“It’s about jobs. In its life, [President Obama’s health law] will create 4 million jobs — 400,000 jobs almost immediately.”

— Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking at a Feb. 25, 2010 summit on Obama’s pending health-insurance legislation.

One of the key selling points in President Obama’s 2010 health law was that small business owners would be able to offer more insurance options to their employees.

But according to a New York Times report today, that benefit, set to kick in at the beginning of 2014, will be delayed for at least a year as federal regulators and insurance companies struggle to offer the expanded options.

This is partly a consequence of Obama relying on private insurance companies to implement his legacy law. With premiums already rising as a result of the law and set to increase by nearly a third on average with the full imposition of the new rules, insurance companies are in a strong position to demand a slowdown of the law.

With Midterm Elections just ahead and Obama still unable to rally much public support for the law, the administration is not keen to push costs even higher, especially as middle-class families are feeling the squeeze of higher taxes and higher fuel costs.

The stumbling start for Obama’s law ahead of the beginning of enrollment in its new health-insurance entitlement program is proving to be a major headache for the president. Enrollment in the federally subsidized insurance program – the centerpiece of the law – is set to begin on Oct. 1. But despite delaying the start of the program for nearly four years from the signing of the law, the federally funded insurance system does not look ready for liftoff.

With Democrats voting to cut out a key tax funding the program and the Department of Health and Human Services up to its eyeballs in delays, waivers and the difficulties of stitching together a patchwork system, the fate of what the president called “Obamacare” is looking uncertain.

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans are preparing to drag the controversial law into the budgeting process this summer. Obama is looking for a full-year fiscal plan that would provide enough borrowing authority to get to the next elections when voters might break the deadlock in Washington. The uncertainty about the law and its growing number of missed expectations enhances the ability of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and others to make the still-pending Obama entitlement part of the discussion.

Dissatisfaction with the law and the bureaucratic botch of its implementation makes Obama’s legacy program a much riper target for changes and legislative delays.

Dissatisfied Democrats may be willing to sacrifice parts of the law or slow its imposition before they are willing to meddle with popular programs like Medicare. It was politically helpful for Obama to shove the difficult or unpopular laws beyond his re-election bid. Some Senate Democrats may find it appropriate to return the favor.

The Obama administration’s decision to delay the expanded options for small business employees makes that prospect more appealing.

One of the main claims the president made in selling the law, aside from the promise of helping small businesses, was that individuals happy with their insurance and doctors would not have to make changes. Obama later clarified that he meant the government would not force citizens to change, but allowed that government regulations would cause employers, doctors and insurers to drop individuals, stop offering services or raise prices.

Obama modified his initial promise to a hope tinged with high-minded regret: “If you are happy with your plan, and if you are happy with your doctor, we don’t want you to have to change.”

But the changes are coming fast as employers prepare to jettison workers from health care plans, doctors retire or stop accepting government insurance and insurers jack up rates to cover new costs.

The delay of the expanded menu of insurance offerings will almost certainly accelerate the process.

Currently, small businesses are weighing whether to drop health insurance altogether. Obama’s law requires businesses to offer coverage of a certain caliber, above the above the basic catastrophic coverage offered by many companies. For many of them, it will be cheaper to pay the fines imposed for employers who offer no coverage at all or drop full-time workers down to part-time status to avoid the requirements.

The Congressional Budget Office already foresees some 8 million insurance customers getting dropped by employers. That’s more than before and the number will go up with this change and others still to come.

During the debate of the law, a key promise was that new regulation would require insurance companies to offer a broader menu of insurance choices to small businesses across a range of price points.

But if insurers are only offering one, more expensive health plan to small shops there will be even more employers who decide to get out of the game altogether and dump their workers onto taxpayer-subsidized insurance programs. Given the choice between that and being made part-time employees or seeing their paychecks shrink with higher premiums, many workers may prefer being dumped.

(Power Play will leave for another time the consideration of how much payroll tax fraud the new law will engender as small businesses pay “part-time” workers full-time wages. Woof.)

All of this will raise costs and dissatisfy consumers, yes. But the members of Team Obama also know that as long as implementation is lurching forward it becomes harder to uproot the system, no matter how expensive or unwieldy. That’s why Republicans are hoping to use these myriad problems and cost overruns to delay the system. Repeal or alteration remains possible as long as the system isn’t in place.

