A Modest Proposal

posted at 8:41 am on June 29, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Now that the Roberts Court has affirmed that the government has the power to mandate purchases of private goods and services as long as it’s structured as a tax, I propose that we put this new-found authority in the service of an explicit Constitutional right.  For far too long, too many Americans have suffered from an inequal distribution of firearms, despite the Second Amendment’s express exhortation to “keep and bear arms,” in large part because income inequality in this nation has kept the poor and working classes from having the proper protection for themselves and their loved ones.  We need to end this disparity now by applying the ObamaCare model immediately.

First, the government needs to issue a mandate that all households must own at least one firearm. We will need a federal agency to ensure that people aren’t just buying cheap BB guns or .22 pistols, even though that may be all they need or want.  It has to be 9mm or above, with .44 magnums getting a one-time tax credit on their own.  Let’s pick an agency known for its aptitude on firearms and home protection to issue required annual certifications each year, without which the government will have to levy hefty fines.  Which agency would do the best job?  Hmmmm … I know!  How about TSA?  With their track record of excellence, we should have no problems implementing this mandate.

Don’t want to own a gun?  Hey, no worries.  Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts says citizens have the right to refuse to comply with mandates.  The government will just seize some of your cash in fines, that’s all.  Isn’t choice great?  Those fines will go toward federal credits that will fund firearm purchases for the less well off, so that they can protect their homes as adequately as those who can afford guns on their own.  Since they generally live in neighborhoods where police response is appreciably worse than their higher-earning fellow Americans, they need them more anyway.  Besides — gun ownership is actually mentioned in the Constitution, unlike health care, which isn’t.  Obviously, that means that the federal government should be funding gun ownership.

Now, I’m not naive; this kind of mandate system will be difficult to get through Congress.  Even gun manufacturers might have some reservations about forcing everyone to buy their product, especially since we’ll also be imposing massive price controls on their products.  Only 7% of their revenues can be spent on administrative costs and “profit,” whatever we decide that means.  How else to make sure that we keep prices fair?  We have an ace in the hole, though. We plan to get the ammunition industry on our side, running a $200 million ad campaign on behalf of the bill.  They stand to make billions in the huge increase of target practice — which gun ranges will have to provide for free on at least one occasion a year per person, and for which the government will cover the range costs at, say, $5 per hour.  (That’s a loss for gun ranges, but they’ll make it up in volume.)

We need to act now.  Too many poor and working-class families face injury and death from lack of self-protection in areas of high rates of violent crime, so if you oppose this, you must hate the poor and hope they die.  Since no one does that, we should expect to see everyone celebrating this effort to realize the vision of our Founders, which was obviously a top-down federal government that can order its citizens to do anything it wants.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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 3

Very well done, Ed!

itsnotaboutme on June 29, 2012 at 11:09 AM

What’s really NOT funny is that Republicans are going off the deep end because the Supreme Court wants to make sure people with pre-existing health problems can get affordable health insurance.

bifidis on June 29, 2012 at 10:44 AM

What an ignorant comment! The Supreme Court is not Santa Claus. The Supreme Court Justices did not sit around looking at Obamatax with the intent to ensure deadbeats could get health insurance. They did not even ponder if afforable healthcare was a right or not.

They reviewed the Constitutionality of the law and found it lacking on the grounds that the administration was selling it but did uphold it on the Congressional authority to tax. This has nothing to do with health insurance for those pre-existing conditions.

Happy Nomad on June 29, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Instead we get this invitation to masturbation.

rayra on June 29, 2012 at 9:13 AM

..when you get such invites, do you bring your own jar of Vaseline or do you share?

The War Planner on June 29, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Those get together s are called “liberal/demoRAT think tanks”

ARIZONAVETERAN on June 29, 2012 at 11:10 AM

… because they lack affordable health insurance, dum-dum.

bifidis on June 29, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Bull! They’ve got obamacare/tax to take care of them from womb to tomb.

