So the WH is really going to run with this “It’s not a tax!” thing, huh?

posted at 4:01 pm on June 29, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

That is, as far as they run with it at all. As Ed explained earlier, I can’t help feeling that, despite the technical ObamaCare victory, they’re not looking to gloat over it — I think they’d be all too content to just quit talking about it and shuffle everybody along.

During President Obama’s response to the Supreme Court ruling on Thursday, the term “tax” was conspicuously absent. But to the extent that they have to talk about it, it looks like they’re really going to keep insisting that this is absotively, posolutely not a tax, even though — oh, you know — that’s pretty much the entire basis upon which the individual mandate was upheld. Ain’t no thang.

“It’s a penalty, because you have a choice. You don’t have a choice to pay your taxes, right?” [Jay] Carney told reporters aboard Air Force One.  …

Roberts wrote that the law “makes going without insurance just another thing the government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning an income.” …

“You can call it what you want,” Carney said, underlining Congressional Budget Office estimates that whatever you call it will affect only 1 percent of Americans. “It is not a broad-based tax.” “One percent of the population. One percent. You can call it what you want, but it is affecting 1 percent of the population. Because most people either have health insurance or people do the responsible thing and if they can afford health insurance they will purchase it,” the spokesman said.

Quite the rhetorical tap dance, isn’t it? Of course, what choice do they have — President Obama swore up and down the backside that this wasn’t a tax in any shape, manner, or form when he was trying to pass it, even though it’s shaping up to be a both huge and regressive tax to the tune of more than $500 billion in a decade.

But, if they had to win the ObamaCare judicial battle, I’m glad they at least won in one of the more headache-inducing, deception-exposing ways possible. Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, David Bernstein imagines a scenario that would really get the White House squirming: If he were a Republican congressman…

I’d schedule a new vote in the House on the individual mandate, but replace the “penalty language” with language specifically acknowledging that the “penalty” is actually a tax. If the Democrats vote “aye,” they’ve acknowledged breaking the Obama pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class. If the Democrats–specifically those who already voted for the mandate–vote “nay”, what becomes of the tax argument in future litigation? … At least it would look very peculiar that the Court upheld the law on a theory that Congressional supporters of the law refuse to adopt. …


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

Ha Ha, check it out McCaskill is in hiding. I bet all the dem Senators who voted for this are.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/missouri-dem-senator-hiding-reporters_647993.html

txmomof6 on June 29, 2012 at 4:45 PM

The IRS enforces whatever the feral government tells it to enforce. That doesn’t mean that anything the IRS enforces is, therefore, a tax. That’s ridiculous. It’s beyond ridiculous.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 29, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Fine Lets agree to disagree .

sandee on June 29, 2012 at 4:45 PM

All the White House has to do is cite Benedict Roberts’ own decision:

“The Affordable Care Act does not require that the penalty for failing to comply with the individual mandate be treated as a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act.”

Not a tax. By Benedict Roberts’ own words that were used to claim this steaming pile of America-killing sh!t is Constitutional.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 29, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Please repost this a couple times per page of comments.

Uppereastside is right. They won. Our party won’t have the guts or the know-how to get rid of it.

oldroy on June 29, 2012 at 4:46 PM

All the Dems would walk out en masse saying they were protesting such a “partisan” attack. Hey they did this yesterday during the contempt hearing. These people are dispicable and I despise them.

neyney on June 29, 2012 at 4:39 PM

So? What’s your point? Do you believe their walkout will end up helping them politically?

The Dems/Holder lost yesterday, didn’t they? Would you suggest that we should never have votes on issues that Dems will try to spin in their favor when they lose them?