Obama’s decision to ram through the health law when it was still a jumble, especially using a procedural trick, was predicated on the belief that after he was re-elected he could put the law into place.

But the jumble persists and now threatens his legacy project.

And Now, A Word From Charles

“The Episcopal Church, it used to be said of it a generation ago it was the establishment at prayer. And now, it’s the American left at prayer. And I think that’s one of the reasons why it and the other mainline denominations are in such decline. Because if you want a message like what Reverend Leon delivered you go to a Democratic Party meeting or a pro-choice rally, you don’t go to church.”

— Charles Krauthammer on “Special Report with Bret Baier.”

Senate Democrats recently removed bans on semi-automatic weapons from pending gun-control legislation in apparent hopes of passing the more politically acceptable universal background checks — even referring to the checks as the “sweet spot” of the proposal.

But the issue has turned into the new sticking point in Congress with a top Republican saying Sunday the plan is “going nowhere” and Democrats and other gun-control advocates pressing the issue.

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham repeated the argument among gun-rights advocates that the federal government should not add new checks when existing ones are not enforced.

“The current system is broken,” he said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “Why in the world would you expand that system if you’re not enforcing the law that exists today. … So I think that legislation is going nowhere.”

Leading gun-control advocate Mark Kelly warned Republican senators that trying to block a vote on new firearms legislation that includes universal background checks could hurt their re-election efforts.

Kelly, a former astronaut and Navy captain, directed his remarks to Sens. Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, among five Republican senators who have suggested they will filibuster a debate and full floor vote.

“They should listen to their constituents” and not get in the way of the debate, Kelly told “Fox News Sunday.”

Kelly, who with wife and retired Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords leads the gun-control advocacy group Americans for Responsible solutions, said at least 80 percent of voters in Paul and Rubio’s districts favor the checks for potential gun buyers.

Giffords was shot in the head by Jared Lee Loughner, a mentally ill young man, in January 2011 during a town hall-style meeting outside Tucson, Ariz.

New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer told NBC’s “Meet the Press,” he once called background checks the sweet spot “because it would do a whole lot of good and have a good chance of passing.”

“I’m working very hard with both Democrats and Republicans, pro-(National Rifle Association) and anti-NRA people, to come up with a background check that will be acceptable to 60 senators and be very strong and get the job done,” he said. “It’s very hard and we’re working hard and I’m very hopeful that we can get this passed.”

Congress returns April 8 from spring break. No vote on the legislation has been scheduled. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is expected to bring legislation to the floor next month that is likely to include the background check but no bans on semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity gun magazines.

Sens. Ted Cruz, Texas; Mike Lee, Utah; and James Inhofe, Oklahoma, are the three others who have vowed to join in the filibuster.

“We, the undersigned, intend to oppose any legislation that would infringe on the American people’s constitutional right to bear arms, or on their ability to exercise this right without being subjected to government surveillance,” they said in a March 22 letter to Reid, a Nevada Democrat.

Graham said he will not join the filibuster, unless Reid blocks alternative amendments in the floor vote.

Meanwhile, Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley is crafting a Republican alternative to the one recently passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee, his office said Thursday.

No details have been released, but the bill is expected to include tougher laws on straw purchases and illegal gun trafficking, efforts to increase school safety and keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

A new CBS News poll shows 47 percent of Americans now support tougher gun laws, compared to 57 percent after the December 2012 shooting massacre at a Connecticut elementary school in which 20 first-graders and six adults were killed.

President Obama, who said the day of the shootings was the worst so far of his two-term presidency, push back last week on criticism that Washington has missed its opportunity to pass reform legislation by allowing momentum to fade.

“Let me tell you, people here don’t forget,” said Obama, who will travel Wednesday to Denver to talk with community leaders and local law enforcement officials about new state gun laws. “I haven’t forgotten those kids. Shame on us if we’ve forgotten.”

Kelly also called the potential Grassley bill a “mistake” because it doesn’t include the background check and disagreed with the argument it will lead to a federal registry and possible gun confiscation.

However, he agreed with the argument that states a need to pass along to the federal government information about mentally ill people.

“They absolutely have a point,” Kelly told Fox.