategy, but the one thing they can tangibly do right now without having a Senate majority is to defund Obamacare. Voters are going to look for action not only on Obamacare, but also with spending cuts as well. If Republicans don’t deliver they will be toast in 2012.
What say you?
Video HT: Think Progress
