The Democratic talking points have been issued and are being followed to the letter (see here and here). And they go like this: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is not a tax; it’s a penalty. Those who suggests it’s a tax are wrong, in error, disingenuous, and dissemblers.
Here’s the problem, though: characterizing the Affordable Care Act as a tax isn’t simply the interpretation of Chief Justice John Roberts and a majority of the Supreme Court; it’s the interpretation of the Obama administration.
As this story put it:
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the Court had a duty to uphold an act of Congress if there was a constitutional basis for doing so. And the basis he seized on was the fallback argument [Solicitor General Donald] Verrilli included in the briefs—that the Constitution gives Congress a broad power to impose taxes to “provide for the general welfare.”
The government’s legal brief said the insurance mandate operates in practice as a tax law. No one would be prosecuted or punished for not having insurance. If they had taxable income, however, they would be forced to pay a small tax penalty.
The chief justice agreed with this argument, and so did the four liberal justices. Though Congress may not “order” people to buy insurance, Roberts held in the 5-4 decision, it may impose a small tax on those who refuse.
The Affordable Care Act, then, was upheld as constitutional based on the tax argument put forward by President Obama’s legal team. And yet the Obama administration is now insisting the Affordable Care Act never was a tax, is not now a tax, and shall never be a tax.
This is yet another example of how Barack Obama is a thoroughly post-modern president. Words and facts have no objective standing; they are relative, socially constructed, a way to advance personal reality. If referring to the Affordable Care Act as a tax helps advance the Obama agenda, then it’s a tax. If referring to the ACA as a penalty helps advance the Obama agenda, it becomes a penalty.
You like tomato and I like tomahto.
That philosophy may be fine for liberal arts professors and even tolerable among community organizers. But when the president of the United States systematically assaults truth—if words mean whatever you want them to mean—it becomes rather more problematic. Yet that is precisely where the United States finds itself in the summer of 2012.
Add to the words which means anything all Obama's words that mean nothing. He is the empty suit messiah. Yet 53% of the voting public bought it. nIt is an ancient question how to have democracy yet avoid self-serving mob rule. Our founders designed a constitution to protect a flawed human species which hasn't earned protection. Now that that constitution is gone, we have a system designed to keep various voting blocs separate, scared and dependent. Do you feel dignified?
Unfortunately, about 53% of the public is still buying it and appears to be willing to buy it for the forseeable future. The fact that Obama, Congress, and now the Supreme Court are able to act in the way that they have, and most folks just don't really seem to care, is deplorable. It saddens and angers me to say this but we are getting the gov't we deserve…
We can only guess what precentage of Congressmen, Judges et al and punditry are giving Obama a pass about his first assault on the truth. Obama's SEALING under Executive Order ALL documents of his provenance. n nHow appropriate is Obama's story of his provenance based on his "word"? Word already proven to be flexible to fact and meaning. n nIn failing to insist, demand Obama produce unassailable evidence he is lawfully president of the USA. the door is opened to fundamental CHANGE to the law of the USA. Possibly inherently unlawful changes. n nThe question of Obama's provenance from birth deserves an answer supported on common and legal meanings of truth. Each time the questions of his provenance are raised, Obama's attack dogs and brown shirts in punditry and media are set loose to threaten the questioners and any who might consider their quesitons and demands legitimate. n nIs tthis America. Doesn't it matter the identity beyond a shadow of doubt who the President is? In ALL relevant particulars? WHO is Obama, from where does he come?
An empty suit messiah who passed health care reform, banking reform and credit card reform and caught Bin Laden.
I take it you are in the market for the Brooklyn Bridge. I'll have my agent call you.
So … aren't you going to list his positive accomplishments at some point? Wrecking various parts of the us economy isn't something positive. Just saying.