Bizarro No. 1 on June 29, 2012 at 4:46 PM

If it’s not a tax why does the IRS collect it? Besides, Obama’s Solicitor General argued that it was a tax during the oral arguments.

eyedoc on June 29, 2012 at 4:46 PM

You either pay the tax to the insurance company or you pay the tax to the IRS. you do have a choice in to whom you pay the tax. You just dont have a choice not to pay the tax.
We should stop calling it obamacare or mandate, and start calling it the “healthcare tax”.

paulsur on June 29, 2012 at 4:47 PM

sandee on June 29, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Yes, we have a very serious disagreement. Sorry to have to say that. I like rockmom, too, but she’s WAY off base on this and pushing her desire to call it a tax for some unknown reason.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 29, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Ha Ha, check it out McCaskill is in hiding. I bet all the dem Senators who voted for this are.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/missouri-dem-senator-hiding-reporters_647993.html

txmomof6 on June 29, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Why are all of these Dems running away/hiding if they know they won yesterday?

Maybe a self-described genius like ThePrimordialOrderedPair could explain this to us fools? :)

Bizarro No. 1 on June 29, 2012 at 4:49 PM

The Dems are awfully quiet about the whole thing. I think they must be realizing that the voting public will view it AS A TAX.

kingsjester on June 29, 2012 at 4:49 PM

If it’s not a tax why does the IRS collect it? Besides, Obama’s Solicitor General argued that it was a tax during the oral arguments.

eyedoc on June 29, 2012 at 4:46 PM

That argument (for the Anti-Injunction Act) was rejected by Roberts, as per what I posted (and was reposted) right above your comment.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 29, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Ha Ha, check it out McCaskill is in hiding. I bet all the dem Senators who voted for this are.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/missouri-dem-senator-hiding-reporters_647993.html

txmomof6 on June 29, 2012 at 4:45 PM

..you want to genuine terror? Wait’ll they pass the repeal bill in the House on the 13th and it goes to the Senate. Remember the House walkout on the Holder contempt vote? Reid and the crowd will be sprinting for the exits of faking heart attacks.

The War Planner on June 29, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Again, you are finding examples of taxes on ACTION with an alleged tax on inaction. And your IRA example is incorrect. Taxes are deferred on the money put away and a penalty or fee is assessed for early withdrawal.

And, if you think the mandate’s penalty is a tax then it could not have been heard by the Court until long after this election. But it isn’t a tax. Not in any way, shape, or form. You can’t bend every English word to mean whatever you want it to. Society crumbles under such stress. Language is important, you know. It’s our foundation. That’s why the left is always attacking it and trying to suck every bit of objective meaning out of it. Benedict Roberts just put the leftist English-manglers to shame with his nuclear bombing of our contractual language.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 29, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Not quite. You pay the extra income tax as well, the withdrawal is counted as income AND you pay the early withdrawal TAX of 10% on top of that. And it is called a TAX. You get a IRS 1098 form and you fill out a line on your 1040 for it. You will get a nice love letter from the IRS if you don’t pay it. The point is, you can CHOOSE not to pay that tax by simply not withdrawing your money early. It is the BEHAVIOR that is being taxed, because the government wants you to behave differently. And it is a very definite loss of freedom.

Same with the ObamaTax. It’s a tax on behavior that the government doesn’t like. The IRS collects it, it comes out of your refund or you must add it to your tax on your 1040 form. If you behave the way the government wants, you don’t owe it.

It seems wrong and un-American, but it isn’t unprecedented.

I happen to agree with you on the Anti-Deficiency Act argument, now that I have understood it a little better. It’s a tax, and as such the Court should have thrown out the entire challenge to it. I don’t think you would have liked that result too much either.

rockmom on June 29, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Sure IS! Here is the link. NOW WHO would have thought that would happen?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/29/after-holder-contempt-vote-republicans-eye-civil-court-case-to-extract-furious/
L

letget on June 29, 2012 at 4:33 PM

They voted on it yesterday, to give Issa’s committee the money to hire their own attorney. Issa was just on Hannity, and he said they will give the DOJ 8 days to produce the documents, and then they are going to court. He said it should be an expedited hearing. They were expecting Obama to tell the DOJ not to go after Holder, which is exactly what he did.

