Skip to comments.Obama OMB Admits Obamacare Penalties Are Not Taxes (Obama's OMB admits Obamacare not constitutional)
Posted on 02/15/2012 9:41:00 AM PST by tobyhill
Rep. Scott Garrett (R., N.J.) had a nice gambit just now in a hearing with President Obamas acting OMB director Jeffrey Zients.
First he asked Zients if the Obama budget imposes any new taxes on Americans making less than $200,000. When Zients answered that it did not, Garrett followed up by asking if an individual making less than $200,000 a year opted not to carry health insurance, in contravention of the Affordable Care Act, is the fine associated with that decision a tax?
After some hemming and hawing, Zients answered that the fine did not constitute an tax.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Hope he got that on the record somehow.
Rush discussing this now.
Yup, I’m just listening to it right nwo.
Funny cuz I was just gonna post that..... GMTA I always say.
I just had to turn rush off. He’s pathetic. If this is the best we got against obamacare, we’re sunk.
The guy said “nobody considers this a tax increase”.
He DID NOT say “this is not a tax”.
I’m sorry but rush is a pathetic joke today. I’ve had enough of him for one day.
Obama’s whole argument is that congress has the authority to tax but now they say it isn't a tax.
It does no such thing. The guy never said it wasn’t a tax.
This is a stupid waste of air time and a stupid waste of bandwidth on FR.
If you don’t agree with the thread but commented anyway then you are just as guilty for “stupid waste of bandwidth on FR”.
Scott Garrett was positively brilliant on how he nailed Zients to the wall. It should be a great video clip.
Approx 1:07 of the video to the question “Is this a tax?”, answer “no”.
You haven’t been following this issue closely have you!
I turned him off around the time of the Florida voting.
He’s been in the sack with SAntorum for weeks now.
He’s a gutless wonder, that goes where the wind blows.
AS soon as we get a complete vetting of Santorum, this race an begin.
Here is the exact exchange:
Garrett: "A moment ago you said there's no tax increase...
Zients: There aren't!
Garrett: But that's not a tax?
Garrett: That's not a tax. (Zients nods in agreement) OK. Just want to be clear on that because that's not what the argument the Administration is making. Let's move on...
It's pretty clear to me that Zients unequivocally said it's not a tax.
EVERYONE - Please, you must remember - and if any of you have contacts to the law groups opposing Obamacare and this stuff,
remember that Obama himself in 2008, when running against Hillary, clearly stated that he was against Hillary’s healthcare plan because he thought the mandate was unconstitutional!!!
Now when he has a healthcare plan that is mandated, somehow it’s not unconstitutional!?!?
Same deal with him saying it was not a tax. Then going in front of the Supreme Court claiming they had the authority to do this because it WAS a tax...!
Well then, it’s not a tax. it’s a fine, IE broke a law. Therefore anyone not going all in for Bambi’s Socialist Policies is a common Criminal.
That's going to be a tough sell, even to a split Supreme Court.
But in court they will be taxes
When judges are unwilling to defend this country and it’s constitution by acting on blatantly clear evidence that Obama himself is unconstitutional, then there is no hope.
The constitution says ANYTHING that someone like Obama says that it says.
It has no meaning.
Thuggery rules, and it doesn’t matter whether or not the mandates are constitutional.
Our court system has FAILED to perform it’s vital function of providing checks and balances because WE have allowed congress and the media to empower people like Clinton and Obama to put people in the judiciary that DO NOT BELIEVE in our constitution.
The evidence is in.
Court is adjourned.
Welcome to the USSA.
Oh, come on! You've not heard how Axelrod's words about Blagojevich's pay-to-play scheme regarding Obama's newly vacant Senate seat were conveniently declared "mispoke[n]?" Zients' testimony will certainly not be allowed to create logical dissonance to the administration's position before SCOTUS.