Peace and harmony reign throughout the land. Just ride that little unicorn down to the local unionized doctor’s office…………and wait…and wait…and wait……………………

Solaratov on June 29, 2012 at 11:14 AM

What’s really NOT funny is that Republicans are going off the deep end because the Supreme Court wants to make sure people with pre-existing health problems can get affordable health insurance.

bifidis on June 29, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Two things. First, the Supreme Court does not endorse or otherwise make value judgments on the cases it considers. Bad law or good, they are only concerned with the constitutionality of it.

Second, you don’t understand the term “insurance”. Insurance is money you pay against a need you don’t have to mitigate the risk of that need coming up during the insured period. A health insurance company giving coverage to a sick person is like an auto insurance company giving coverage to someone with a wrecked car. That’s not insurance. That’s charity. And the only way a business can afford to give one customer charity is by charging other customers more to cover it. You want me to pay for your healthcare. I get that. I want you to pay my mortgage. I think both demands weigh equally.

Immolate on June 29, 2012 at 11:17 AM

This is not very good satire. It doesn’t hold for two main reasons. A premise simply isn’t true.

For far too long, too many Americans have suffered from an inequal distribution of firearms, despite the Second Amendment’s express exhortation to “keep and bear arms,” in large part because income inequality in this nation has kept the poor and working classes from having the proper protection for themselves and their loved ones.

This simply isn’t true. Now, we can act like it’s true and have fun and haha our day away, but this isn’t true. Income inequality in this nation hasn’t kept the poor and working classes from owning gun. The poor and working classes have the highest rate of gun ownership in this country.(http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self-Reported-Gun-Ownership-Highest-1993.aspx)

That serves that people who can afford a gun simply don’t want one. Now, we can require everyone to have a gun and pay for them and all that good stuff, but that wouldn’t have anything to do with the 2nd amendment.

segasagez on June 29, 2012 at 11:18 AM

And I guess it fails for one main reason. My mistake.

segasagez on June 29, 2012 at 11:19 AM

the Supreme Court wants to make sure people with pre-existing health problems can get affordable health insurance.

bifidis on June 29, 20

But that’s not the job of the SCOTUS, now, is it?

Solaratov on June 29, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Second, you don’t understand the term “insurance”. Insurance is money you pay against a need you don’t have to mitigate the risk of that need coming up during the insured period. A health insurance company giving coverage to a sick person is like an auto insurance company giving coverage to someone with a wrecked car.

This is actually very true. To be honest, it’s less about Health Care Insurance, and more about Health Care. I’m not sure why it’s framed in the “insurance” light. Do liberals do it to calm fears about socialized health care, or do conservatives do it to combat claims that they don’t support affordable health care for all?

segasagez on June 29, 2012 at 11:21 AM

I was thinking the EXACT thing when the decision came down. We should also push for a mandate that people must wipe their butts and wash their hands after going to the rest room. Honestly, I don’t trust lefties to do anything without the government telling them they must.

foxforce91 on June 29, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Ed is mistakenly believing that arms = firearms and nothing else.

Dante on June 29, 2012 at 10:33 AM

And just where did Ed say that? Or are you just assuming something so that you can pretend to make a point (rather like a lefty)?

Stick to the facts, kid.

Solaratov on June 29, 2012 at 11:23 AM

One of the best pieces I’ve seen in many years. Hot Gas is probably not paying you enough.

platypus on June 29, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Stupid and disingenuous. This is health care, a function of our society that every single one of us relies on at one point or another and to which it is mandated that hospitals must treat all people regardless of circumstance.

Grasping at straws. The people can buy, accept, and understand that health care is a unique industry.

They will not for guns. But by all means give it a shot. Just agitating for agitations sake will help out our chances in November tremendously. /

Boomer_Sooner on June 29, 2012 at 10:49 AM

You aren’t very familiar with that whole SATIRE thing, are you?
And you haven’t read many of the preceding comments, either.

Solaratov on June 29, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Stupid and disingenuous. This is health care, a function of our society that every single one of us relies on at one point or another and to which it is mandated that hospitals must treat all people regardless of circumstance.

Grasping at straws. The people can buy, accept, and understand that health care is a unique industry.