Night Owl on June 29, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Yes, we have a very serious disagreement. Sorry to have to say that. I like rockmom, too, but she’s WAY off base on this and pushing her desire to call it a tax for some unknown reason.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 29, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Why is it so hard for you to understand how framing/positioning it as a tax causes the Dems so much consternation?

Bizarro No. 1 on June 29, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Question.

“If,” they take up an amendment to the bill to change the language to formally make it a tax, and senate democrats refuse to make the changes, would the law end up going back to the courts?

My guess is that everybody would just ignore it, but logically it seems like they should. Can anybody clarify what would happen under this scenario?

WolvenOne on June 29, 2012 at 4:52 PM

One percent? What happened to the 47 million people without any health care whatsoever? Didn’t we hear about that over and over

Blame Obama First on June 29, 2012 at 4:52 PM

So the WH is really going to run with this “It’s not a tax!” thing, huh?

….ohhhhhhhhhh! I get it!…It ends in “ing“…but starts out having the letter “c” in it….the letter “u” in it…along with the letter’s “k” and “F” in it…but WE don’t know…in what particular order!
Yeah!….that’s it!

KOOLAID2 on June 29, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Yes, we have a very serious disagreement. Sorry to have to say that. I like rockmom, too, but she’s WAY off base on this and pushing her desire to call it a tax for some unknown reason.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 29, 2012 at 4:48 PM

The reason is that I read John Roberts’ opinion and I think he is right. But it’s a close call. I understand that. And now that he has ruled, I think it is rather silly to just stamp feet and say “no no no it isn’t a tax!” when we can make some real politica hay out of it being a tax. There’s a time to stand on principle, and a time to take the bullets that have been handed to you and put them in the gun and shoot it.

rockmom on June 29, 2012 at 4:54 PM

You’ve actually created a post without any typos or grammatical errors. This is a first for you.

massrighty on June 29, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Hah, you didn’t see the “W” in “Won”.

Schadenfreude on June 29, 2012 at 4:55 PM

rockmom on June 29, 2012 at 4:54 PM

He changed the actual language of the Obama’care’ to keep it. Have at it.

Schadenfreude on June 29, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Recall in the SC hearings how the solicitor was derided for one day calling it a tax, and the next not calling it one, depending how they ‘needed’ it?

Schadenfreude on June 29, 2012 at 4:57 PM

There’s a time to stand on principle, and a time to take the bullets that have been handed to you and put them in the gun and shoot it.

rockmom on June 29, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Later

Schadenfreude on June 29, 2012 at 4:58 PM

One of the reasons why I’m more surprised by the ruling than upset is because, hey we still have a option to kill this thing.

Besides the election in Nov, we ensure a total majority in both chambers. Without that this thing will lurch fully into life. If Romney wins, yes, it would be easier, not necessarily easy to convince for a united front to again strike this thing down.

In *some* ways, I look at Roberts decision as a way to keep the Court more out of these types of decisions. Especially after cases like Citizens United and Bush vs Gore.

Besides it’s still too early for me to stay firmly to an opposing view on how bad it *could* be. If i receive more information as this progresses i will own up to change in thinking.

BlaxPac on June 29, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Pelosi, when asked yesterday if it is a “tax” answered “…uh, ahh…mhhh…it is good for the people”.

Schadenfreude on June 29, 2012 at 5:00 PM

The House will vote on repeal but Reid will never schedule a vote in the Senate.

ashiya on June 29, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Hmm, how are we going to spin this one?

The same way liberals always do: out of both sides of their mouths at the same time.

Read the liberals’ Bible: the book “1984.”

logis on June 29, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Wait a second…

“One percent of the population. One percent. You can call it what you want, but it is affecting 1 percent of the population. Because most people either have health insurance or people do the responsible thing and if they can afford health insurance they will purchase it,” the spokesman said.

I recall hearing about the masses of people that didn’t have insurance a few years ago. Am I imagining that? In fact, I recall that being pretty much the whole basis for doing this in the first place?

