DNC Chair: It’s easiest for the IRS to administer the health care mandate, but it’s not a tax

posted at 4:01 pm on July 3, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

Just remember, guys: The Internal Revenue Service might be the best-equipped entity to administer the “penalty,” and the “penalty” might be assessed on your tax return, but the requirement to pay a “penalty” if you don’t buy health insurance is most definitively not a tax.

Speaking on CNN’s “The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer,” Wasserman Schultz said Monday, that the law should be enforced by the federal government’s taxing arm because “it’s simply a matter of ease in administration.”

“The way we usually think of taxation, Wolf, is that taxation as the IRS administers is collected on broad swaths and large categories of individuals,” Wasserman Schultz said. “This is a penalty that will be assessed on the tax return if you choose to roll the dice and make us all pay for your being irresponsible and increase all of our health care costs.

“We’re not going to tolerate that any more in America. You have to be responsible and you have to pay a penalty if you choose not to be,” she continued.

Okay, whatever, Democrats — call it what you want. It looks like a tax, it smells like a tax, but fine, it’s just the feds penalizing you for exercising your personal freedom to not buy health insurance. But the fact remains that this “penalty” is going to funnel more of Americans’ money out of the productive private economy and into the government, and it’s going to be a huge imposition to the middle class.

In related news, Florida Gov. Rick Scott has led the charge of Republican states — so far including Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Wisconsin — in declining to start battening down the hatches for the optional portions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (Heh. “Affordable.” Sorry, I still can’t say that with a straight face.) While I applauded Gov. Scott’s leadership on refusing to accept that ObamaCare is going to become a historical fact and pledging to continue to work toward its repeal, Rep. Wasserman Schultz didn’t happen to see it that way.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., the chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), described her state governor as “a spoiled brat” for trying to fight Obamacare even though the Supreme Court ruled the law constitutional.

“I think he’s acting like a spoiled brat,” Wasserman Schultz said of Gov. Rick Scott, R-Fla., per WOKV. “He insisted that the law was unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has ruled. The matter should be settled.”

Yes, I do think that perhaps someone is showing just a touch of petulance here — but it isn’t Gov. Scott.


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

those with religious objections or who participate in a “health care sharing ministry,”§5000A(d)(2)

That pretty much excludes most of Dearborn, MI and a number of municipalities in CA (Manteca and Fremont are immediate examples).

riddick on July 3, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Exchange between Chief Justice John Roberts and Solicitor General Donald Verrilli during oral argument on 27 March 2012:

GENERAL VERRILLI: … it seems to me that not only is it fair to read this as an exercise of the tax power, but this Court has got an obligation to construe it as an exercise of the tax power, if it can be upheld on that basis.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Why didn’t Congress call it a tax, then?

GENERAL VERRILLI: Well –

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: You’re telling me they thought of it as a tax, they defended it on the tax power. Why didn’t they say it was a tax?

GENERAL VERRILLI: They might have thought, Your Honor, that calling it a penalty as they did would make it more effective in accomplishing its objectives. But it is in the Internal Revenue Code, it is collected by the IRS on April 15th. I don’t think this is a situation in which you can say –

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, that’s the reason. They thought it might be more effective if they called it a penalty..

Exchange between Justice Samuel Alito and Solicitor General Donald Verrilli during oral argument on 26 March 2012:

JUSTICE ALITO: General Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax. 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?

VERRILLI: No.

- Solicitor Donald B Verrilli, Jr, 26 March 2012

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 6:38 PM

What will we do when Zero and Co. fire her worthless hide? Make fun of the next dithering fool they appoint, I suppose.

Philly on July 3, 2012 at 6:38 PM

I think her claim of 129 million Americans with pre-existing conditions refers to menstruating women.

Colony14 on July 3, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Obama Administration Argues to Supreme Court that ObamaCare’s Mandate Is a Tax, Tells Reporters That It’s Not a Tax

SC.Charlie on July 3, 2012 at 6:27 PM

It’s fun to go and read what people were saying a few years ago as to whether it was a tax or not.