Boomer_Sooner on June 29, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Every single one of us relies on law enforcement as well, and we rely on their being armed 24/7 instead of most of us being so.

The federal mandate to serve the indigent is indeed a presursor to Obamacare being touted as a necessity. However, eliminating that burdensome and unaffordable federal mandate would have made twisting the Constitution to uphold Obamacare unncessary.

Still, you miss the point. This is not mandatory purchase of needed healthcare. This is mandatory purchase of INSURANCE whether you feel you need it or not, done solely to take money from the healthy and place it in an insurance pool to reduce the insurance cost burden on those already in the pool. Obamacare turns insurance companies into privatized bureaucratic institutions that pass along money to doctors and hospitals according to need, from those who are able to pay.

Health insurance is no longer insurance. It has nothing to do anymore with pricing risk. Poor people are far less healthy than middle class and wealthy people, while at the same time have less acccess to insurance. So a rich guy who exercises might have a $500 monthly premium while a pooor smoker who is 100 pounds overweight might have a $2000 premium, risk being priced in for each. But the healthy rich guy might have a million dollars he can lose with one serious illness whereas the poor guy might have nothing to lose so has no need to hedge with an insurance policy. Those with low risk paying the cost of others in high risk is not the purpose of purchasing insurance. The purpose for insurance is to hedge against loss, and in the long run to discourage risky behavior.

Public policy is for the richest and poorest to enetr the same hospital through the same door, see the same doctors and nurses in side-by-side beds. Obamacare is ultimately about equality of service and of outcome regardless of risk input. We can’t afford that.

shuzilla on June 29, 2012 at 11:28 AM

And it is funny.

Jabberwock on June 29, 2012 at 10:50 AM

No, it wasn’t funny. And do you know why, you knuckle-dragging rube? It wasn’t funny because Dante the Magnificent didn’t crack wise about it first.

/

CurtZHP on June 29, 2012 at 11:29 AM

mlindroo on June 29, 2012 at 10:55 AM

What’s a “straight phase”?

Solaratov on June 29, 2012 at 11:30 AM

To be honest, it’s less about Health Care Insurance, and more about Health Care. I’m not sure why it’s framed in the “insurance” light. Do liberals do it to calm fears about socialized health care, or do conservatives do it to combat claims that they don’t support affordable health care for all?

segasagez on June 29, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Wrong. This is about forcing people to buy health coverage. Nothing in Obamacare forces a person to purchase health care. You do not have to go to the doctor for a sore throat if you don’t want to, but you must buy insurance to pay for going to the doctor for a sore throat. Even if the cost of the doctor visit could be paid out of pocket, you must buy insurance.

The way this debate should be framed is that by forcing people to buy insurance you force them to pay insurance companies for their time to administer your claims. That money does not go towards health care but into purchasing their buildings and equipment, paying their salaries and bonuses, keeping their heat and lights on, and paying their investors’ dividends.

Imagine if you had to buy food from a store where nothing had a fixed price, everything had to be a pre-approved purchase, and you paid somebody else to do your shopping for you. Then imagine the suggestion that to cure hunger we had to pay for everybody to be part of such a plan.

shuzilla on June 29, 2012 at 11:39 AM

What’s really NOT funny is that Republicans are going off the deep end because the Supreme Court wants to make sure people with pre-existing health problems can get affordable health insurance.

bifidis on June 29, 2012 at 10:44 AM

And you aren’t even wearing a clown nose I bet.

Sometimes a thing is so idiotic one doesn’t know where to begin to address the idiocy of it.

NotCoach on June 29, 2012 at 11:04 AM

This seems applicable to bif’s statement…….
http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc85/Mamba1-0/frequently%20used/facepalm_implied.jpg

Solaratov on June 29, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Well done, Cap’n Ed.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on June 29, 2012 at 11:43 AM

segasagez on June 29, 2012 at 11:18 AM

How to put it? Humor is not meant to be taken seriously. Maybe you should go sit in the hot tub for a bit, drink a Mojito or something.

