Little-Acorn
02-15-2012, 02:15 PM
It's always been hard to be a liberal in this day and age.
Most Americans don't want tax increases. So when the Obamacare bill was first written, the fact that people would have to pay the govt more money if they didn't sign up, was phrased as a "fine" or "penalty", not a tax. In dozens of places throughout the bill, the words "fine" and "penalty" are used to describe this mandated payment, but the word "tax" seldom if ever appears. And Obama swore up and down that nobody making less than $250K would get an increase in their taxes... and that this Obamacare fine was not a tax.
Then when Obamacare was taken to court, the Obamanites swore up and down that the money people had to pay if they didn't sign up was constitutional... because it WAS a tax. And the Constitution gives the government the power to tax.
The Obamacare case will go before the Supreme Court soon for its final, titanic battle. And the Obama forces are repeating their argument again and again, that the mandated payment is definitely a tax.
So today, some Obama admin high official was getting grilled over whether Obama had broken his campaign pledge that people under $250K income wouldn't have their taxes increased. He came out and said flatly that the mandated payments are NOT a tax.
These people really have to get their stories straight.
Look forward to the lawyers opposing Obamacare before the Supremes, pointing out that even Obama's own Director of the OMB says that the fines and penalties are NOT a tax... and so the mandate that all of Obamacare depends on, is unconstitutional.
I almost feel sorry for these poor poseurs and clowns, who want so desperately to have it both ways. It's REALLY tough to be a liberal these days... because you just can't get away with lying any more.
-------------------------------------------------------
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/omb-director-undercuts-legal-case-obamacare/376561
OMB director undercuts legal case for Obamacare
by Philip Klein
Senior Editorial Writer
February 15, 2012 11:27am
Testifying before Congress this morning, President Obama's acting budget director Jeffrey Zients directly undercut one of the administration's key legal defenses of its national health care law as it nears a hearing before the Supreme Court.
In a hearing of the House Budget Committee Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J., pressed Zients on whether the penalty that the health care law imposes on individuals who do not purchase health insurance constitutes a tax. Eventually, Zients said it did not.
But this directly contradicts one of the arguments the Obama administration is making before the Supreme Court in defense of the health care law, which is that the mandate is Constitutional because it's a tax and government has taxing power.
This has always been a tricky argument for the Obama administration, because admitting that the mandate is a tax means that Obama violated his pledge not to raise taxes on those earning less than $250,000. In September 2009, Obama told ABC's George Stephanapoulos that the mandate was not a tax. But by the following June, his administration was arguing in court that it was.
Now the administration is making both arguments simultaneously. Before Congress, Zients is arguing that it is not a tax. But before the Supreme Court next month, the administration will argue that it is, in fact, a tax.
"The practical operation of the minimum coverage provision is as a tax law," reads the administration's Supreme Court brief filed last month. "It is fully integrated into the tax system, will raise substantial revenue, and triggers only tax consequences for non-compliance."
Most Americans don't want tax increases. So when the Obamacare bill was first written, the fact that people would have to pay the govt more money if they didn't sign up, was phrased as a "fine" or "penalty", not a tax. In dozens of places throughout the bill, the words "fine" and "penalty" are used to describe this mandated payment, but the word "tax" seldom if ever appears. And Obama swore up and down that nobody making less than $250K would get an increase in their taxes... and that this Obamacare fine was not a tax.
Then when Obamacare was taken to court, the Obamanites swore up and down that the money people had to pay if they didn't sign up was constitutional... because it WAS a tax. And the Constitution gives the government the power to tax.
The Obamacare case will go before the Supreme Court soon for its final, titanic battle. And the Obama forces are repeating their argument again and again, that the mandated payment is definitely a tax.
So today, some Obama admin high official was getting grilled over whether Obama had broken his campaign pledge that people under $250K income wouldn't have their taxes increased. He came out and said flatly that the mandated payments are NOT a tax.
These people really have to get their stories straight.
Look forward to the lawyers opposing Obamacare before the Supremes, pointing out that even Obama's own Director of the OMB says that the fines and penalties are NOT a tax... and so the mandate that all of Obamacare depends on, is unconstitutional.
I almost feel sorry for these poor poseurs and clowns, who want so desperately to have it both ways. It's REALLY tough to be a liberal these days... because you just can't get away with lying any more.
-------------------------------------------------------
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/omb-director-undercuts-legal-case-obamacare/376561
OMB director undercuts legal case for Obamacare
by Philip Klein
Senior Editorial Writer
February 15, 2012 11:27am
Testifying before Congress this morning, President Obama's acting budget director Jeffrey Zients directly undercut one of the administration's key legal defenses of its national health care law as it nears a hearing before the Supreme Court.
In a hearing of the House Budget Committee Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J., pressed Zients on whether the penalty that the health care law imposes on individuals who do not purchase health insurance constitutes a tax. Eventually, Zients said it did not.
But this directly contradicts one of the arguments the Obama administration is making before the Supreme Court in defense of the health care law, which is that the mandate is Constitutional because it's a tax and government has taxing power.
This has always been a tricky argument for the Obama administration, because admitting that the mandate is a tax means that Obama violated his pledge not to raise taxes on those earning less than $250,000. In September 2009, Obama told ABC's George Stephanapoulos that the mandate was not a tax. But by the following June, his administration was arguing in court that it was.
Now the administration is making both arguments simultaneously. Before Congress, Zients is arguing that it is not a tax. But before the Supreme Court next month, the administration will argue that it is, in fact, a tax.
"The practical operation of the minimum coverage provision is as a tax law," reads the administration's Supreme Court brief filed last month. "It is fully integrated into the tax system, will raise substantial revenue, and triggers only tax consequences for non-compliance."