OMB director undercuts legal case for Obamacare

washingtonexaminer.com ^ | 2/15/12 | Philip Klein

[ColdOne]

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.

Snip

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.

[alice_in_bubbaland]

One more reason to be proud of my Congressman.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

Even Rush got this wrong. A caller was asking about this and Rush claimed it was a tax and started his argument from that poor assumption, and so I had to turn the radio off.

[DJ MacWoW]

We're also going to try to replace some of our older servers and failing equipment this year so we're going to add a little extra to our FReepathon goals. John is estimating ten to fifteen thousand to do this and I'd like to get it all in place and working before the election cycle is fully heated up, so we'll try to bring in a little more now if we can and the rest next quarter.
Jim Robinson

Click The Server To Donate

Support Activist Free Republic

[kevao]

"It is fully integrated into the tax system, will raise substantial revenue, and triggers only tax consequences for non-compliance."

That is a fine, not a tax.

[elvis-lives]

This past summer Rush went on a 30 minute rant about how Obama thought he got away with telling people there were no tax increases in the bill but, according to Rush, the mandate was a tax increase. I was pounding the dash board because if that is Obama’s argument, then he wins.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

What everyone was saying at the time was that Obama wanted it to be a tax, and the Democrats wanted it to be a tax, but in order to get enough votes they had to write it into law as a mandate to purchase.

It wouldn't be the first time that politicians use one argument to get something passed into law, and the exact opposite when they interpret it.

But maybe this one time we can hold them to their initial word.

The bigger issue is that, even if it were a tax, what is the constitutional justification? Lots of bad things have happened to people because tax law changes can be retroactive, i.e. there can be expost facto changes to taxes.

This has been ruled constitutional, but I don't see how.

[traderrob6]

Pardon my ignorance but why does it bolster the Obama case (argument) if it “IS” a tax.

[onemiddleamerican]

Penguin computing makes some nice servers at competetive rates. My IT guy is totally happy with what they built us for our little shop.

[DJ MacWoW]

I don’t know what FR is purchasing. You’d have to ask the Boss. :-)

[tobyhill]

Even if it is ruled a tax by the SCOTUS it will be ruled unconstitutional because what is the tax on and how is it applied?

It would have to be applied across the board or on a product and not just not getting something.

The mandate will also be ruled unconstitutional because no one can force someone to buy a product they don't want with penalty if they don't. That's called Communism.

The Libs make the argument that government forces people to buy car insurance but that's a false argument because one doesn't have to have auto insurance if they don't drive or take a city bus.

Libs also argue that SS and Medicare is forced on people but that too is a false choice because one need not pay in if they don't work.

[elvis-lives]

“Pardon my ignorance but why does it bolster the Obama case (argument) if it “IS” a tax.”
______________

Congress does not have the constitutional right to force you to buy anything, but they do have the right to levy taxes. This program was structured as a large tax that could be avoided by buying into an insurance plan. They are not forcing you to buy insurance, they are raising your taxes if you do not. Raising your taxes is the constitutional right of the congress. Sneaky way around, but constitutional.

[savedbygrace]

Suggested correction: Congress does not have RIGHTS. They have limited powers given by the Constitution.

[elvis-lives]

Stand corrected.

[savedbygrace]

Thank you.