UnrepentantCurmudgeon on June 29, 2012 at 11:50 AM

What’s really NOT funny is that Republicans are going off the deep end because the Supreme Court wants to make sure people with pre-existing health problems can get affordable health insurance.

bifidis on June 29, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Then it would cease to be insurance and become a direct subsidy. How do you people not understand this? Are you really so thick as to not understand the basic premise behind the idea of “insurance”?

holygoat on June 29, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Ed’s right.

After we’ve solved the crime problem by making sure every law abiding citizen is armed with an affordable AR-15, a big hefty tax on those wishing to kill unborn children should be next on the agenda.

TitularHead on June 29, 2012 at 11:52 AM

This seems applicable to bif’s statement…….
http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc85/Mamba1-0/frequently%20used/facepalm_implied.jpg

Solaratov on June 29, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Nice!

NotCoach on June 29, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Wrong. This is about forcing people to buy health coverage. Nothing in Obamacare forces a person to purchase health care. You do not have to go to the doctor for a sore throat if you don’t want to, but you must buy insurance to pay for going to the doctor for a sore throat. Even if the cost of the doctor visit could be paid out of pocket, you must buy insurance.

That’s the point. Purchasing health insurance is purchasing health care when insurance is required to cover pre-existing conditions. You coverage your pay for the care you receive. If a person chooses to pay in cash what they’ve already pre-purchased, that doesn’t say anything about that they’ve already pre-purchased.

That is to say, if a buy someone a gift card for a product, they take the gift card and pay for the product in cash, they can technically say I didn’t buy them the product. But that’d be some BS.

segasagez on June 29, 2012 at 11:55 AM

How to put it? Humor is not meant to be taken seriously. Maybe you should go sit in the hot tub for a bit, drink a Mojito or something.

UnrepentantCurmudgeon on June 29, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Satire is meant to be take seriously. Satire is a serious comment on things using irony and sarcasm. A joke is a joke and satire is satire. They’re different things. But I’ll take that mojito.

segasagez on June 29, 2012 at 11:57 AM

The government did this long before Obamacare.

That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock,

It wasn’t a tax, but a musket mandate is perfectly constitutional.

red_herring on June 29, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Sounds good to me…I already own a gun so, no worries.

neyney on June 29, 2012 at 12:00 PM

What’s a “straight phase”?

Solaratov on June 29, 2012 at 11:30 AM

A most excellent homonym … ish mistake :)

Axe on June 29, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Solaratov on June 29, 2012 at 11:30 AM


What’s a “straight phase”?

It’s a typo … should read “straight face”.

MARCU$

mlindroo on June 29, 2012 at 12:06 PM

I love this plan! I’m excited to be a part of it! LET’S DO IT!

theCork on June 29, 2012 at 12:11 PM

I had almost precisely the same idea, with the addition that tax breaks would be granted to households that also own proper rifles.

Blacklake on June 29, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Having corrected the typo, I will repeat my question: why is mandatory health insurance (which is what the Dutch, Swiss, Germans and Singaporeans also have in order to control costs) supposed to be unconstitutional whereas Medicare isn’t?

Another point: a government may guarantee universal health coverage either by creating a government health insurance monopoly such as Medicare (for seniors only in the U.S.). Nobody questions the constitutionality of this approach even in the States and it’s the favored option in most other wealthy democracies. Most Democrats would prefer this approach.

The alternative — endorsed by the likes of the Heritage Foundation, Mitt Romney and numerous other Republicans until 2009 or so — is to regulate the private insurance market so that all can and must buy insurance. This is how Germany, Switzerland, Holland and Singapore have successfully solved the problem: you have to buy insurance in these countries as well.

Now, can anyone say with a straight face that Mitt Romney’s/the Heritage Foundation’s plan is more socialist and clearly unconstitutional than single payer would be?

mlindroo on June 29, 2012 at 12:13 PM

mlindroo on June 29, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Is Medicare actually a monopoly? Seniors can opt out into private plans if they so choose.

