NYT: Obama WH will argue ObamaCare mandate is a tax
posted at 12:30 pm on July 18, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
This must have been the Friday night news dump from the White House, but if so, it’s rather stale. The New York Times reports that the Obama administration will defend the ObamaCare mandates as part of its power to tax, despite Barack Obama’s contentious debate with George Stephanopoulos when Obama denied it was a tax at all:
When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”
And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.
Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations.
This qualified as breaking news … three months ago, when the Wall Street Journal first reported that Congress had attempted to quietly create a platform for such an argument. Randy Barnett argued at the time that it wouldn’t work:
This shift won’t work. The Supreme Court will not allow staffers and lawyers to change the statutory cards that Congress already dealt when it adopted the Senate language.
In the 1920s, when Congress wanted to prohibit activity that was then deemed to be solely within the police power of states, it tried to penalize the activity using its tax power. In Bailey v. Drexel Furniture (1922) the Supreme Court struck down such a penalty saying, “there comes a time in the extension of the penalizing features of the so-called tax when it loses its character as such and becomes a mere penalty with the characteristics of regulation and punishment.”
That is exactly what the mandates do — regulate individual behavior in an area where the federal government has no jurisdiction and punish those who don’t exhibit favored choices, in this case buying comprehensive health insurance regardless of whether it makes sense for anyone. This court will almost certainly take a dim view of the same attempt that the 1922 court struck down as a gross overreach by the government.
But just for fun, let’s look once again at the President insisting that the mandate couldn’t possibly be tax:
Oops! Sorry, wrong clip. Here it is:
OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase.
People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy…
OBAMA: No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase. Any…
STEPHANOPOULOS: Here’s the…
OBAMA: What — what — if I — if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that’s not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don’t want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then…
STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”
OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition.
How much do you want to bet that at least one of the Supreme Court justices quotes Obama in that last sentence to challenge the White House defense of the mandates?









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Shameless liars.
MikeknaJ on July 18, 2010 at 12:33 PM
Put Obama on the witness stand and make him answer the favorite question of the litigator: “were you lying then, or are you lying now?”
Selkirk on July 18, 2010 at 12:34 PM
I’m so surprised.
Not.
trigon on July 18, 2010 at 12:35 PM
Yet another expiration date.
Cindy Munford on July 18, 2010 at 12:35 PM
This is certainly “unexpected.”
sandee on July 18, 2010 at 12:36 PM
666
tommyboy on July 18, 2010 at 12:36 PM
Liar caught in a lie again.
AUINSC on July 18, 2010 at 12:38 PM
Ummm, where was this when they started upping tobacco taxes? The “taxes” now exceed the entire retail cost of the item and were explicitly sold as penalties for smokers because they drive up health care costs. Isn’t there some enterprising, chain smoking, attorney out there?
Rocks on July 18, 2010 at 12:38 PM
Crazy thing…….I am reminded of a few quotes from Lenin….
The mandate (tax) is the gun.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 18, 2010 at 12:38 PM
I go with scalia..:..
Will kagan refuse herself?
cmsinaz on July 18, 2010 at 12:38 PM
Refuse should be recuse
cmsinaz on July 18, 2010 at 12:39 PM
No surprises here. obama is the tax we’re all paying for letting the illiterate vote.
abobo on July 18, 2010 at 12:41 PM
Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2) [exceptions to hearsay rule]. I’d say Obama’s statement is an admission by a party-opponent. Hope the states move quickly to respond and include this in a Reply Memorandum.
Wethal on July 18, 2010 at 12:42 PM
Well ya know Barry was lying. His lips were moving.
GarandFan on July 18, 2010 at 12:43 PM
Are we sure TOTUS wasn’t in the room?
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 18, 2010 at 12:45 PM
No, that’s unconstitutional because it turns the Health Care Reform “fees” into a de-facto sales tax. They tried this stunt back in Clinton’s day by forcing the phone companies to collect a “fee” for rural internet service. The phone companies rightly listed it as a separate fee and the congress had to rescind the tax because they were in violation of the law. (They later re-issued the fee via a regulatory collection and forced the phone companies to include it as the cost of doing business so it’s not broken out as a separate item on the bill)
(Also if they get it declared a tax than the IRS can fully enforce it AS a tax via other laws which bypass the legislation)
They do not have the authority to force people to buy a product and they do not have the authority to issue a federal sales tax.
