White House delays employer mandate until 2015 - Is this a Political Move? (Political Appeal)

Did the White House intentionally delay the employer mandate until after mid-term elections of 2014?

Or, was it simply an answer to business owners "concerns about the complexity of the requirements and the need for more time to implement them effectively" as stated by Mark Mazur, Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy?

One would think that with such a major change in policy, the author of the ACA (Affordable Care Act) would have called a press conference or at least released a statement. Instead, the chosen method of notification was via a U.S. Treasury blog post on a Tuesday night. 

Why such minimal attention to a major policy change? The link to the video below illustrates how it might even be unconstitutional to not enforce a law that is already on the books without a proper amendment to that law. 

The area of focus for this artifact starts around 4m:50s until 5m:30s. The text is also displayed below: 

BILL O'REILLY: Do you think it's unconstitutional for the president to take an existing law that he signed and say we're not going to force part of that law, the employer mandate. Is that unconstitutional?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Of course it's unconstitutional. The constitution says the executive has to faithfully execute the laws and here it is faithfully ignoring a law it doesn't like in the same way it wantonly passed the DREAM Act unilaterally, an act that the Congress had rejected. It is absolutely lawless in the things it does. This is only the latest example. (The O'Reilly Factor, July 9, 2013)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/07/09/krauthammer_obama_ignoring_parts_of_obamacare_unconstitutional_absolutely_lawless.html

No matter whether it is unconstitutional or not, there is an underlying reason as to why this significant change to the law was not done by Obama himself. He wanted it to be a subtle release by the Treasury in order to distance himself in the event any negativity built. 

One explanation is to create a delay for the biggest entitlement program in human history until both sides of Congress give you a pass to overcome the gridlock and filibusters that currently hinder his (Obama) ability to create a more progressive government. It isn't until after the 2014 elections that Obama would have full reign during the last two years of his presidency and therefore continue to leave his lasting legacy of entitlements. 

Take time to seriously consider why the mandate was delayed. Is this a Political Move?