NotCoach on June 29, 2012 at 12:17 PM

lol suggested that muself
http://www.theconservativevoices.com/forums/topic/47170-states-need-to-step-up/page__view__findpost__p__60402

all you anti-gun people, Maine reqs you to bring a shotgun to church.
so now the fed should req you to purchase a shotgun, rifle, and pistol for each household.
we’ll call it a tax.
still all happy?

dmacleo on June 29, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Purchasing health insurance is purchasing health care when insurance is required to cover pre-existing conditions.
segasagez on June 29, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Maybe we’re talking across each other here, but purchasing health coverage is not pre-purchasing health care. Try stopping your premium payments and see how much of your pre-paid “ballance” the insurance company will pay towards future care. That would be zero.

A pre-existing condition is insurable at a risk-based premium, though it may not be affordable. Whether insurance is required for treating a pre-existing condition depends on the individual’s ability to eat the actual service cost at the time service is rendered. Even if we establish that society at large will pick up the bill for the accute illness (due to the individual’s inability to pay) then certainly that bill would be less if paid directly to the medical servicer instead of paying an insurance company to pay the servicer.

If what you are saying is that Obamacare essentialy converts health coverage into health care, replacing the pricing of risk with the assurance of service, then I agree.

shuzilla on June 29, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Ed, great piece.

Hey, you have ‘ins’ to some Congresspersons, I’m sure; use your situation to get this into the hands of someone that can/will read it from the floor of the House – maybe even introduce it as legislation.

At minimum it can be read from the floor and thereby into the Congressional Record, further demonstrating the absurdity of the Obamacare legislation and ruling.

Do this, seriously. There’s probably a few conservative Tea Party House members out there that would love to take this up and make it happen.

Midas on June 29, 2012 at 12:48 PM

segasagez on June 29, 2012 at 11:55 AM

After suffering through several of your comments now, it’s quite clear that you’re an utter imbecile.

Midas on June 29, 2012 at 12:49 PM

lol suggested that muself
http://www.theconservativevoices.com/forums/topic/47170-states-need-to-step-up/page__view__findpost__p__60402

all you anti-gun people, Maine reqs you to bring a shotgun to church.
so now the fed should req you to purchase a shotgun, rifle, and pistol for each household.
we’ll call it a tax.
still all happy?

dmacleo on June 29, 2012 at 12:17 PM

It really should be per resident in the house rather than just one of each per house. In my humble opinion, that is.

Midas on June 29, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Amen.
I would also pass legislation that whatever rules of law apply to abortion, apply to gun ownership.
You want an abortion, then you need a permit.
You want an abortion, you must be 21.
You want an abortion, you must wait 3 days. (How about 9 months?)
You want an abortion, you must attend and pass a class.
You want an abortion, you must be able to pay for it.
You want an abortion, you must have insurance.
You want an abortion, you must submit to a Federal check to make sure you are “approved”.
There are more, but you get the point.
barnone on June 29, 2012 at 8:47 AM

Take it one step further….
If you want to have sex, which could result in an abortion, you must
- wait 3 days
- be able to cover the cost(s)
- pass a mental health check
- attend, and pass, a parenting class

Etc…..

FinallyRight on June 29, 2012 at 12:52 PM

I can live with the gun ownership mandate. However, I demand a government subsidy.

RebeccaH on June 29, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Taxation as a tool for government-enforced, court-endorsed blackmail. If the Founding Fathers were alive today they’d put a cannonball through the Supreme Court.

CrustyB on June 29, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Insurance is money you pay against a need you don’t have to mitigate the risk of that need coming up during the insured period. A health insurance company giving coverage to a sick person is like an auto insurance company giving coverage to someone with a wrecked car. That’s not insurance. That’s charity. And the only way a business can afford to give one customer charity is by charging other customers more to cover it. You want me to pay for your healthcare. I get that. I want you to pay my mortgage. I think both demands weigh equally.

Immolate on June 29, 2012 at 11:17 AM

THIS. I don’t know how many times I have tried to explain this to people, and they still don’t get it.

You want to reform the healthcare industry and make sure everyone has affordable access? Fine, reform the HEALTHCARE industry, not the INSURANCE industry. They are not one and the same.

sockpuppetpolitic on June 29, 2012 at 1:29 PM

…why is mandatory health insurance (which is what the Dutch, Swiss, Germans and Singaporeans also have in order to control costs) supposed to be unconstitutional whereas Medicare isn’t?

