SCOTUS-HealthCare Reform

[danefan]

The taxing authority was an alternative argument put forth by the Government....so SCOTUS did nothing but accept that argument.

That's odd. There are plenty of instances of congressional Dems and Obama claiming that it isn't a tax. I guess it's a tax when it suits their purposes and not a tax when it suits their purposes.

When it mattered - in briefs to SCOTUS - the Government took the position that it could fall under the Commerce Clause or the Taxing Power. And they won.

And btw - Roberts did the exact same thing. It was a tax to get it under the Taxing Clause, but not a tax under the Anti-injunction Act.

[OL FU]

Interesting so does that mean he is saying once the tax is implemented, the issue can be brought in front of the court again. Personally, I hope not just because I don't think we need to continually re-address the issue, but just curious?

No - what I think he's saying is that he didn't have to wait until it became effective to rule on it. The issues is settled now.

Got it. Thanks

[JoltinJoe]

What happened was the reporter read the first part of the decision, holding the use of the commerce clause to justify the mandate, as unconstitutional. In a rush to get the story out quickly, he/she writes the mandate was struck down.

Then the reporter reads the part in which the Court upholds the mandate as a "direct" tax -- correction time.

New political issue: "Obamacare was a disguised tax all along." I'm not so sure if this is ultimately a "win" for the President.

[JoltinJoe]

SCOTUS upholds the mandate as a tax, but Congress and Obama claim it is not a tax. If it is a tax and Congress did not levy the tax, then who did? The only answer is that SCOTUS levied the tax. Levying taxes is a congressional, not judicial power. SCOTUS has once again usurped congressional authority.

The taxing authority was an alternative argument put forth by the Government....so SCOTUS did nothing but accept that argument.

Yes, but congress did not invoke its taxing authority in the Act. I don't have time to read the court's reasoning as to how it can uphold the Act as a tax under these circumstances right now, but off the top of my head, it sounds a little intellectually dishonest. In fact, many members of congress represented explicitly that they were not imposing a tax, to my recollection.

[danefan]

The taxing authority was an alternative argument put forth by the Government....so SCOTUS did nothing but accept that argument.

Yes, but congress did not invoke its taxing authority in the Act. I don't have time to read the court's reasoning as to how it can uphold the Act as a tax under these circumstances right now, but off the top of my head, it sounds a little intellectually dishonest. In fact, many members of congress represented explicitly that they were not imposing a tax, to my recollection.

They put the penalty in the tax code. Even without a specific invocation, its not a stretch to infer they were invoking the taxing authority.

Or I should say, the drafters of the bill may have intended to do so. That does not mean the members of Congress that voted in favor of the bill knew it...which can easily explain the disconnect.

And that is an issue in and of itself. But not one to place on SCOTUS's shoulders, IMO.

[Ibanez]

Twitter: DNC executive director @patrickgaspard

'it's constitutional. Bitches

[danefan]

Twitter: DNC executive director @patrickgaspard

'it's constitutional. Bitches

What a dumbass.

[JoltinJoe]

Yes, but congress did not invoke its taxing authority in the Act. I don't have time to read the court's reasoning as to how it can uphold the Act as a tax under these circumstances right now, but off the top of my head, it sounds a little intellectually dishonest. In fact, many members of congress represented explicitly that they were not imposing a tax, to my recollection.

They put the penalty in the tax code. Even without a specific invocation, its not a stretch to infer they were invoking the taxing authority.

Or I should say, the drafters of the bill may have intended to do so. That does not mean the members of Congress that voted in favor of the bill knew it...which can easily explain the disconnect.

And that is an issue in and of itself. But not one to place on SCOTUS's shoulders, IMO.

The fact that the penalty was payable to the IRS was certainly something that escaped significant notice. I did not know that until I started skimming through the decision today.

And we already know many members of congress voted on the Act without reading it completely, so it is certainly plausible that many of those in congress were not aware of this fact either. I wonder how some of them feel about having to run for re-election with this previously secret tax now hanging around their necks.

[danefan]

They put the penalty in the tax code. Even without a specific invocation, its not a stretch to infer they were invoking the taxing authority.

Or I should say, the drafters of the bill may have intended to do so. That does not mean the members of Congress that voted in favor of the bill knew it...which can easily explain the disconnect.