"Though Congress may not “order” people to buy insurance…it may impose a SMALL tax on those who refuse." n nThat is not correct; SCOTUS has ruled that Congress may impose A TAX on those who refuse, not a SMALL TAX – the size of the tax is up to Congress, who can make it large or small at their discretion. n nBut even this misses the larger point; SCOTUS has now established FOR ALL TIME a legal precedent that Congress has the power to compel citizens to purchase a private product. In effect they have stripped citizens of the right to dispose of their personal resources as they wish. In effect they've established the Fascist or National Socialist "principle" that private wealth and income is rightfully collective property, and can be allocated by the State AT WILL. n nDo we have a written constitution any longer? I think not.
take off your tin foil cap for a minute and get rid of the fear that congress is now going to mandate you eat broccoli or wear orange tennis shoes. In order to make health care affordable for all the risk has to be spread out among all. That is everyone individually taking responsibly for their own instead of passing their health bills onto the collective. Stop being so damn fearful of the government – if they pass the eat broccoli law and you don't like broccoli then just kick em out in 2 years!
Except that it's not going to be "spread out among all." The people who are getting all the bennies for free right now will continue to get them for free under this plan. These are the real "freeloaders" who will never pay into the system what they get out of it, and who are capsizing the country financially. The problem isn't that small minority of people who fall on the borderline … those are the middle-class FROM whom the taxes are primarily going to derive. The government wants that money to pay for the real freeloaders.
So when the CBO estimated the ACA will reduce the deficit 200 billion over the next 10 years then reduce it a further 1.1 trillion dollars from year 11-20 are they just lying? If you're so against the ACA what is your solution? The people that can't afford healthcare just don't get medical care and are left to die in the street? They need to be brought into the system so they aren't heading to the emergency room every time they have a cold. I'm tired of Vanderbilt hospital having 300 million in noncollectable bills every year. The mandate dictates those bills will now be collectible from private insurance and that reduces everyone's costs.
The forefathers were fearful of large overbearing governments. That is why we have our constitution which is now being trampled on. You go on in your happy unicorns and butterflies utopia dreamland all you want, but you will suddenly wake to the cold hard realization that you have no freedoms. The pigs are too busy eatting up the slop to realize there is a fence being built around them.
Congress has always had the taxing power to influence Americans to do whatever they want. n nIf you buy an electric car, you get a tax credit of $7,500. If you don't buy it, you pay $7,500 more in taxes than if you did buy it. n nA tax credit for doing X is equivalent to a tax penalty for not doing X. n nThe Framers of our Constitution limited a lot of the Government's powers–but not their taxing power. They figured that Americans (who had fought a revolution on "No Taxation Without Representation" less than 15 years prior) wouldn't accept being taxed to death. So they figured that was a sufficient constraint on Congress. n
YOu don't seem to understand do you? up to last Thursday, gov't did not have the power to FORCE you to purchase a private product lest you be penalized. It has always given us incentive to change our behavior like getting a tax credit as you describe, but we have never before been penalized for refusing to enter a market for a private product.
rightstant, YOU ARE WRONG! Congress does have the power to tax us on THINGS WE BUY, NOT THINGS WE DONT BUY! This is the difference. Since most of us have individual wants and desires, it calls for a broad base of entrepreneurship. Now the government has taken the first step in narrowing what we can do with our own money, wether we choose to or not!
Small the first year, then increasing to a big tax… on a family of 4 it could be about $2500 a year…. Thats not small.. n nI think we should insist our own states REFUSE ObamaTax….. n nWhat was Justice Roberts thinking? What was he afraid of?
This nightmare precedent must not stand. The only way is to ratify a clearly, briefly stated constitutional amendment forbidding passing any law which compels behavior. The court has ruled behavior can be compelled. We are no longer a free people.
I detest this decision, but Peter you are wrong. Obama's lawyers did what any lawyer would do: argue an alternative basis. They can legitimately say "It is valid under the Commerce Clause. But if you disagree, we could have passed it as a tax." Roberts bought that. Obama can honestly say "We never thought it was a tax, but argued that way just in case a majority did not agree with our Commerce Clause analysis. We actually agree with the Dissent on this point."
So the President's position is that his agents can say anything they want in a court of law, even if they know it's a crock, because the only thing that matters is if the judge or jury buys it. Hmm. Does he apply the same "integrity" to things he says on the campaign trail?
Clarifying that Obama has a systematic, proven “War on Reality” needs to be a strong, central theme among conservative pundits.
If the dissent had been accepted by Roberts then the law would have gone down. Period.. But yes, as they have liberal ideologues on the court they can continue to make the assertion that it falls under Commerce Clause but as to the tax-=-the dissent was the minority opinion–they are actually saying thanks for the decision but we don't recognize the Supreme Court's ruling at all. The level of disingenuous cynicism and contempt for democratic and legal norms is stunning.