And now it’s just 1%??? It’s no big deal, these poor people? Are these the 1% the occupiers are rallying against, that they want to really put the screws to? If so, nicely done!

It all just gets so darn confusing to a simpleton from flyover country like myself.

stldave on June 29, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Why is it so hard for you to understand how framing/positioning it as a tax causes the Dems so much consternation?

Bizarro No. 1 on June 29, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Because preserving some semantics in English is far more important. Do you realize what Roberts has done to future legislation (not that I expect this nation to go on much longer, anyway, but if it did)?

And the dems don’t care, anyway. Stop kidding yourself. They revel in lying. Barky has been lying constantly since he appeared on the national scene. Dems eat it up. They’re not constrained by the truth about anything. They are still pushing global warming, in case you haven’t noticed, even though that whole criminal scheme has been exposed. Doesn’t matter. The EPA is strangling America daily with talk of “carbon pollution” (LOL).

I don’t know what leverage you think you’re getting over dems, but I’m not willing to open the word “tax” up to mean anything in order to do it.

The point is, you can CHOOSE not to pay that tax by simply not withdrawing your money early.

rockmom on June 29, 2012 at 4:51 PM

I don’t take issue with that concept. That’s what sin-taxes are all about. And gas taxes (even though I might not drive on a public road or interstate). But they are taxes on activity. I am not forced by the tax to take part. Quite the opposite, they are punitive taxes set about the activity itself to coerce me to stop that activity. There is no such thing as a tax on inactivity to force activity. Well .. there is now. You’ll see how ugly this all gets.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 29, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Recall in the SC hearings how the solicitor was derided for one day calling it a tax, and the next not calling it one, depending how they ‘needed’ it?

Schadenfreude on June 29, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Yes, the SG kept referring to the mandate as a “tax penalty” and finally Alito said “why do you keep calling it a tax”?

And wasn’t the mandate originally called a tax when the legislation was being drafted and later on they decided not to call it a tax? Someone must have a video of that somewhere.

eyedoc on June 29, 2012 at 5:02 PM

“It’s a penalty, because you have a choice. You don’t have a choice to pay your taxes, right?” [Jay] Carney told reporters aboard Air Force One.

Yeah. The White House spits in the eye of the SCOTUS.

J_Crater on June 29, 2012 at 5:08 PM

“You can call it what you want,” Carney said, underlining Congressional Budget Office estimates that whatever you call it will affect only 1 percent of Americans. “It is not a broad-based tax.” “One percent of the population. One percent. You can call it what you want, but it is affecting 1 percent of the population. Because most people either have health insurance or people do the responsible thing and if they can afford health insurance they will purchase it

“The 1% minority, because we need to blame someone”

Damn those irresponsible percenters! They don’t pay their fair share now were learning about another 1% of irresponsible Americans who could pay for health care insurance but refuse.

Does anyone know if they have cross referenced the lists to determine if this constitutes 2% of irresponsible Americans or if this is just a really bad 1% ?

I could be wrong, but I’m betting we’re dealing with the same people.

Names! We need names!

R Square on June 29, 2012 at 5:08 PM

They will not only collect via your tax returns. They will go after your 401/403Ks, IRAs, and the likes, your bank accounts.

They need to pay for their Utopian fiasco and they will make you.

Schadenfreude on June 29, 2012 at 5:08 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 29, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Cool.

I guess I don’t get why people aren’t more upset at CONGRESS for the subterfuge of calling a tax a penalty, just because it was obviously politically dangerous for them to call it a tax, than they are at Roberts for calling a tax a tax. Just because we hadn’t paid attention to the tax angle and put all our eggs in the Commerce Clause basket, doesn’t mean it wasn’t always there. This is what sharp lawyers like John Roberts do all the time.

I am not happy with this tax as a matter of policy and I hope the law is repealed. But I also am satisfied with Roberts’ reasoning that it is a tax, and it is constitutional.

rockmom on June 29, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Love the way you right Erika… er, I mean write.