0bamessiah Himself knew then that it was a tax, but avoided the terminology because He understood the political downside of admitting what it was – he got pissy with Stephanopoulos during that interview because no mere human has the rightful standing to challenge a god like 0bamessiah’s proclamations! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on July 3, 2012 at 6:39 PM

J.E. Dyer on July 3, 2012 at 6:33 PM

I hope you are right. I worry about the stigma that appears to be attached to the thought of God and what he has given us. Looking for small glimmers of light, a Democrat from N.C. just announced that he would not be going to their convention, would not be endorsing Obama, voted for Holder’s contempt charge and would vote to repeal Obamacare. I will take some comfort in that.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 6:41 PM

I don’t know if we have the political assets right now. The election in November will be informative in that regard.

J.E. Dyer on July 3, 2012 at 6:33 PM

GOP primaries are pretty much over, so not much new blood in Congress save for a few remianing TEA Party choices here and there with FEW the keyword.

We’re done until 2014 at the earliest. Unless there are revolts in both Senate and House and new GOP leaders are elected. Odds on that are even slimmer than on more new faces in Congress.

riddick on July 3, 2012 at 6:41 PM

The tide has to turn first in the people, and I think that’s what is happening right now.

J.E. Dyer on July 3, 2012 at 6:33 PM

+7%…!

Seven Percent Solution on July 3, 2012 at 6:41 PM

I think Robert’s ruling was wise beyond the understanding of these idiots. It was his way of saying; “Screw you, Obama!”

LizardLips on July 3, 2012 at 6:43 PM

I think Robert’s ruling was wise beyond the understanding of these idiots. It was his way of saying; “Screw you, Obama!”

LizardLips on July 3, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Wow, just wow!

Someone should really call you an idiot and face the wrath of the idiots out there for sullying their name. You mean giving Congress the power to tax at will as long as any law they dream of is tied to a tax was a “Screw you, Obama”?

Amazing…

riddick on July 3, 2012 at 6:47 PM

I think Robert’s ruling was wise beyond the understanding of these idiots. It was his way of saying; “Screw you, Obama!”

LizardLips on July 3, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Well, Roberts chose a most unfortunate lubricant for that purpose.

TXUS on July 3, 2012 at 6:51 PM

riddick on July 3, 2012 at 6:41 PM

Incumbents must be retrained. We are going to have to be more vocal and visible.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 6:52 PM

LizardLips on July 3, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Well I’m an idiot because I think his ruling was b.s..

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 6:53 PM

My daughter graduated from college and got a job and received insurance as a benefit. I wish DWS would go to —-.

A 2500+ page bill is not the answer

LouBob1980 on July 3, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Incumbents must be retrained. We are going to have to be more vocal and visible.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Well, some, like Ryan, probably can be. For those like McConnell, Boehner and Cantor I really don’t think there is any hope, they have been at the easy money/life spigot for way too long now.

riddick on July 3, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Why not let the SEIU administer it? They are better at beating people up than the IRS…

wildcat72 on July 3, 2012 at 4:10 PM

IIRC, wasn’t that one of the major underlying motivations of the bill in the first place, a huge carve-out and payback to the unions, especially and particularly SEIU?

The SEIU will likely not only be administrators, but they will also be the crabby-on-a-good-day or surly-on-a-bad-one who will show up at your side to take a blood sample. Or if they’re LPNs or nurse’s aides, they will be all huffy and offended if they are asked to cut short their break by five minutes to assist in the ER. In one hospital in my area, they didn’t need this law — they were already acting like my description above.

PatriotGal2257 on July 3, 2012 at 7:00 PM

Wow , just steped in for a min.
This penalty , tax , pickle , whatever
is a small part of the tax scheme .
Wake up ! Taxes on 401s , sale of home ,
dividends ……. It goes on and on and on !
If you have it they will take it , let alone the
loss of LIBERTY !
And the future liability of these jerks to tax !
Pick out your Volt now if you want a color
choice .

Lucano on July 3, 2012 at 7:01 PM

I think Robert’s ruling was wise beyond the understanding of these idiots. It was his way of saying; “Screw you, Obama!”

LizardLips on July 3, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Yeh screw the guy holding the gold medal…whatever.

Also, please someone quit posting pics of the frazzled one. She makes my stomach upset.

CW on July 3, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Enough American colonists came to see the necessity of fighting a war of independence, in spite of the tall odds against that wave of opinion. Even after a terrible and bloody civil war, our nation came together and affirmed the universality of God-given rights. America has done some remarkable and unique things, and we have every prospect of beating the odds again. The Founders’ fight started a good 20 years before the Treaty of Paris in 1783, and it took until 1791 to ratify a constitution for union. I would rather that a successful fight take nearly 30 years than give up the fight. The tide has to turn first in the people, and I think that’s what is happening right now.