Roberts and Obama are both wrong. Americans do not want to be TAXED during this recession.
But regardless of their argument, now, that the case has been decided, the box has been open and the status of Schrodinger's cat has been finalized. It IS a tax, whatever else they want to claim it to be. It has thus been defined in order to be constitutional. n n
I do not possess the skills to navigate Postmodernia. The net effect on me is total confusion, followed by frustration, a brief burst of outrage, then retreat. I do not know how to deal with the ‘depends on the meaning of is’ people or the ‘up means down, left means right, deficits mean profits’ people. I guess I'm more of a victorian type – preferring the serenity of squares, straight lines, 10 commandments, and two buttons: one for Yes, one for No.
You are confusing.
If I am confusing it's because I am confused. I meant to add emphasis to Pete Wehner's paragraph about Postmodernia: n n"This is yet another example of how Barack Obama is a thoroughly post-modern president. Words and facts have no objective standing; they are relative, socially constructed, a way to advance personal reality. If referring to the Affordable Care Act as a tax helps advance the Obama agenda, then it’s a tax. If referring to the ACA as a penalty helps advance the Obama agenda, it becomes a penalty."
Debating semantics is moot. For example, Romney called it a "fee" under Romneycare n nWhatever color you want to paint BO with, make sure you use the same shade for Romney too.
Is there a tax on redefining words?Like when a tax becomes a mandate and when a mandate becomes a penalty and when a penalty becomes a tax ?Call it the Orwell/Heisenberg tax on Humpty-Dumpty constitutionalism.Humpty-Dumpty told Alice"When I use a word,it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less".
Note his next comment. n n"The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' n'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.' nAlice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them — particularly verbs: they're the proudest — adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs — however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!' n nThe corruption of language is the opening to the substitution of naked power for public debate.
The problem is how it's all conveyed by the MSM: n n1) The Supreme Court upheld Obamacare n n2) REPUBLICANS are trying to call it a tax because they are meanies, but President Wonderful the First assures us that it is not a tax and that the Republicans are lying and obstructing like they always do.
Kieth: There was an error in your posting: "… but HRH Wonderful the First…" n nYou're welcome.
Good thing we have Facist News to tell us the "truth" huh!?! What would we ever do with out Glenn and Rush!?!
And the IRS collects fees?
Fortunately, Governor Romney, who loved the ACA before he hated it, always tells the truth. Always.
I have to disagree on this one. Obama DOES have a systematic assault on the truth, but this is not part of that assault. The penalty is NOT a "tax" within the meaning of Article I of the Constitution. A whole body of law has been developed by the courts to distinguish between Article I "taxes" and penalties. The penalty IS a penalty, and Roberts had no basis for transforming what Congress deliberately called a penalty, and which operates and functions as a penalty, into a "tax" just so he could avoid being criticized by liberal politicians, liberal academics, and liberals in the media. He has bought some very temporary favor with them, but it will evaporate with the next ruling that actually upholds the Constitution against the liberals on the Court who consistently vote to undermine the Constitution.
What Romney says, said, or will say has nothing to do with the fact that the Supreme Court by a majority said it IS a tax. Romney says an awful lot of things and may, despite his confidence in strategically planned campaigns turn out to be irrelevant.
Obama can outright lie over and over because he knows the mainstream media won't hold him to account. Part of the media like his reelection network NBC/MSNBC will actually cover up his lies, and create their lies by doctoring video tape to try and dirty his opponent. Obama can swear to the American people what he won't raise taxes on the middle class with Obamacare, than he can argue publicly to the Supreme Court that Obamacare's individual mandate was funded by taxes, then have the Supreme Court buy his arugument that it is a tax, only to turn around and insist publicy that it isn't the biggest middle class tax increase in history. If the American people really want to know the truth the best thing they can do is tune into FOX News. They will get both sides there, and tough question for both sides. The truth becomes Obvious. Unfortunately, they won't get it from television media anywhere where else and with print media they certainly won't get it from the NYT, LAT, or WP.
