Testifying before Congress this morning, President Obama's acting budget director Jeffrey Zients directly undercut one of the administration's key legal defenses of its national health care law as it nears a hearing before the Supreme Court. In a hearing of the House Budget Committee Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J., pressed Zients on whether the penalty that the health care law imposes on individuals who do not purchase health insurance constitutes a tax. Eventually, Zients said it did not. But this directly contradicts one of the arguments the Obama administration is making before the Supreme Court in defense of the health care law, which is that the mandate is Constitutional because it's a tax and government has taxing power. This has always been a tricky argument for the Obama administration, because admitting that the mandate is a tax means that Obama violated his pledge not to raise taxes on those earning less than $250,000. In September 2009, Obama told ABC's George Stephanapoulos that the mandate was not a tax. But by the following June, his administration was arguing in court that it was. Now the administration is making both arguments simultaneously. Before Congress, Zients is arguing that it is not a tax. But before the Supreme Court next month, the administration will argue that it is, in fact, a tax....
Obviously it isn't a tax, but it is equivalent to one. Except that everyone gets an exemption, except for those who can afford health insurance but refuse to buy it.
I ever recall hearing Obama describe it as a tax.
Typo, sorry. I don't recall ever hearing Obama describe it as a tax. If it was, however, it would not violate his pledge, as it would only fall on those who failed to follow the law.
That was not the line that was confusing but whatever. I don’t think BHO ever described it as a tax as the talking heads would be ALL OVER IT considering the link in the OP. I don’t see how this does not violate his pledge. If someone who makes less than $250k/yr doesn’t purchase HC insurance he will be taxed/fined hence raising their taxes.
At issue is whether it is ‘taxed’ or ‘fined’. I believe them pressing for ‘fined’ under the commerce clause will be an overreach. Arguing it to be a ‘tax’, pledge or not, compliant with the 16th amendment would seem to be a stronger argument. Ultimately I don’t feel the protection of BHO’s ‘pledge’ has much rationality as it is typical for a POL to break a pledge. People historically get over it.
though, i mean, with the boss himself on both sides of the issue, who can really blame him?
As I recall, at least one of the Strike Down rulings was on this very issue, with the Judge claiming it had been sold under false pretenses, and you cannot later go back and claim Oh Well Now It's A Tax.
iN ADDITION TO THOSE INCENTIVES THROUGH TAX AND OTHER SUBSIDIES TO PURCHASE HEALTH INSURANCE, ¢ONGRESS ASSIGNED ADVERSE TAX CONSEQUENCES TO THE ALTERNATIVE OF ATTEMPTED SELF-INSURING. CONGRESS PROVIDED THAT, BEGINNING IN 2014, NON-EXEMPTED FEDERAL INCOME TAXPAYERS WHO FAIL TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM LEVEL OF HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR THEMSELVES OR THEIR DEPENDENTS WILL OWE A TAX PENALTY
I don't think he was making a pledge that no one would be fined if they violated the tax laws.
As usual, the Beltway Confidential did not let facts get in the way of their story. In point of fact in the brief the White House sent to SCOTUS, they call the penalty a tax: http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/77380052-11-Filed.pdf
People who believe the Examiner and especially the Beltway Confidential deserve to be deceived as they are.
You use Huffpo as a source and deride people for being willingly deceived? That's like using WND for a birther claim.
The only people who complain about HuffPo are hackish republicans and conservatives and WND well ... I wouldn't be surprised if you yourself cited it when it helped you. Your comparison is invalid.
Statement from the Newspaper Guild | HPUB - Huffington Post Union of BloggersHuffPo provides a powerful platform for pro-labor and progressive messages. Doesn’t that outweigh wrongdoing on the part of its parent company?
The Huffington Post - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe Huffington Post was launched on May 9, 2005, as a liberal/left commentary outlet and alternative to news aggregators such as the Drudge Report.
Huh, it's just us "hackish conservatives" that see huffpo as biased. You got me. I guess that's /thread for you, no need to come back.
Of course, Huffpo's bias is well established... from Huffpo's bloggers for example:
Then of course, there is the old standby of Wikipedia:
The Huffington Post - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So we have the Huffpo bloggers admitting their pushing progressive drivvel, and huffpo's own creation as a left wing site as proof it's biased...
But no, that's just crazy right wing talk eh?
The only people who complain about HuffPo are hackish republicans and conservatives and WND well ...
That's not true. Huffpo is as bad as mediamatters, or WND/Townhall.
No, huffpo's worse, they push BS and call it news.Only it isn't. HuffPo doesn't embrace backyard conspiracy theories or promote them as truth. If you disagree I welcome you to bring up a few examples. Maybe you could bring up Huffington arguing that it was Bush that blew up the towers? How about them claiming Cheney had evidence of 9/11 before it happened? Maybe you could show us Huffington claiming the plane that hit the Pentagon was a missile? I'll wait.
You use Huffpo as a source and deride people for being willingly deceived? That's like using WND for a birther claim.
Only whiners who can't refute an article complain solely about its source.
At least the poster of the article didn't refute his own argument with his own link
No, huffpo's worse, they push BS and call it news.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?