Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Precedent for Unlimited Taxation
Rush ^ | June 28, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on 06/28/2012 2:36:07 PM PDT by Kaslin


RUSH: I checked the e-mail during the break, and people asked me, "Do you really mean, when you say, our freedom of choice just met its death panel?" Yes, I do. Our last caller, who mentioned the precedent set by this, had it right. Even if this is repealed, if any tax increase that's happened in the past is repealed, the precedent has still been set now. The court got out of the way. There are no limits, folks, on what can be taxed, because this essentially is the federal government being granted the permission to tax behavior. This is the federal government being permitted to tax choices that you make, if you don't make the right one. So essentially your choice now costs you. In the case of health care, you must buy it now.


The Supreme Court said that the Congress did not have the power to mandate that you buy health insurance. The Commerce Clause did not permit that. But, that doesn't matter, because the Congress can tax you. They can make you buy anything now and call it a tax. If they want to make you buy broccoli, if you don't, you will pay a penalty. If somebody passes a law, somebody signs it into law that everybody has to eat broccoli, you might think that that's an extreme example, and it's only extreme in the sense you don't think anybody would ever mandate something like that, but we're here.

So now behavior is taxed. There's no limits, even if Obamacare is repealed as a result of the election in November. And don't forget, the Tea Party came into existence because health care was passed. It was the passage of Obamacare that led to the Tea Party evolving from the grassroots, effervescing from nowhere. Everyday ordinary American citizens fed up already with all of Obama's spending, all of his other tax increases. Then health care came along, and it was passed in a very unorthodox way that went against the grain of most people's sense of how things get done in this country. And then after it was passed the Democrats spiked the football and walked all through the Capitol with that giant gavel. Then they made up lies about being spat upon and having racial epithets shouted at them.

And so the Tea Party was born, and it led to all of those town hall meetings and it led to all the union violence at some of these town hall meetings. And the question now is just to what extent will history repeat itself, in terms of the Tea Party expanding. It never did go away. The Tea Party never went away. The left hopes that it did. The left tried to tell themselves that it went away, but it didn't. It just transformed. It started as a protest movement and now is eventually a grassroots movement designed to find nominees and then get them elected. And it's having pretty decent success. But now it's gonna reenergize even more. And November 2012 stands to be an even bigger repeat than what November 2010, the midterm elections, were.

I would not want to be a Democrat. They may be temporarily happy. They may be spiking the football and so forth, but you're going to see more of them declining to go to the Democrat convention. You're gonna see more of them declining to be campaigning side-by-side with Barack Obama. This is just gonna make the Tea Party boil. Look, I'm in the tea business now, I'm a tea expert, and I happen to know what happens when you boil tea. It gets stronger. That's how you make it stronger. You boil it. You steep it. You leave it in the hot water. And it gets stronger. And that's exactly what is going to happen now. It's happening even now, as we speak. But despite all that, the caller had it exactly right, the precedent has been set, that there is no limit on what the government can tax.

In fact, the court went looking, the court went mining for a way to make this possible. The notion of a limitless expansion of the power of the federal government was affirmed today by the Supreme Court of the United States. And that's why there's so much spiking the football on the left. And that's why there is such happiness, because they know what this decision ultimately means. When the federal government has the power to tax behavior, there is no end to what can be taxed. And that's what Obamacare was always about from the get-go. Obamacare is not about health care for the uninsured. It's not about improving health care. It's not about insurance. It's about the limitless expansion on the federal government and the federal government's ability to exert behavioral control over the American people. And the reason they sought health care as the vehicle for that is that you can virtually tie any expense, any behavior to health care expense.

You can tax the way people eat. You can tax whether or not they exercise, whatever old wives' tale you believe about health. And I just ask you to consider all the things you heard the last 30 years, things that you should eat, shouldn't eat, to prolong the length of your life or that will curtail the length of your life. Imagine the federal government having the power to tax all of those things. Just use the oat bran example. Twenty years ago, oat bran was the single healthiest thing you could eat. Imagine the federal government, some wacko liberal at the FDA or at Health and Human Services, then deciding because some research survey has just said oat bran will make everybody live ten years longer mandating that everybody go eat it, and you don't.

Why do you think there are thousands of new IRS agents? Why do you think that's part of this bill? That's a pure police force enforcement mechanism. But that's what health care has always been. Obamacare has always been a stealth way for behavioral control over the American people. Sixteen thousand new IRS agents. During the 2010 campaign, during those midterms, the Democrat National Committee told all of its candidates to avoid mentioning Obamacare. Don't talk about it. It was such a negative. They can't avoid talking about it now. And they're going to be forced to lie about it. And they're gonna be forced to blatantly lie about it. And they're gonna be forced to lie about it in ways in which the American people, the majority of, know they're being lied to.

They know that their premiums are not going down. The American people know that they're not gonna be able to keep their doctor. The American people know that they're not gonna be able to keep their current plan. The reason is that Obamacare specifically ultimately destroys the private sector insurance market. It will eventually shuffle everybody off to these state exchanges run by the federal government. And it won't be long before the only place any of us can go for health insurance will be a government office.

Whether you like your doctor won't matter. Whether you have your plan now won't matter. Your business... If you get your plan through your employer, it is not gonna be provided by them for long if this isn't repealed. It's not gonna be long before your employer takes advantage of the opportunity to pay the fine rather than the premium, 'cause that didn't change. The fine for the first two to three years -- the tax for not buying it -- is much cheaper than the policy. By design, employers will off-load the responsibility of health insurance to the state exchanges.

That was always in the cards.

That was always in the plan.

Obama told his union buddies back in 2007 (summarizing), "I know we'd like to get to single payer as quickly as we can, but it's gonna take ten years." We've played that bite. "It's going to take ten years to get there because we're gonna have to do it piecemeal and incrementally, otherwise there'd be a revolt." Do you realize, folks, according to this precedent that's set by the court today you could say that a carbon tax is now constitutional? You could say that, because this is a massive precedent. You could say that a tax on having more than one child would now be constitutional.

I think the court has said there's no limit to what the government can tax. Don't be buffaloed and fooled into thinking this tax increase was tied exclusively to health insurance or health-related matters. All that really has happened here is that the court told the government it can't make people buy things under the Commerce Clause, but it can with the tax code. That's as simple as I can make it. They can't use the Commerce Clause to make you buy health insurance or whatever else they want to make you buy now.

But they can levy a tax on you for not buying it. So, what do you do? If you don't buy what is commanded to be bought, if you don't do what is commanded to be done -- and if a fine or a penalty or a tax has been set up -- these 16,000 IRS agents eventually will find you. That's essentially what's happened. That is the massive precedent the previous caller was talking about. That's what has been established here. This must be what Obama has meant all along when he's talked about "tax reform." That's the simplest way I can think of to have people understand this.

The court says, "You can't use the Commerce Clause to make people buy health insurance, but you can tax people who don't." Well, why stop at health insurance? If you are people that believe in massive federal power and love the exercise of massive federal power -- and when it's all done under the guise of social justice and fairness -- why not? It's all done under the guise that the rich have everything they want because they've been able to steal it from the poor, and now we're gonna make 'em give it back!

"Is my health care free now, Mr. Limbaugh? Is my health care free?"


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Government

1 posted on 06/28/2012 2:36:13 PM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The nation is very angry right now. The elation of the lefgt is very short term. Wait a few years and then realize there is no way to pay for all of this boondoggle.LOL.

I hope the anger gets so strong that Obama will be yesterdays news by Novemeber 6th.

2 posted on 06/28/2012 2:41:42 PM PDT by Candor7 (Obama fascism article:
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

June 28, 2012, not the end of America, but you can see it from here.

3 posted on 06/28/2012 2:43:11 PM PDT by exnavy (The time is upon us, fish or cut bait, may God guide your heart.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
I look forward to Moochelle’s broccoli mandate. If you don't buy and eat the food she tells you to, the government will just tax you.
4 posted on 06/28/2012 2:45:46 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Essentially we now have the same system as North Korea.

ALL our production belongs to the State.

They will “give” us whatever food [stamps], [section 8] shelter and medical [Obama]care they decide to.

5 posted on 06/28/2012 2:47:11 PM PDT by null and void (Day 1255 of our ObamaVacation from reality - Obama is not a Big Brother [he's a Big Sissy...])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; Dog Gone; blam; Gophack; Ernest_at_the_Beach
We need a new Constitutional Convention called by resolutions of 3/4 of the state legislatures. I've practiced law for 36 years, and it is clear that our freedom is no longer protected by the Supreme Court under our current Constitution. It is up to the People to act now.

Given that our freedom now depends entirely on what the Supreme Court says the Constitution means, as opposed to what the Constitution says, the very first new amendment we need is to elect all federal judges. So my first proposal is an amendment stating:

All federal judicial offices shall be elective on such terms and conditions as Congress may determine. Pension entitlements of existing judges shall not be disturbed.

To make calling such a convention attractive to the state legislatures, we should propose a Constitutional amendment eliminating Congress' ability to impose unfunded mandates upon the States. There are a variety of ways to do this, but sticking the federal government for the full cost of the states' compliance with federal law will free up immense amounts of state budgets for legislatures to devote to more deserving purposes, such as to grateful contractors who will share with deserving legislators.

And we need other amendments, such as a Presidential line item veto over appropriations, limiting Senators to a single term givne that they haven't passed a budget in years, possibly term limits for Congressmen, etc.

And I'd consider taking the decision as to whether a given act of Congress is constitutional away from the federal courts and giving it to state legislatures. We'd have rocks in our head to trust federal judges to protect our freedom anymore, even if they become elective.

6 posted on 06/28/2012 2:54:36 PM PDT by Thud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dark Wing


7 posted on 06/28/2012 2:56:39 PM PDT by Thud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

Freedom was when the President stood up and told the world “I am President of the United States of America, and I will not eat my broccoli!”

Alas, we are now but one “stroke of a pen, law of the land” from “eat your broccoli or you will be fined 100% of your income.”

8 posted on 06/28/2012 2:58:27 PM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals:
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Yeah but we must get down on our knees each day and thank God that MacCain/Palin didn’t win in ‘08.

9 posted on 06/28/2012 3:00:58 PM PDT by NoLibZone (We must get down on our knees each day and thank God that MacCain/Palin didn't win in '08.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The next tax to be passed should be $1 billion for each use of the word “um” or “uh” by someone acting as President.

It should be a $1 trillion “tax” for every time a Congress-critter gets a Botox treatment.

Of course, this is also Constitutional because Congress and the POTUS have always claimed a right to be exempt from the same laws that govern US. So it is only proper that they have their own laws, that don’t apply to the rest of us.

$10 billion for every bottle of booze brought onto a government plane.

This could get really, really fun... Turnabout’s fair play, and there are now NO LIMITS. So let’s go to town on this, folks. We could have the national debt paid off very quickly if we only do this right...

10 posted on 06/28/2012 3:02:07 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

I happen to like broccoli, but no one is going to tell me that I have to eat it, and Moochelle the least.

11 posted on 06/28/2012 3:05:30 PM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Come to think of it, maybe we should look at the copies of the law that were given to the SCOTUS justices. Maybe we’ll find that those particular taxes are actually IN what the justices approved as Constitutional.

Suppose I could look at their copies and see if I can “find” any of those taxes in there?

12 posted on 06/28/2012 3:07:48 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Know how the EPA is charging farmers to supposedly pay for the methane released by their cows?

I propose that Congress pass a law that every First Lady who tries to tell everybody else what they have to do is required to wear a bag strapped to her behind at all times, to collect all the gas she emits so she can be “taxed” on the methane with which she is poisoning the atmosphere.

She can eat all the broccoli she wants as long as she pays for the methane she poisons the atmosphere with as a result.

13 posted on 06/28/2012 3:11:42 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
From ABC (2009)

STEPHANOPOULOS: You were against the individual mandate…


STEPHANOPOULOS: …during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?

OBAMA: Well, hold on a second, George. Here — here’s what’s happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average — our families — in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I’ve said is that if you can’t afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn’t be punished for that. That’s just piling on. If, on the other hand, we’re giving tax credits, we’ve set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we’ve driven down the costs, we’ve done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you’ve just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that’s…

STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it’s still a tax increase.

OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy…

OBAMA: No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase. Any…


OBAMA: What — what — if I — if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that’s not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don’t want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then…

STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”

OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but…

OBAMA: …what you’re saying is…

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

14 posted on 06/28/2012 3:34:20 PM PDT by RobertClark (Be prepared, be polite, be professional and have a plan to kill everyone you meet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson