[righttackle44]

You apparently don’t understand that he designated the tax as a tax—NOT a penalty. You might get your facts straight before you go calling for legal actions.

[OneWingedShark]

You apparently don’t understand that he designated the tax as a tax—NOT a penalty. You might get your facts straight before you go calling for legal actions.

It's clearly a penalty.* It doesn't matter if he designated it a tax, no more than if he designated the moon a cat.

Tax	Penalty	License/Fee
Action --> Payment	~Action --> Payment	Payment --> Action

These are not at all the same things.
P --> Q (Read: If P, then Q.)
The antecedent is P, and the consequent is Q.

When dealing with implication (-->) the antecedent being false always yields true for the statement. When the antecedent is true, however the statement is false only when the consequent also is false. (IOW, an implication is only false when the THEN doesn't happen but the IF does.)
That leads to vastly different truth-tables for each of the above; but in essence he said that there is no difference between a penalty and a tax (ie they are freely interchangeable).

My statement stands: he should be impeached for altering the legislation put before him.