Simple. Medicare is paid for by taxes, and the funding for it was written as a tax. A tax is monies collected by government to pay for governmentally instituted programs, a power granted them in the Constitution.

ACA is paid for by the mandate. The health care mandate is a law that requires citizens to purchase a product from a private company, under penalty of fine for non-compliance. No such power is granted in the Constitution.

Now, had it actually been written as a tax, I would admittedly still not like it, but I would have to admit it was within the powers of Congress to do so.

Now, before you try to point to the SCOTUS ruling to tell me that this too is just a tax, let me just say I don’t care about the ruling. The Democrats went out of their way to make sure this mandate was not crafted as a tax, not called a tax and in every way possible was nothing like a tax. Rewriting the bill’s language from the bench does not change that, sorry.

sockpuppetpolitic on June 29, 2012 at 1:36 PM

It really should be per resident in the house rather than just one of each per house. In my humble opinion, that is.

Midas on June 29, 2012 at 12:50 PM

well I don’t disagree I just thought 3 guns would cover that.
only 2 people here so I really didn;t take into consideration larger households.
can you imagine the uproar though?
the shotgun law really is still on the books here, enforce it to start and see heads burst :)

dmacleo on June 29, 2012 at 1:48 PM

No nukes they would be too heavy to carry.

chemman on June 29, 2012 at 9:38 AM

I beg to differ.

Oldnuke on June 29, 2012 at 2:09 PM

I can live with the gun ownership mandate. However, I demand a government subsidy.

RebeccaH on June 29, 2012 at 1:04 PM

That’s what the penalty, errrr tax is for on those who do not wish to purchase a firearm. It will be mostly libs and other similar dullards that don’t want to buy them. That means that the democrats will have to help pay for our guns. It’s a win-win for us.

Oldnuke on June 29, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Satire shmatire. This is actually a good idea. I would extend it further — that in fact all persons of legal age (lets say 18) are required to carry a firearm at all times. Or pay a tax to avoid that requirement.

True there would be consequences to this law. For a few years the angry and stupid would suffer a higher death rate. Consider it Darwinian selection in action. But after a decade or so we would have a safe, polite populace. Murder, rape, robbery would be at all time lows. Plus the prison population would be much reduced as they would be emptied out. (Did I mention that when I said all I meant ALL — including all prisoners? Guess I didn’t mention that. Well now I am. So after half the prison population slaughters the other half the prisons would be very well behaved as well.)

No, the above is not meant a satire. I really mean it.

SunSword on June 29, 2012 at 2:23 PM

It has to be 9mm or above, with .44 magnums getting a one-time tax credit on their own.

Nope. Shotgun – 12 gauge is good, 10 gauge will do, or a pistol like the Taurus Judge that will shoot a 410 shotgun shell.

woodNfish on June 29, 2012 at 2:47 PM

I know that everyone wants to debate emotionally back and forth, but I posted links to actual clauses of the US and Ohio Constitutions to back my point, and not a single serious response to it? Really?

HA used to be a place of serious policy discussion. Now its just starting to sound like a liberal echo chatter chamber.

Maybe I should ask if my post of June 29, 2012 at 10:02 AM only appears to me?

dominigan on June 29, 2012 at 3:15 PM

What’s a “straight phase”?

Solaratov on June 29, 2012 at 11:30 AM

A brief lapse into heterosexuality by an otherwise practicing homosexual..?

affenhauer on June 29, 2012 at 3:54 PM

If the Founding Fathers were alive today they’d put a cannonball through the Supreme Court.

CrustyB on June 29, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Quite probably…but then, JNap would declare them “Right-wing Extremist Terrorists”; and lil barry would send in a drone strike on they azzes.

Solaratov on June 29, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Simple. Medicare is paid for by taxes, and the funding for it was written as a tax. A tax is monies collected by government to pay for governmentally instituted programs, a power granted them in the Constitution.