This government is in violation of the US Constitution.
Skywise on July 18, 2010 at 12:45 PM
He lied again. I’m shocked, I tell you. Shocked.
kingsjester on July 18, 2010 at 12:48 PM
I guess we all make more than $250,000 now.
NeoKong on July 18, 2010 at 12:49 PM
Don’t stay depressed
J_Crater on July 18, 2010 at 12:49 PM
Daddy, will you be signing up for ObamaCare?
petefrt on July 18, 2010 at 12:50 PM
Ah yes but remember, folks. The US Constitution is a “living and breathing” document so it means whatever the Democrats want it to mean nowadays…
Fuzzlenutter on July 18, 2010 at 12:50 PM
AIG bonuses taxed at 90%, tax or punishment?
Electrongod on July 18, 2010 at 12:53 PM
RBMN on July 18, 2010 at 12:53 PM
Bill Clinton: “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is‘ is.”
Barack Obama: “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘tax‘ is.”
pilamaye on July 18, 2010 at 12:55 PM
My ole southern ma taught me that if I ignored my teeth they woud go away.
If we ignore the NYT, will it go away?
IlikedAUH2O on July 18, 2010 at 12:57 PM
So now Obama Admin is arguing the mandate s a TAX!
That Arizona cannot enforce Federal Laws to protect their citizens.
In San Francisco you cannot get a sugar loaded soft drink from city vending machines to protect children BUT they will fight tooth and nail toi keep pot dispensaries on evry corner.
We have absolutely lost our minds in this country!
bluemarlin on July 18, 2010 at 12:58 PM
I bet a few on the SC are just rubbing their hands in anticipation of this argument.
gophergirl on July 18, 2010 at 12:58 PM
heh I can see Scalia doing that :)
aikidoka on July 18, 2010 at 1:00 PM
Yup. $250,000 is rather subjective these days.
BowHuntingTexas on July 18, 2010 at 1:01 PM
What? ..Well, after all the promises and assurances earlier given I SURE didnt see this one coming. Or this one, Or this one, or…well you get the picture. Shocking, does the President know they are trying to pull this tax nonsense behind his back and make him look the fool?
Koa on July 18, 2010 at 1:01 PM
*sigh
ladyingray on July 18, 2010 at 1:01 PM
Daddy, if I get sick, am I too young to qualify for ObamaCare? If gandma gets sick, is she too old?
petefrt on July 18, 2010 at 1:02 PM
Socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
fogw on July 18, 2010 at 1:03 PM
I have never seen a bunch of politicians with such disregard for the citizens of the country. “The end justifies the means” is the policy which defines the Obama administration….as it does all radical leftists.
Anyone still supporting this man should be ashamed of themselves. Being uninformed is no longer a valid excuse….
alecj on July 18, 2010 at 1:04 PM
Doesn’t the lawyers code of ethics forbid arguing in court something the lawyer knows to be false? Here’s the money bit from Rule 4.1 the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct:
‘
I’m not a lawyer, so maybe one of the lawyers out there could enlighten us, but it appears that Barry & Co will be asking their lawyers to argue falsehoods in court. We have videos of Obama, Biden and other Dems clearly arguing its not a tax, we have the legislative language that makes no mention of the term ‘tax’… I guess they could argue they were “exaggerating the case” to pass the bill, but the legislative language would appear to completely refute that claim, no? And that admission sure would make a mighty nice campaign ad or two in 2012…
rcpjr on July 18, 2010 at 1:06 PM
NYT left out of the article that Congress actually inserted language in Obamacare that it was NOT a tax in the portion of the statute pertaining to the purpose of law. SCOTUS will use legislative intent in it’s interpretation of the law.
txmomof6 on July 18, 2010 at 1:07 PM
I wonder whether the game Obama is playing here with Georgie is that most media outlets use Webster’s New World Dictionary–not Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate (now in its 13th ed.)–as their dictionary of choice for definitions.
BuckeyeSam on July 18, 2010 at 1:10 PM
KP is on TV
Allah u watching ?
macncheez on July 18, 2010 at 1:13 PM
The Constitution is just a piece of paper in the democrat outhouse.
Dhuka on July 18, 2010 at 1:13 PM
And the media laps it up
ohiobabe on July 18, 2010 at 1:14 PM
If I didn’t know any better, if there is a better argument for the principles underlying the Tea Party movement and the rage that’s fueling it, I’d like to know what it is.