Mr_Magoo on June 29, 2012 at 5:15 PM

DeweyWins on June 29, 2012 at 4:27 PM

I love your screen name! Thomas Dewey was my cousin. Each time one of our children becomes a little cocky, I just whip out my copy of “Dewey Beats Truman”……

herm2416 on June 29, 2012 at 5:18 PM

But I also am satisfied with Roberts’ reasoning that it is a tax, and it is constitutional.

rockmom on June 29, 2012 at 5:13 PM | Delete | Delete and Ban

Enjoy yourself and pay for it.

Schadenfreude on June 29, 2012 at 5:19 PM

I would not be surprised if the WH hired “the artist formerly know as Prince” to consult on “the tax formerly know as a penalty” re-branding.

CastleDoctrine on June 29, 2012 at 5:20 PM

As I read the Tax Anti Injunction Act and Roberts’ opinion, it seems that once this tax is collected a taxpayer can bring suit against the Federal Govt to stop collection if a cause of action other than its failure to be equally assessed can be found.

xkaydet65 on June 29, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Health Care Riddles:

Q) When is a penalty a tax?
A) When John Roberts says it is.

Q) When is a tax not a tax?
A) When Barack Obama says it isn’t.

But that depends on what the definition of “is” is. Or isn’t.

Steve Z on June 29, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Barry was going to run for re-election with ObamaCare as a feather in his cap. He got ObamaCare approved, but not the way he wanted.

How can you run on I SIGNED THE BIGGEST SINGLE TAX INCREASE ON THE MIDDLE CLASS IN THE HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC!

Barry said ObamaCare would “only” cost $800 Billion. The LATEST Congressional Budget Office estimate is $1.6 BILLION!

When Medicare was created in 1965 at $6 Billion, they also estimated the 1999 costs. THEY WERE OFF BY OVER 400%

GarandFan on June 29, 2012 at 5:27 PM

In fairness to Obama, he and Pelosi are correct. It isn’t really a tax.

It just so happens that that’s the line of BS that Roberts was willing to accept in exchange for selling out his duty and our country for his good regard in the New York Times.

HitNRun on June 29, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Barry said ObamaCare would “only” cost $800 Billion. The LATEST Congressional Budget Office estimate is $1.6 BILLION!

GarandFan on June 29, 2012 at 5:27 PM

As of March 2012 the CBO tagged it at $1.76 TRILLION over 10 years.

stukinIL4now on June 29, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Yes it is, so was Romney’s mandate…. But he’s the republican nominee, how do you spin this one?

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on June 29, 2012 at 5:44 PM

how do you spin this one?

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on June 29, 2012 at 5:44 PM

I’d say if you’re Romney, stake your candidacy on repealing Obamacare as one of the first things you’ll do as president. Oh wait… he did that.

Christian Conservative on June 29, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Althouse had the exchange linked between the Obama lawyer and Breyer posted on her blog…and they guy called this a tax. He most certainly did…they can try to con their way out of it now, but that was not what was argued before the court. In fact, if I remember correctly it was a termed a “tax penalty”.

Yes it is, so was Romney’s mandate…. But he’s the republican nominee, how do you spin this one?

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on June 29, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Well for one thing, Romney did try for an opt out on that…for another the state he was Governor of had only 6% uninsured and he did not burden the entire state with a huge tax on millions of people for a program they did not want. 68% of the people in the US were hoping this bill would be struck down…but 80% of the people in Mass supported the Mass Health Care plan. In fact the Heritage Foundation helped write it and Jim DeMint supported it as well.

So, it seems that this is apples and oranges to me.

Terrye on June 29, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Because preserving some semantics in English is far more important. Do you realize what Roberts has done to future legislation (not that I expect this nation to go on much longer, anyway, but if it did)?

And the dems don’t care, anyway. Stop kidding yourself. They revel in lying. Barky has been lying constantly since he appeared on the national scene. Dems eat it up. They’re not constrained by the truth about anything. They are still pushing global warming, in case you haven’t noticed, even though that whole criminal scheme has been exposed. Doesn’t matter. The EPA is strangling America daily with talk of “carbon pollution” (LOL).

I don’t know what leverage you think you’re getting over dems, but I’m not willing to open the word “tax” up to mean anything in order to do it.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 29, 2012 at 5:02 PM

“…preserving some semantics in English is far more important” – huh? What reality are you living in? The mental density you display is breathtaking – it’s a cross between narrowmindedness and OCD!

1) according the USSC, whether you like it not, the law of the land now is that 0bamaCare’s mandate is a tax, and it’s not administratable under the Commerce Clause. I guess it’s terrible that the USSC ruled that 0bamaCare was unconstitutional from a CC p.o.v., huh? LOL

2) the Dems insisted when passing the law that the mandate was not a tax, but, in order to contradict that now, they must declare that they disagree with Roberts’ ruling. Can you explain how it could possibly help the Dems politically to say that the very USSC ruling which is allowing 0bamaCare to stand was an incorrect ruling?

Are you really so blind you cannot see how completely stuck between a rock and a hard place the Dems are here?

PS you are not someone who knows how to make lemonade from lemons! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on June 29, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Recall in the SC hearings how the solicitor was derided for one day calling it a tax, and the next not calling it one, depending how they ‘needed’ it?

Schadenfreude on June 29, 2012 at 4:57 PM

That’s pretty much Roberts position as well.

Wendya on June 29, 2012 at 6:19 PM

That’s pretty much Roberts position as well.

Wendya on June 29, 2012 at 6:19 PM

No, it isn’t – Roberts said it is a tax.

Bizarro No. 1 on June 29, 2012 at 6:20 PM

No, it isn’t – Roberts said it is a tax.

Bizarro No. 1 on June 29, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Get a clue:

Page 15 – “The Affordable Care Act does not require that the penalty for failing to comply with the individual mandate be treated as a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act.”

It doesn’t morph into being a “tax” until later, Einstein.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 29, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Get a clue:

Page 15 – “The Affordable Care Act does not require that the penalty for failing to comply with the individual mandate be treated as a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act.”

It doesn’t morph into being a “tax” until later, Einstein.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 29, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Awwww, is that all your bruised little ego has left to do after being unable to hang with me on a rational level, Mr. Dense? LOL

T, or F: Roberts declared that 0bamaCare’s funding mechanism is a tax, contradicting what the Dems told us when passing the law? :)

Bizarro No. 1 on June 29, 2012 at 6:41 PM

No, it isn’t – Roberts said it is a tax.

Bizarro No. 1 on June 29, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Except, he said it isn’t a tax for purposes of consideration of the Anti-Injunction act.

blindside on June 29, 2012 at 6:49 PM

You are wrong. Verrilli argued it was a “tax penalty” and argued that Congress had the ability to do so.

Roberts didn’t make anything up on his own.

ButterflyDragon on June 29, 2012 at 4:23 PM

I may be wrong, but I am not wrong wrong:

Justice Samuel Alito saw the conflict right away.

“General Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax,” Alito said. “Tomorrow you are going to be back, and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax. Has the court ever held that something that is a tax for the purposes of the taxing power under the Constitution is not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act?”

“No,” answered Verrilli.

Verrilli argued that the mandate was a tax (and not a tax).

Roberts made it so, with his ruling.

“Call it what you will,” said former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. Arkadin on June 29, 2012 at 6:54 PM

blindside on June 29, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Penalties aren’t taxes, are they?

Bizarro No. 1 on June 29, 2012 at 7:11 PM

“Call it what you will,” said former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. Arkadin on June 29, 2012 at 6:54 PM

That’s just Nanzi being Nanzi, running away from the truth, as usual! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on June 29, 2012 at 7:14 PM

rockmom on June 29, 2012 at 4:51 PM

By this logic, can’t all penalties from the government be considered taxes?

Esthier on June 29, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Page 15 – “The Affordable Care Act does not require that the penalty for failing to comply with the individual mandate be treated as a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act.”

It doesn’t morph into being a “tax” until later, Einstein.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 29, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Do you know what the Anti-Injunction Act is?

There is a reason why he pointed out this one particular thing. Because it’s a “penalty”, people cannot enjoin the court for a refund later. That’s so people cannot say, “hey, I didn’t get sick and didn’t need this health insurance you forced me to buy last year, so I want that money refunded.”

ButterflyDragon on June 29, 2012 at 7:35 PM

I do have to wonder sometimes why SCOTUS doesn’t take a more structured approach to addressing cases. You have 8 justices agreeing it was not a tax, but an exercise of the Commerce Clause. Half of those believe it was not Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and half believe it was Constitutional under the Commerce Clause. Then you have one agreeing with the conservatives that it’s not Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, but upholding the law by calling it a tax.

Ultimately, nothing was ever completely decided. Do we really have precedent established for what is and is not a tax? I don’t think so. Do we have precedent established for what limits there are on the Commerce Clause? Probably not. The law is upheld by 5 justices, but for two different reasons.

It’s a ridiculously convoluted and confusing mess.

tom on June 29, 2012 at 7:49 PM

Roberts says it’s a tax, Oblahblah says it isn’t. Lets call the whole thing off. I didn’t hear either one of them tell us to bend over, did you?

Kissmygrits on June 29, 2012 at 8:26 PM

Since the Court upheld this monstrosity as a tax, it can be dismantled via reconciliation in the Senate, which requires only 51 votes, not 60.

On day one Romney can issue a waiver to any State that wants it

On day one Romney can unravel and negate any Executive Order pertaining to any aspect of Obamacare

On day one Romney can put a stop to all regulatory promulgation at HHS, IRS, and DOJ.

Both Chambers of Congress can dismantle this monstrosity by passing simple majority bills to defund and dismantle many mandates therein.

Then work on full repeal.

All that said, Roberts’ willingness to roll the dice with a single presidential election, when the stakes are as high as the individual mandate, which would forever change the relationship of the State to the individual under our Constituion, is naïve, dangerous, and unforgivable. We deserved and needed better. This decision is a disgrace.

matthew8787 on June 29, 2012 at 8:36 PM

Primordial,

We get your point, and I for one agree with you from a language perspective, but…

As a legal matter, SCOTUS has spoken, and if they’re going to hand us a club with which to beat the snot out of the left from now until at least the election, we’re going to use said club.

Remember, many of the people whose votes we’re going to need in November are low-information voters who don’t know the difference between a commerce clause and a pineapple, and have never heard of fast & furious.

What they DO understand are the authority of SCOTUS, and the words “tax hike” (Obamacare/tax)and “lies/corruption” (F&F). I agree with rockmom — use all the weapons we can.

LooseCannon on June 29, 2012 at 9:13 PM

Roberts own words specify the mandate as a tax:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/supreme-court-lets-health-law-largely-stand.html?_r=1

“The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax, Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”

Roberts wrote that the law “makes going without insurance just another thing the government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning an income.” …

……This bill is a huge tax increase on the American people….especially the middle class.
No amount of spin is going to change that.

Repeal this law passed on nothing but lies and deceit by the democratic party.

Baxter Greene on June 29, 2012 at 9:19 PM

Roberts says it’s a tax, Oblahblah says it isn’t. Lets call the whole thing off. I didn’t hear either one of them tell us to bend over, did you?

Kissmygrits on June 29, 2012 at 8:26 PM

Roberts’ ruling>0bamessiah babblings to the contrary.

0bamaCare’s mandate is now legally is a tax. Any Leftist who denies that disagrees with the 5-4 vote, and unwittingly is positing that 0bamaCare is unconstitutional – they cannot have it both ways…

Bizarro No. 1 on June 29, 2012 at 9:37 PM

LooseCannon on June 29, 2012 at 9:13 PM

I hope that ThePrimordialOrderedPair reads your post, and absorbs some of your wisdom! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on June 29, 2012 at 9:42 PM

Because most people either have health insurance or people do the responsible thing and if they can afford health insurance they will purchase it,” the spokesman said.

Yes. Because buying insurance you don’t need or more insurance than you do need is the responsible thing to do. Must be all about paying your fair share or something.

Ain’t Statism great?!

stvnscott on June 29, 2012 at 9:47 PM

“One percent of the population. One percent. You can call it what you want, but it is affecting 1 percent of the population. Because most people either have health insurance or people do the responsible thing and if they can afford health insurance they will purchase it,”

Wait, so this massive bill, which increases costs all over the place, and was so necessary it had to be passed before anyone knew what was in it… was to help a MEASLY 1% OF THE PEOPLE?!?!?!? Guess I’m a 99%er after all……..

GWB on June 30, 2012 at 10:34 AM

The House will vote on repeal but Reid will never schedule a vote in the Senate.

True but then the Democrats are confirming their vote for the largest tax increase on the middle class in our history, and it should be screaming obvious that this is the case now.

Of course, the low life MSM editors probably won’t let it be mentioned, but it should be a big presidential campaign point for the Republicans.

Chessplayer on June 30, 2012 at 4:47 PM

I don’t care. Obama is awesome and its not a tax! s/

Bevan on July 1, 2012 at 6:24 AM

What the absolute incompetence and corruption of Obama and this administration does is expose the ignorance of the American people. To be deceived on this level reflects a diminished level of intelligence of a large enough percentage of our nation to create a danger to our freedom and way of life. Europe is living proof that this idealology CANNOT work for a society like ours, founded on freedom and individual accomplishment. Whether Obama is doing this on purpose of just totally incompetent, the end result is the same.

volsense on July 1, 2012 at 9:42 AM

“Because most people either have health insurance or people do the responsible thing and if they can afford health insurance they will purchase it,” the spokesman said.”

If everyone has health insurance because they’re responsible or can afford it why did obamacare need to be pushed through in the first place.

From the sounds of this excuse the one who obamacare is supposed to be helping are the ones who will get taxed

wakey74 on July 1, 2012 at 11:58 PM

Since the Court upheld this monstrosity as a tax, it can be dismantled via reconciliation in the Senate, which requires only 51 votes, not 60.

matthew8787 on June 29, 2012 at 8:36 PM

This is why the D’s are walking back the “tax” definition. Not because ‘O’ claimed he would not raise taxes. If it is not a tax, then it takes 60 votes in the Senate to overturn.

Despite the legal gymnastics that Roberts twisted in his mind (and only his mind), the text of the passed legislation does not contain the word tax and the text did not change with Roberts decision. The D’s know this and will continue to maintain that it is not a tax.

No court in this country, including the SCOTUS, would declare that it is a tax for the purposes of 51 vs. 60 votes in the Senate. Roberts is the only Justice that would vote that is is.

Before this is over, Roberts will come to realize his decision was foolish. Rodney King moments (“can’t we all just get along”) are not what the SCOTUS should stand for.

Carnac on July 2, 2012 at 8:20 AM

I understand the logic behind the argument that Obama lied about whether or not “it’s a tax” (being that ACA never would have passed as such). But, now that SCOTUS has ruled in favor, the democrats really have no choice but to embrace the tax label…just like Romney did in 2006 when he jammed Romneycare down the throats of Massachusens.
Hey, look at the bright side, at least Obamacare doesn’t allow for government funded abortions.
http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/problem-romneycare

greataunty on July 2, 2012 at 8:41 AM

greataunty on July 2, 2012 at 8:41 AM

Both pre and post the SCOTUS decision, ACA still does not contain the word “tax”. Roberts may have rewritten the law in his mind, but he did not rewrite the law. That is exactly the point that the D’s are now making. This baby is going to take 60 Senate votes to overturn, not 51. Roberts proved himself to be a complete failure at judicial activism.

Carnac on July 2, 2012 at 9:41 AM

Comment pages: 1 2