J.E. Dyer on July 3, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Letter to Hezekiah Niles on the American Revolution
John Adams
1818

The American Revolution was not a common event. Its effects and consequences have already been awful over a great part of the globe. And when and where are they to cease?

But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American War? The Revolution was effected before the War commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people, a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations. While the king, and all in authority under him, were believed to govern in justice and mercy according to the laws and constitution derived to them from the God of nature, and transmitted to them by their ancestors, they thought themselves bound to pray for the king and queen and all the royal family, and all in authority under them, as ministers ordained of God for their good. But when they saw those powers renouncing all the principles of authority, and bent upon the destruction of all the securities of their lives, liberties, and properties, they thought it their duty to pray for the Continental Congress and all the thirteen state congresses, etc.

INC on July 3, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Roberts wrote in his opinion that “Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. IT IS NOT OUR JOB TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR POLITICAL CHOICES.”

Let’s assume that the Democrats wanted to call it a tax, but didn’t (they actually DID change it from a tax to a penalty) FOR POLITICAL REASONS. Fine.

If it is not the Court’s job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices, IS IT ALSO NOT TRUE THAT THE JOB OF THE COURT IS NOT TO PROTECT ELECTED OFFICIALS IN CONGRESS AND THE WHITE HOUSE FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR POLITICAL CHOICES?

Why should the Supreme Court provide cover for Congress? Why should the Supreme Court provide cover a President?

If Congress meant for it to be a tax, but deliberately chose to label it a penalty due to political considerations, IT IS ***NOT*** THE JOB OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE TO PROTECT THE RULING CLASS FROM EITHER THEIR OWN FOLLY (WRITING UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS AND HAVING THEM THEM BEING DECLARED SO, i.e., THE MANDATE IS A “PENALTY”) OR THEIR POLITICAL DECISIONS (VOTING TO INCREASE TAXES, i.e., THE MANDATE IS A “TAX”).

On whose side is the Court? It would appear the DC-Establishment and, certainly, not the people.

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 7:33 PM

I just had a discussion over the phone about that topic with someone 1/2 hour ago! I explained to her why I believe Roberts interpreted the mandate as a tax correctly, but wimpily allowed the duplicity of the Dems to stand when he didn’t have to.

Where I differ with many on the Right is that I believe Roberts honestly believed he did the right thing – you know, his idea of being an impartial umpire?

I see that he was weak, not bad…

Bizarro No. 1 on July 3, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Debbie Witchface-Schultz is a scum sucker. I bet she’s offended that people are calling Obamacare a tax.

jaime on July 3, 2012 at 8:14 PM

Oh, it’s not a tax because RomneyCare penalties aren’t a tax? At least that’s a new argument.

If it looks like a duck, or quacks like a duck…

RMCS_USN on July 3, 2012 at 4:09 PM

You know Senior Chief, sometimes it may NOT be a duck…..it could just be DWS flapping her lips again. All I hear when she speaks is quacking.

Zooid on July 3, 2012 at 8:26 PM

What he did was betray his oath to be faithful to the Constitution of the United States.

Who he betrayed were the hundreds of millions of Americans – past, present and future – whole generations in the past who have fought and died for a freedom that he has put in jeopardy, in a moment of intellectual inspiration and moral forgetfulness, 300 million Americans today whose lives are to be regimented by Washington bureaucrats, and generations yet unborn who may never know the individual freedoms that their ancestors took for granted.

Some claim that Chief Justice Roberts did what he did to save the Supreme Court as an institution from the wrath – and retaliation – of those in Congress who have been railing against Justices who invalidate the laws they have passed. Many in the media and in academia have joined the shrill chorus of those who claim that the Supreme Court does not show proper “deference” to the legislative branch of government.

But what does the Bill of Rights seek to protect the ordinary citizen from? The government! To defer to those who expand government power beyond its constitutional limits is to betray those whose freedom depends on the Bill of Rights.

Schadenfreude on July 3, 2012 at 10:00 PM

This is a penalty that will be assessed on the tax return if you choose to roll the dice and make us all pay for your being irresponsible and increase all of our health care costs.