So what parts of Obama's campaign are equivalent to his SJ at the Supreme Court: I'm asserting it just to see if you buy it, but I know it's bull? nI'd say his support for public education. Teacher's union's demand genuflection for their millions but his own kids have never seen the inside of a public school. I would guess most liberals in Congress don't send their own kids to public schools; certainly not Wash DC public schools.
I live in MA. n nNearly half of Boston's public school teachers send their own children to private school.
That's a problem. Why in heavens name are school teachers making enough to afford private schools? Get your budget under control!
SCOTUS shut off the mis-use of the Commerce Clause. This is the Big Deal! n nAnd by defining the "penalty" as a tax (…if it walks like a duck, has feathers like a duck, has a beak like a duck, than it is a duck!) they threw the issue to the voters! Now, ObamaCare, with all its taxes, becomes part of the campaign, and a referendum to go along with the rest of Obama bin Lenin's dismal record…
not using the Commerce Clause to uphold in this case ain't anything at all like "shutting it off". that's merely you failing to understand. n nthe rest of your comment, of course, is much less enlightened.
Ok, how's this? n nShow me the Constitutional authority to assess penalties for failure to do something. Actually, you can't, because there isn't one. There IS, however, a Constitutional authority to levy TAXES. That is the authority under which they may assess monies, no matter what they call them, upon the people. The name you put upon it is irrelevant. If it is assessed under the auspices of the taxing authority, it *might as well be* a tax. I don't care if they call it an exorcism, it's still a tax, because the government told me to pay it FOR SOME REASON. n nGargling marbles to keep from admitting it's a tax doesn't change its nature. Call the poodle a cat. It still barks. And if they keep insisting that it isn't a tax, fine. They can have their way as far as I'm concerned…because if it isn't a tax, it's not constitutional AT ALL, because that's all that made it constitutional in the first place. Take that away, and it devolves back upon the commerce clause argument, which was rejected as unconstitutional, and it fails. So let them say it isn't a tax. And overturn the sucker.
that doesn't work jenny. it's up to you to show that the Constitution forbids that authority to the Congress. n nas the Court just disagreed with you, don't try holding your breath while you look for that prohibition.
No,Roberts specifically rejected that argument and made Congress taxing power the sole basis for the legitimacy of the ACA. The Constitution enumerates the powers the federal government has and taxing inactivity is not one of them even under the Commerce Clause. If you cannot accept that then you are spitting in the very eye of the opinion that allowed the ACA to remain alive today for better or worse. The fact that Obama acolytes cannot accept the tax language is just delicious irony regarding his biggest “achievement”.
"This is yet another example of how Barack Obama is a thoroughly post-modern president. Words and facts have no objective standing; they are relative, socially constructed, a way to advance personal reality." n nObama may be post modern, but the description you have given also fits a clinical psychopath: dishonest, devious, grandiose, like Bernie Madoff and Rod Blagojevich.
nvkma — I'm stunned no one has picked up the examiner story. Protesters driven off by Obama goons (secret service) because they dared to protest against Holder???????
If Obama's post modernism shows in his calling a penalty a tax and then a penalty when it suits him, . then the law is no less post modern in calling a tax a penalty a tax a penalty when it suits it. For AntI Injunction Act purposes the tax was a penalty. For upholding legislation purposes the penalty was a tax. For the former labeling was significant. For the latter, upholding legislation purposes, labeling was immaterial. An accurate way of understanding the point is this: the charge for no insurance is a penalty because that's what the act calls it; but for upholding legislation the issue is not what precisely and objectively is the charge; the issue is what can it be fairly read to be that validates the ACA. That's not that hard an idea for anyone who can intellectually walk and chew gum at the same time. This explanation is not an assessment of the merits of the statute or of the SCOTUS decision. It's simply an attempt to refute the conflation between signifying objective reality and the law's exercise in deeming and functional analysis when that's called for. That conflation is evident in Wehner's original post.
The Democrats are liars.
Actually … what ROmney said is that he agrees with the dissent – it was not a tax and was not passed as a tax and is wholly unconstitutional and should have been thrown out in toto – but now that it has been declared constitutional as a tax it is in effect a tax. n nReally, you need to keep up with the news rather than just stopping at whatever point supports your prejudices.