ACA is paid for by the mandate. The health care mandate is a law that requires citizens to purchase a product from a private company, under penalty of fine for non-compliance. No such power is granted in the Constitution.

Now, had it actually been written as a tax, I would admittedly still not like it, but I would have to admit it was within the powers of Congress to do so.

Now, before you try to point to the SCOTUS ruling to tell me that this too is just a tax, let me just say I don’t care about the ruling. The Democrats went out of their way to make sure this mandate was not crafted as a tax, not called a tax and in every way possible was nothing like a tax. Rewriting the bill’s language from the bench does not change that, sorry.

sockpuppetpolitic on June 29, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Right there with ya. The bill should not stand as written. If they wanted to do it as a tax, they should have and it would have been legal. It is contemptible that the SCOTUS essentially made up a fantasy piece of legislation and ruled on it.

talkingpoints on June 29, 2012 at 5:01 PM

I know that everyone wants to debate emotionally back and forth, but I posted links to actual clauses of the US and Ohio Constitutions to back my point, and not a single serious response to it? Really?

Hey, what did you expect? This is a conservative website after all…

MARCU$

mlindroo on June 29, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Thanks for a wonderful example of satire based on one of my favourite essays.

As others have said, I find it sad that you felt you had to point out it was satire; back in the day the original was required reading in high school.

A link to the original, in case anyone wants to read:

Siren46 on June 29, 2012 at 6:27 PM

and here’s the link:

Siren46 on June 29, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Unfortunately, they didn’t also teach html markup text when I was in school:

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

Sorry for the multiple posts!

Siren46 on June 29, 2012 at 6:30 PM

First, the government needs to issue a mandate that all households must own at least one firearm.

Every American needs to be required to buy:

1. One rifle, shotgun, or handgun per year.
2. One six-pack of beer or some comparable amount of wine or liquor per week.
3. One pack of cigarettes or comparable amount of cigars or chewing tobacco per week. (don’t worry, libs, you can still make it illegal to actually use the stuff)

Then we need to beef up the ATF and hire 16,000 more agents to enforce these mandates.

Failure to comply simply means a $25,000 tax charge (per item), so if you don’t want to buy them you don’t really HAVE to.

malclave on June 29, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Nice!…. but wont they use all the negligent discharges as a reason, instead, to ban ammo?

TX-96 on June 29, 2012 at 7:38 PM

This topic will certainly piss off liberal Mitt:

On July 1, 2004, Romney signed a permanent state ban on assault weapons, saying at the signing ceremony for the new law, “Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. The same law also modified some other aspects of general firearms licensing regulations.

DannoJyd on June 30, 2012 at 12:35 AM

Haha a great mind and an average mind think alike.

I had a post in the article about how we can’t say the bill is unconstitutional because it didn’t start in the house, which basically said the same thing.

The burden of protecting citizens 24/7 is too much for police and the home owners who have to pay their salaries, therefore everyone must own a gun to protect themselves and reduce the burden people have to pay in order to protect everyone. Its the same argument as ObamaTax so why won’t it also be constitutional?

Day 1, the Romney Gun-A-Poloza Law better get voted on.

Rbastid on June 30, 2012 at 3:14 AM

Original Post thats a wee bit more clear than what I wrote above, which isn’t saying much.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/28/say-doesnt-the-constitution-require-tax-bills-to-originate-in-the-house/comment-page-2/#comment-5978047

Rbastid on June 30, 2012 at 3:16 AM

Brilliant.

My 22 year old daughter has little income and is tagging along on my firearms and ammo. This will enable her to have real freedom and get a taxpayer-subsidized weapon of her own!

Jaibones on June 30, 2012 at 8:10 AM

Brilliant.

My 22 year old daughter has little income and is tagging along on my firearms and ammo. This will enable her to have real freedom and get a taxpayer-subsidized weapon of her own!

Jaibones on June 30, 2012 at 8:10 AM

The War on Women must stop!

Women cannot be denied their basic right to free/subsidized guns and ammunition.
After all, not even law students at one of America’s premier universities can afford the $3,000/year cost of practice ammunition. Without government to help them, they’re just fluked.

Solaratov on June 30, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3