And that is an issue in and of itself. But not one to place on SCOTUS's shoulders, IMO.

The fact that the penalty was payable to the IRS was certainly something that escaped significant notice. I did not know that until I started skimming through the decision today.

And we already know many members of congress voted on the Act without reading it completely, so it is certainly plausible that many of those in congress were not aware of this fact either. I wonder how some of them feel about having to run for re-election with this previously secret tax now hanging around their necks.

And they have nowhere to hide now. Anyone who voted for the bill voted for a tax increase on some Americans. How many Americans will be subject to the penalty is another story, but I can certainly understand the frustration of constituents if their representative did not know what he or she was voting for.

[GannonFan]

Twitter: DNC executive director @patrickgaspard

What a dumbass.

And therein lies the rub for Obama going forward. This makes getting reelected harder, and it makes holding onto the Senate harder, because if the energy wasn't on the Republican side of the debate already, it certainly is now. The fact that this gets broadcast and stamped by the Supreme Court as a tax plays incredibly well with what motivates the Republican side (and even Independents) right now. And it helps Romney incredibly - now he doesn't have to necessarily come up with his own plan as he would've had the entire act been thrown out (or even just the mandate/tax) - he gets the luxury of just campaigning against something, not for something, and it's much easier to campaign that way (for better or for worse). ABCNews might get rich out of this if they can sell the royalties to the Stephanapoulus interview where Obama repeatedly said this wasn't a tax. And that's again where Romney gains traction - he can be for everything that is in the Act itself and solely run on the idea that Obama has raised taxes on pretty much everyone in this legislation. It was always true, but people could be confused with the idea of calling it a mandate. The Supreme Court, while allowing the bill to stand, has pretty much highlighted the tax part of it more than most anyone would've thought.

[Ibanez]

What a dumbass.

And therein lies the rub for Obama going forward. This makes getting reelected harder, and it makes holding onto the Senate harder, because if the energy wasn't on the Republican side of the debate already, it certainly is now. The fact that this gets broadcast and stamped by the Supreme Court as a tax plays incredibly well with what motivates the Republican side (and even Independents) right now. And it helps Romney incredibly - now he doesn't have to necessarily come up with his own plan as he would've had the entire act been thrown out (or even just the mandate/tax) - he gets the luxury of just campaigning against something, not for something, and it's much easier to campaign that way (for better or for worse). ABCNews might get rich out of this if they can sell the royalties to the Stephanapoulus interview where Obama repeatedly said this wasn't a tax. And that's again where Romney gains traction - he can be for everything that is in the Act itself and solely run on the idea that Obama has raised taxes on pretty much everyone in this legislation. It was always true, but people could be confused with the idea of calling it a mandate. The Supreme Court, while allowing the bill to stand, has pretty much highlighted the tax part of it more than most anyone would've thought.

This is a huge advantage for the GOP. They want to cut taxes but the Democrats have secretly passed a tax, and lied to us all.

[ASUMountaineer]

SCOTUS upholds mandate. Roberts sides with the Left in his decision. THis is definetly a game changer. So, what else can the Gov't force us to buy?

I guess it really was Bush's fault. Huh...

[TheDancinMonarch]

SCOTUS upholds mandate. Roberts sides with the Left in his decision. THis is definetly a game changer. So, what else can the Gov't force us to buy?

I guess it really was Bush's fault. Huh...

Roberts appointed by Bush. So I guess that makes him a morons' moron.

[UNI88]

And therein lies the rub for Obama going forward. This makes getting reelected harder, and it makes holding onto the Senate harder, because if the energy wasn't on the Republican side of the debate already, it certainly is now. The fact that this gets broadcast and stamped by the Supreme Court as a tax plays incredibly well with what motivates the Republican side (and even Independents) right now. And it helps Romney incredibly - now he doesn't have to necessarily come up with his own plan as he would've had the entire act been thrown out (or even just the mandate/tax) - he gets the luxury of just campaigning against something, not for something, and it's much easier to campaign that way (for better or for worse). ABCNews might get rich out of this if they can sell the royalties to the Stephanapoulus interview where Obama repeatedly said this wasn't a tax. And that's again where Romney gains traction - he can be for everything that is in the Act itself and solely run on the idea that Obama has raised taxes on pretty much everyone in this legislation. It was always true, but people could be confused with the idea of calling it a mandate. The Supreme Court, while allowing the bill to stand, has pretty much highlighted the tax part of it more than most anyone would've thought.

This is a huge advantage for the GOP. They want to cut taxes but the Democrats have secretly passed a tax, and lied to us all.

Is it? Proponents said it wasn't a tax simply for PR purposes. The American public has a notoriously short attention span. Will they care that they were told it wasn't a tax a long time ago? Conks will be sure to hammer that home in their advertising but I'm not sure how major of a factor it will be. It does make the election a lot more interesting.

[youngterrier]

Now for some comic relief!





But for serious, I don't like the mandate, but everything else seems good to me. If there was a public option of some sort the mandate wouldn't be as big of a deal. But noooo to the mandate. But I'll survive. Especially since I'm 18 and it will be about a decade until I have to worry about this thanks to the expanded amount of time parents can pay for their kids

[GannonFan]

This is a huge advantage for the GOP. They want to cut taxes but the Democrats have secretly passed a tax, and lied to us all.

Is it? Proponents said it wasn't a tax simply for PR purposes. The American public has a notoriously short attention span. Will they care that they were told it wasn't a tax a long time ago? Conks will be sure to hammer that home in their advertising but I'm not sure how major of a factor it will be. It does make the election a lot more interesting.

The advertising will be what will work and keep the issue there. There are countless soundbites, including Obama several times in that one interview, saying over and over again that it's not a tax. You overlay that with Robert's ruling clearly calling it a tax, and it'll be hard to forget. And then you couple that story with an economy that just seems to be limping along and it'll have to be something the Dems will need to work hard to overcome. Obama has the power of the incumbency, which is huge at the Presidential level (only Bush Sr. and Carter have been one term Presidents - who weren't shot and had their time in office cut short - in the past 80 years) but you have to wonder if the Dems are now going to be able to hold onto the Senate, let alone retake the House, when an issue like this is bound to resonate even more so at the local level. And now Romney doesn't even need to have an alternative - he just needs to be against the tax. It's easy to run on being against a tax.

[andy7171]

And therein lies the rub for Obama going forward. This makes getting reelected harder, and it makes holding onto the Senate harder, because if the energy wasn't on the Republican side of the debate already, it certainly is now. The fact that this gets broadcast and stamped by the Supreme Court as a tax plays incredibly well with what motivates the Republican side (and even Independents) right now. And it helps Romney incredibly - now he doesn't have to necessarily come up with his own plan as he would've had the entire act been thrown out (or even just the mandate/tax) - he gets the luxury of just campaigning against something, not for something, and it's much easier to campaign that way (for better or for worse). ABCNews might get rich out of this if they can sell the royalties to the Stephanapoulus interview where Obama repeatedly said this wasn't a tax. And that's again where Romney gains traction - he can be for everything that is in the Act itself and solely run on the idea that Obama has raised taxes on pretty much everyone in this legislation. It was always true, but people could be confused with the idea of calling it a mandate. The Supreme Court, while allowing the bill to stand, has pretty much highlighted the tax part of it more than most anyone would've thought.

(CNSNews.com) - "The incredible irony here is that in upholding Obamacare, Roberts et. al. have formally also declared Obama to be a monumental liar," said L. Brent Bozell III, president of the conservative Media Research Center, the parent organization of CNSNews.com. "And in the most bizarre twist of them all, they upheld the lie by declaring this to be a tax.

"Conservatives -- Republicans -- can now campaign on the line of attack that a) this is the greatest expansion of power in history; b) this is the greatest tax increase in history; and c) this is the greatest presidential deception in history.

"From now til Election Day the GOP should simply run clips of Obama insisting this wasn't a tax," Bozell said.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/incredi ... ental-liar" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[GannonFan]

That says it all, andy, clearly I agree. When you think of it, although Roberts is "siding" with Obama in upholding this, this was also potentially the best political outcome for Republicans - they get all the initiative now and at the same time the Dems end up playing defense for what's now advertised as a tax they swore they weren't doing. And in addition, it kinda muffles any line the Dems were going to use that the SCOTUS was too conservative and that they overreached and were "activist". Can't rally around that line of thinking when headlines are all that they upheld the law.

[danefan]

I definitely think it hurts Obama because people in the country need everything dumbed down for them.

You want to be pissed about taxes? Be pissed about taxes on your income.

Being pissed all of a sudden because this penalty falls under Congress's Taxing power is stupid and ignorant. The penalty is no more or less of a tax today than it was 2 years ago.

[JoltinJoe]

I definitely think it hurts Obama because people in the country need everything dumbed down for them.

You want to be pissed about taxes? Be pissed about taxes on your income.

Being pissed all of a sudden because this penalty falls under Congress's Taxing power is stupid and ignorant. The penalty is no more or less of a tax today than it was 2 years ago.

But, from a political perspective, if calling it a tax was politically palatable, they would have called it a tax from the git-go.

I think the label matters to enough people to make the label matter. (inspired by Yogi Berra).

[CitadelGrad]

I definitely think it hurts Obama because people in the country need everything dumbed down for them.

You want to be pissed about taxes? Be pissed about taxes on your income.

Being pissed all of a sudden because this penalty falls under Congress's Taxing power is stupid and ignorant. The penalty is no more or less of a tax today than it was 2 years ago.

The difference is that now we have a clear definition of what constitutes a tax. The Dem narrative has been that mandates are not taxes, even though they function from an economic perspective as additions to the tax burden. Now everyone can get pissed with a blessing from SCOTUS and the Dems will bear the brunt of that anger.

As much as I don't like the insurance mandate, the more that I read this opinion, the more I like it. Roberts handed Romney a huge campaign issue that Obama can't win. He also told Congress that expansion of federal power through the Commerce Clause is not in the cards. It even appears that he is playing the long game to overturn Wickard.

Someone I talked to a little earlier put it very well. Roberts gave Obama a narrow win in the first round of a boxing match but put the fix in that will ensure Obama loses on points after 12 rounds.

Roberts is a genius. There can't be any doubt about that now.

[93henfan]

Interesting that I'm getting this graphic at the bottom:

[GannonFan]

I definitely think it hurts Obama because people in the country need everything dumbed down for them.

You want to be pissed about taxes? Be pissed about taxes on your income.

Being pissed all of a sudden because this penalty falls under Congress's Taxing power is stupid and ignorant. The penalty is no more or less of a tax today than it was 2 years ago.

You're ignoring the power of language - I agree that we're not a nation of intellectuals, and that this thing doesn't cost any more now that it did then (well, outside of the idea that the CBO says it actually does cost more now than it initially had estimated), but people were conditioned for years to think about a "mandate" and not a "tax". Having the SCOTUS stamp it officially as a tax, coupled with soundbites galore of people from Obama on done saying it's not a tax, and having people wake up to that reality can be classified as stupid and ignorant on their part, but stupid and ignorant describes a large chunk of the electorate (on both sides of the aisle) so it's relevancy matters much more than whether they should've realized this when the law was passed.

[bluehenbillk]

You know people lean heavily to the GOP side when they say all taxes are bad taxes.

Steering from health care here for a minute: Look, I am as independent as they come, but if you think we can't fix the deficit issues without increasing revenues you need to take your head out of the sand. If Obama & Romney tell you otherwise, they're lying through their teeth & should be told that directly.

[GannonFan]

You know people lean heavily to the GOP side when they say all taxes are bad taxes.

Steering from health care here for a minute: Look, I am as independent as they come, but if you think we can't fix the deficit issues without increasing revenues you need to take your head out of the sand. If Obama & Romney tell you otherwise, they're lying through their teeth & should be told that directly.

I don't think anyone would ever say that we don't need to get more revenue - the difference of opinion is always around how to get that revenue. The GOP will say that we can get more revenue by keeping taxes low, letting the economy grow at a faster rate than it would if taxes were high, and we'll get more total revenue as a result of the growth in the economy. The Dems will say that they can get more revenue from keeping taxes low on anyone except the rich and that the economy will grow at a faster rate than if the rich hadn't been so taxed, and they'll get more revenue from the taxes and the high growth. But neither side is saying we can't fix the deficit without more revenue.