BuckeyeSam on July 18, 2010 at 1:14 PM
When needed to sell the program: It is not a tax
When needed to sell it to the SCOTUS it is a tax
Hey people that make under 250k or whatever the number is today you’re getting a new tax.
CWforFreedom on July 18, 2010 at 1:16 PM
Well, putting it under the “care” of the IRS should have been a clue.
UnderstandingisPower on July 18, 2010 at 1:16 PM
I’m willing to bet all 5 of the justices that find it unconstitutional will quote the President’s words at some point during the arguments and/or decision.
ButterflyDragon on July 18, 2010 at 1:21 PM
I take this as the Administrations admission that they know they can’t hang their argument on the Commerce Clause after all.
Patrick S on July 18, 2010 at 1:22 PM
They did this all throughout the health care bill and the financial bill and soon the cap and trade bill. They’ll say whatever they want whenever they want to get their way.
And then when they DO get their way, like when the Health Care (so-called) reform law caused insurance companies to raise their rates in accordance WITH the law, they turned around and lied and said that’s not what the law said and tried to punish the companies for doing so and then said they wouldn’t enforce that part of the law because it was misinterpreted.
This is INSANITY. If the laws don’t mean what they say when we present them for voting in the congress, if the laws don’t mean what they say after reconciling by congress, if the laws don’t mean what they say AFTER THEY’VE BEEN ENCODED INTO LAW, then the laws are MEANINGLESS. You no longer have checks or balances, you no longer have a Republic… you have a DICTATORSHIP! (Actions by dictate… or “Actions by whatever I say they are”)
We have been couped.
Skywise on July 18, 2010 at 1:23 PM
But what will the wise latina say ?
macncheez on July 18, 2010 at 1:23 PM
“Will argue”? What’s to argue? It is a tax (and unconstitutional).
SouthernGent on July 18, 2010 at 1:24 PM
Now that Obama & Co. are conceding that they regard the Obamacare mandate as a tax, maybe the Tea Party should change its name to the Tongue Depressor Party and maybe they should hold a huge tongue depressor protest before the November mid-terms.
Obamacare: the prostrate exam for American taxpayers.
Turn you head and cough.
BuckeyeSam on July 18, 2010 at 1:24 PM
I go with scalia..:..
Will kagan refuse herself?
cmsinaz on July 18, 2010 at 12:38 PM
heh I can see Scalia doing that :)
aikidoka on July 18, 2010 at 1:00 PM
Makes me wish they allowed cameras/video of SCOTUS proceedings. I’ve never ordered pay-per-view for anything, but I’d pay to watch this.
Archimedes on July 18, 2010 at 1:25 PM
Yes, they’re using this tax argument because they’re clearly desperate, but the language of the legislation itself flatly contradicts their argument.
Ironically, the greatest legislative “achievement” of Mr. “Constitutional Scholar” President isn’t going to survive review by the SCOTUS — and that’s “a big f—ing deal,” to quote a well-known moron.
AZCoyote on July 18, 2010 at 1:28 PM
The Constitution requires that “all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives”.
Didn’t this bill originate in the Senate? If so, it can’t be a tax.
BillyRuffn on July 18, 2010 at 1:30 PM
It’s what they did without telling the people under FDR. And that is why the Social Security trust fund is used to thios day to pay off general debt, and the so-called trust fund is empty.
So now health insurance companies collect taxes?
LAIRS one and all.
tarpon on July 18, 2010 at 1:30 PM
I have acquaintances who take every opportunity to let those around them know that they are NYT readers, exuding a certain would-be intellectual smug with their pronouncements. They’re little old ladies who are otherwise pleasant, so I never have the heart to let on to their parochialism or their lack of knowledge of current events or politics. Did I mention that they love the Prez?
obladioblada on July 18, 2010 at 1:30 PM
“Stand up Chuck!”
“oh wait!”
VegasRick on July 18, 2010 at 1:30 PM
I just can’t stand those nose-in-the-air photos.
MainelyRight on July 18, 2010 at 1:32 PM
Please tell me that in 2012 the Pub candidate will have a commercial with him saying that bit about taxes not going up for anybody making under 250k.
Dave_d on July 18, 2010 at 1:32 PM
Now, where is crr6, and all the others, to defend Obama on this? I can’t tell you how many times, assurances came from those who support Obama, that he would NEVER do this to the middle class…and now….here we are.
Defend this!!! If you can! Because from my viewpoint…you’re nothing more than an enabler of the liar.
capejasmine on July 18, 2010 at 1:35 PM
JEBUS
Obama is a JOKE
roflmao
donabernathy on July 18, 2010 at 1:42 PM
The Dept. of Justice is right that Obama’s statements – and even “findings” in the statute justifying the individual mandate as a regulation of interstate commerce – are irrelevant to the argument as to whether the mandate is within the Congress’ Taxing power.
But the fact remains the individual mandate isn’t within Congress’ Taxing power.
Here’s a site with the health lawsuit complaints and the US motions to dismiss.
And – from that site – here’s the one of the US motions dismiss arguing that the individual mandate is within Congress’ taxing power.
BCrago66 on July 18, 2010 at 1:48 PM
I just can’t stand those nose-in-the-air photos.
MainelyRight on July 18, 2010 at 1:32 PM
But doesn’t the photo say it all?
mobydutch on July 18, 2010 at 1:50 PM
When someone sells you a concrete driveway and they use something other than concrete it’s call fraud.
BowHuntingTexas on July 18, 2010 at 1:52 PM
Yes it does say it all
macncheez on July 18, 2010 at 1:53 PM
Funny, this is exactly what FDR did with social security.
Said it wasn’t a tax yet when it went to court his attorney’s argued that it was a tax therefore constitutional.
darwin on July 18, 2010 at 1:54 PM
Yes it does say it all
macncheez on July 18, 2010 at 1:53 PM
That looks good enough to slap from here to Kenya.
mobydutch on July 18, 2010 at 1:57 PM
Speaking of taxes….how about the indirect taxes banks will have to pay due to the finreg bill? Already BofA says it will charge $9 for checking accounts.
Thanks again 53%
angryed on July 18, 2010 at 1:58 PM
Like a rock rolling down hill, small firms are canceling health insurance coverage.
Skandia Recluse on July 18, 2010 at 2:01 PM
Right! And Nancy Pelosi said that we needed to pass the bill to find out what is in it…”in order to get away from the fog of misinformation” out there.
The fog machines were working overtime among the Dems and ObaMao in spite of every effort by those opposed to ObaMaoCare to clear the air.
This law was passed through deceit and bribery.
onlineanalyst on July 18, 2010 at 2:01 PM
So, does this mean they can throw people in jail if they don’t pay up?
Blake on July 18, 2010 at 2:01 PM
It’s a breath mint. No, it’s a candy mint. It’s two mints in one!
Dandapani on July 18, 2010 at 2:04 PM
I can’t stand the nose in the air either. The ones of this bho with the middle finger on the face are really bad also.
L
letget on July 18, 2010 at 2:04 PM
Bill of Attainder
They don’t give a damn about the Constitution, if they can get away with it, you’re toast.
Taxation based on whether you can defend yourself. If you’re unpopular or politically weak, you pay more.
Merovign on July 18, 2010 at 2:05 PM
Cindy Munford I didn’t think I ever might disagree with you. I’ll explain. If this was his intention all along, to bare-face lie about what the legislation mandated to the individual, there was no expiration date. To me, his enablers in the media just let him hide the facts from the gullible for quite an extended period of time. To me, his administration lied.
Okay, maybe we’re not really disagreeing; you’re just nicer than me and won’t outright call it a lie.
hawkdriver on July 18, 2010 at 2:06 PM
That’s what I understand. And people right here on this site have stated in no uncertain terms that they’d turn fellow citizens in if they didn’t (pay up).
hawkdriver on July 18, 2010 at 2:09 PM
That’s a success for liberals.
Every person that is dropped by private coverage in favor of public coverage is a Democrat voter for life. Obamacare was designed to do precisely this. By 2015 no more private health insurance.
angryed on July 18, 2010 at 2:10 PM
All taxes are taxes on people. Democrats are people who are dumb enough to think that you can tax “business” and the cost won’t get passed on to customers. Like businesses get their money from the Money Fairy.
Those who are perpetually shocked that “they keep taxing business and yet prices keep going up!” That’s a big chunk of your 52%.
Makes ya want to cry.
Merovign on July 18, 2010 at 2:11 PM
This is your ad for 2010 and 2012.