Where is the “penality” for able-body people who choose to roll the dice by living off the government (housing,food stamps, childcare) and make us all pay for their irresponsibility, increasing all our taxes??

TN Mom on July 3, 2012 at 10:08 PM

On whose side is the Court? It would appear the DC-Establishment and, certainly, not the people.

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 7:33 PM

I’ve seen you post this on a few threads, but I’ll, just stick with it on this one!

My opinion is that instead of being relatively passive like a baseball umpire, Roberts should have acted like boxing referees do, who have to involve themselves more intimately in the contests they’re judging, and decided that the Dems’ fraud in getting 0bamaCare passed should not have been allowed to be rewarded by not being struck down.

It’s ended up that Roberts has left it to the public to punish their deceit down the road, which I don’t respect, because my attitude is that whenever you yourself are in the position to effect positive change, you do not let the opportunity pass you by with the hope that someone else will later take care of the problem that’s immediately in front of you.

I see the situation Roberts was in as similar to that of the good Samaritan, and he whiffed…

Bizarro No. 1 on July 3, 2012 at 10:22 PM

This is a penalty that will be assessed on the tax return if you choose to roll the dice and make us all pay for your being irresponsible and increase all of our health care costs.

Actually, this a penalty on me if I chose to pay for my healthcare out of pocket. Which is much more responsible than pooling my money with the unhealthy.

Spliff Menendez on July 3, 2012 at 10:23 PM

I want to add to my last post that I believe Roberts’ heart was in the right place, but his mind was clouded by his mistaken personal opinion about judicial dispassion/impartiality, which is what I see that you were/are getting at, RWM…

Bizarro No. 1 on July 3, 2012 at 10:32 PM

What an arrogant, you-know-what. “Irresponsible?” As a student of economics, I can tell you the basics of econ teach us that an act is dumb if the marginal costs are above the marginal benefits. If you’re 30 and healthy, and you suspect your health spending for the year will be zero, then buying insurance that costs $3000 a year is a loss of $3000 with no net benefit to you. Your marginal costs are 3000 and you’re marginal benefits are zero as you never utilize the service. That’s not irresponsible, it’s smart economics!

All adults SHOULDN’T have insurance, as insurance is inherently a betting game of stats. The stats tell us that most young people will never use it, most not even in this imaginary catastrophic situation that somehow destroys society (it doesn’t). A healthy 25 yr old who pays in is allowing others to mooch of him, and that’s just insane for a lot of young people in their prime money earning years.

TheBlueSite on July 3, 2012 at 10:54 PM

“I think he’s acting like a spoiled brat,” Wasserman Schultz said of Gov. Rick Scott, R-Fla., per WOKV. “He insisted that the law was unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has ruled. The matter should be settled.”

oooh, then she’s not gonna like it as “We the People” start making our feelings about this known.

AZfederalist on July 3, 2012 at 11:17 PM

Hilarious! All of a sudden Democrats are all about responsibility.

Wagthatdog on July 3, 2012 at 11:50 PM

So where does it end? If the behavior of each individual affects health care for society as a whole then:

1. Outlaw motorcycles, too dangerous
2. Outlaw skiing, too dangerous
3. Outlaw roller blades and skateboards, too dangerous
4. Outlaw cigarettes, too dangerous
5. Outlaw alcohol, too dangerous
6. Don’t allow anyone who is 10 lbs. overweight to eat anything fattening, too dangerous

All of this dangerous activity will only drive up health care costs for everyone. I guess one man’s freedom is a Marxist’s irresponsible behavior.

ardenenoch on July 4, 2012 at 12:03 AM

I cant believe I watched that thing yapping….. and she does have a pre-existing condition, it is called total partisan stupidity…..

Squidly Diddley on July 4, 2012 at 12:31 AM

Kook. I hope the PMSDNC keeps her in front of a camera for the next four months.

Jaibones on July 4, 2012 at 1:18 AM

She is trying pretty hard for someone who has already been fired.

Sherman1864 on July 4, 2012 at 1:19 AM

Now here is your mashed up bag of meat with lipstick on it if I ever saw one.

Sherman1864 on July 4, 2012 at 1:21 AM

Okay okay we get it, so it’s a PENALTY!!

Whooohoooo!

Great messaging LibTards®, as we know all real Americans love a penalty.

8thAirForce on July 4, 2012 at 3:18 AM

Although I believe he will sign a repeal of Obamacare, I also think he is going to disappoint many conservatives by insisting that the repeal be tied to a “replace,” with statist elements that we won’t like.

J.E. Dyer on July 3, 2012 at 6:33 PM

I know you are right, and that is why I keep fighting the Romney people. I am amongst the few who refuse to vote for more of the same. I believe we’ve suffered long enough, and that we’ve still got a few options left. Pretty darn few though.

DannoJyd on July 4, 2012 at 4:18 AM

Little Debbie, don’t you ever stop with the “spin”? Think Karen Harrington is neck and neck with you for your wide Florida seat. Better knock on more doors or you will be toast. Would be too bad – ha ha.

Amazingoly on July 4, 2012 at 8:05 AM

The real question is: Is Debbie Wasserman-Schultz the illegitimate child of Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean? She has so many characteristics of the two, its frightening.

volsense on July 4, 2012 at 9:37 AM

“We’re not going to tolerate…” Who is “we” Ms. Schultz? Who are you to lecture anyone about responsibility? Here’s a little advice for you – Go to Hell.

labrat on July 4, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Actually, this a penalty on me if I chose to pay for my healthcare out of pocket. Which is much more responsible than pooling my money with the unhealthy.

Spliff Menendez on July 3, 2012 at 10:23 PM

this is something MANY seem to overlook, not sure if its purposeful or just foolishness.

dmacleo on July 4, 2012 at 12:03 PM

“The way we usually think of taxation, Wolf, is that taxation as the IRS administers is collected on broad swaths and large categories of individuals,” Wasserman Schultz said. “This is a penalty that will be assessed on the tax return if you choose to roll the dice and make us all pay for your being irresponsible and increase all of our health care costs.

What!? Broad swaths and large categories? Unless, of course, you’re one of the 47% riding free who don’t pay taxes. Has anybody explained that if you pay the penalty, do you have to buy insurance, too, or are you still riding free? These people have me so confused. My Rossignol skis are free rides, do I have to pay a tax/penalty to use them?

Kissmygrits on July 4, 2012 at 12:16 PM

DWS looks like an evil villain from a Bond movie, except not the one who looks good in a bikini.

Kissmygrits on July 4, 2012 at 12:17 PM

The Stupid. It hurts.

Ygritte on July 4, 2012 at 3:29 PM

The real problem with this tax is that it isn’t enough to coerce the desired behavior. It is too cheap relative to health insurance premiums so many will pay it until thy get sick and then go buy a policy. But soon enough the insurance companies will be bankrupt and the socialist will have single payer. Thi is poor people care for the rest of us.

aloysiusmiller on July 4, 2012 at 6:38 PM

I think Robert’s ruling was wise beyond the understanding of these idiots. It was his way of saying; “Screw you, Obama!”

LizardLips on July 3, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Well, Roberts chose a most unfortunate lubricant for that purpose.

TXUS on July 3, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Loooool :) thread winner :)

jimver on July 4, 2012 at 9:25 PM

Democrats just say totally made up crap as if it were true… Alternate Universe?

aposematic on July 4, 2012 at 9:49 PM

Whatever’s easiest, Debbie.

curved space on July 5, 2012 at 5:27 AM

Lil Debbie makes Howard Dean look sane…….if that is even possible. Is being a babbling fool a prerequisite for DNC Chairperson?

volsense on July 5, 2012 at 10:17 AM

I used to think libs and communist were just lying to promote an agenda. Just look at the spokes people from the left. They all spew what seems to be lies. Are they liars or just stupid and ignorant? I really think these people beleive what they say. I’ll go with the latter two.

TomLawler on July 5, 2012 at 7:53 PM

DWS, wrong as per usual.
Where did I put that chainsaw?

mickytx on July 5, 2012 at 8:24 PM

I am sorry, but when Rep. Wasserman-Schultz appears in the news, she appears to animated that I see the only way to keep her out of the fray, is to simply unplug her.

Her hair may assume its natural shape (straight) and her eyes will return to their naturally setting within the eye socket, and the shrillness of her voice will subside.

MSGTAS on July 6, 2012 at 8:52 AM

I saw her on Fox last night. She came off as an angry mulatto lesbian. That in itself is fine, but it’s amazing how all three of these demographics are so consistently attracted to the democratic party.

michaelthomas on July 6, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3