Obama did so even though he knew Congress would never support such actions and even though he knows that the Constitution doesn't allow him to do it.
So what was Mitch McConnell's, the head of the Republican majority in Congress's response?
He has said that state Governors should ignore the Obama ruling and he's challenging the rules in court.
Apparently Mitch doesn't think the Congress can do anything to stop the President so that the poor powerless Congress has to rely on the courts--which have been so good lately at upholding the Constitution and curbing Obama's imperial Presidency-- and the Republican governors to reign in Obama.
Last I heard the Congress is a co-equal branch of government with the power of the purse.
Why isn't Mitch simply passing a law that prevents Obama from spending any money enforcing this most recent imperial edict?
It really doesn't matter if it's because Mitch is scared of the Washington Post not loving him, because his big money donors like Obama's edict, or because Mitch himself is in favor of crushing the American people with huge energy price increases.
What matters is that other than Mitch's plea that someone else deal with the problem there is nothing to distinguish what Mitch has done from what Harry Reid would have done.
In the end conservatives, and America, are no better off with McConnell leading the Senate than we were when Reid ran the Senate.
This is bad for the country in several ways.
First it effectively means that we have a one party rule where the voices of anyone who doesn't agree with the minority--remember Republicans won the Congress in the last election.
Second it means that voters are going to be discouraged about voting since it's not clear why it matters.
Third it means that the Constitution is being undermined because effectively Congress is giving all its power to the President.
In the end no matter what Mitch's motives are one thing is clear; he's bad for America.