El_Terrible on July 18, 2010 at 2:19 PM
As a matter of fact, I wonder why he isn’t here defending the administration.
hawkdriver on July 18, 2010 at 2:21 PM
Roman Moronie will read my prepared statement to the White House.
Inanemergencydial on July 18, 2010 at 2:22 PM
That’s more like it.
JohnGalt23 on July 18, 2010 at 2:27 PM
A bigger liar/deceiver the world has never experienced.
Muenchhausen and Pinocchio are indignant, again.
Such hubris must and will be punished.
Schadenfreude on July 18, 2010 at 2:44 PM
Modify his bumper stickers with “Poop ‘n Change”.
Schadenfreude on July 18, 2010 at 2:46 PM
What an absolutely clueless presidency.
They think they can piss on our leg and tell us it’s raining.
HondaV65 on July 18, 2010 at 2:50 PM
OooKyDoooKey.
What’s next, a tax if I don’t buy a GM car so some in the GM unions get paid for sitting in rubber rooms and retiring at fifty something with full benefits and guaranteed income for life?
Oh, wait, that’s probably already the way it is, isn’t it?
drfredc on July 18, 2010 at 2:50 PM
Here’s a good piece against this idea.
lorien1973 on July 18, 2010 at 2:54 PM
YOU LIE!!
bitsy on July 18, 2010 at 3:23 PM
According to an interview I heard on Bill Bennett’s show with Rick Santorum, the Obamacare bill had a lot of areas of regulation that were going to be determined by HHS. Hard to believe that a 2700 + page bill wouldn’t be comprehensive but it does make the recess appointment of Dr. Berwick even more suspicious.
Cindy Munford on July 18, 2010 at 3:30 PM
I don’t know about nicer but we are definitely saying the same thing. Mr. Obama doesn’t know a moments hesitation about lying to fool the people and move his agenda.
Cindy Munford on July 18, 2010 at 3:32 PM
Ayuh.
MainelyRight on July 18, 2010 at 3:36 PM
I would cheer if we did this- call him up to the stand and expose his lying self to the world.
journeyintothewhirlwind on July 18, 2010 at 3:37 PM
tick tick tick
notagool on July 18, 2010 at 3:44 PM
“How much do you want to bet that at least one of the Supreme Court justices quotes Obama in that last sentence to challenge the White House defense of the mandates?”
… My bet is on Justice Scalia.
twannamaker on July 18, 2010 at 3:45 PM
Why doesn’t the NYT allow comments on every article?
byepartisan on July 18, 2010 at 4:06 PM
Change.
Johnson on July 18, 2010 at 4:13 PM
So the law itself says one thing, but the government is going to argue something else to SCOTUS? We truly have clowns in charge, don’t we?
What I would like to know is how these people justify calling something a tax when it doesn’t generate revenue for the federal government? The penalty might generate revenue, but what if most people decide to follow the law and actually purchase insurance (as I imagine those who can afford to do so, will)? They’re not contributing to the federal coffers; this will be wealth transfer from a private individual to a private company. Also, the fact that presumably no will be additionally penalized for not paying the penalty does not really lend credence to the assertion that its a tax. If I took the same position with respect to paying my income tax, I would be hit with penalties, interest, liens on my property, and — if my behavior met the right threshold — jail time.
Until the government starts insisting on a single-payer plan that it will administer itself, I have a hard time seeing how the mandate meets the definition of a tax. Is there some other mandate I’m overlooking that would be on point as a precedent?
BTW, put me down as well for predicting Scalia will be the one to throw Obama’s words back in his face. And he will do it with his usual biting wit as well.
NoLeftTurn on July 18, 2010 at 4:18 PM
I suppose when the “public option” gulags open, the statist will argue that they are a tax as well.
So this is how Liberty dies. By semantic chicanery. Sad.
DeathB4Tyranny on July 18, 2010 at 4:21 PM
Transitional
1 a : passage from one state, stage, subject, or place to another : change b : a movement, development, or evolution from one form, stage, or style to another
Chip on July 18, 2010 at 4:54 PM
Liberals spent eight years prepping us for this by calling Bush a liar over everything, even uncontroversial stuff.
Now the word liar means nothing, and they can do it with impunity.
scotash on July 18, 2010 at 5:06 PM
The same thing with the word ‘Racist’
(Oh, it’s probably Racist to point that out)
Chip on July 18, 2010 at 5:22 PM
One other thing, to quote a famous statist from the past:
Chip on July 18, 2010 at 5:26 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »