Skip to comments.House to prohibit IRS from implementing healthcare law
Posted on 07/02/2012 3:42:06 PM PDT by Libloather
House to prohibit IRS from implementing healthcare law
By Pete Kasperowicz - 07/02/12 01:25 PM ET
The House as early as next week will pass legislation prohibiting the IRS from receiving any money from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to implement the 2010 healthcare reform law.
Passage of the financial services spending bill is especially timely in light of last week's Supreme Court ruling that penalties the government can impose under the law against people who refuse to buy health insurance can be seen as a tax, because it is enforced like a tax.
That finding allowed the individual mandate to stand, and Republicans have already started reorienting their attacks against the law based on the knowledge that it only remains in place because it is an allowable tax.
The bill would have to get through the Senate and be signed by President Obama to become law.
The House will take up the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act sometime in July, and possibly next week when it returns from the July 4 recess. (The rule governing debate on the bill was already approved last week.) While the Obama administration requested another $1 billion so the IRS can implement the healthcare law, the bill, H.R. 6020, does not give any new money to the IRS.
Additionally, it "prohibits the IRS from receiving transfers from the Department of Health and Human Services to implement the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," according to report language accompanying the bill from the House Appropriations Committee.
The report notes that in 2010, HHS allocated $20 million to the IRS for enforcing the healthcare law "without the Committee's knowledge." It also notes that the IRS received $168 million from HHS to implement the law in 2011, and plans to get another $322 million from HHS in 2012.
"The Committee prohibits further such transfers during fiscal year 2013 in section 106 of this Act," the report states.
The bill would spend a total of $21.5 billion on the IRS, Treasury Department and other related agencies, about 1.7 percent less than the current funding level. The bill increases funding in some areas, such as Small Business Administration business and disaster loans, public safety and education in Washington D.C., and the Treasury Department's anti-terrorism financing programs.
To make up for these increases, the bill makes cuts in several areas, including the executive office of the president.
"The committee is disappointed that the administration's request did not propose additional reductions for the EOP salaries and expenses accounts," the bill report says. "The committee believes that the chief executive of any organization experiencing a fiscal crisis should share in the funding sacrifice along with the rest of the organization.
"Therefore, the committee has reduced the salaries and expenses appropriation for each organization under this heading," it adds.
Specifically, the bill would fund salaries in the executive office of the president at $650 million, down $9 million from the current level. White House salaries and expenses would be cut $2.8 million, and funding for costs related to keeping up the White House would be cut $671,000.
Other executive branch agencies would receive token cuts as well, while the Office of Management and Budget would see funding drop nearly $9 million, to $80.5 million.
The bill would also take a swing at the General Services Administration (GSA), which faced harsh criticism this year for a lavish, 2010 conference in which more than $800,000 was spent. Under the bill, the GSA would face more oversight related to its travel budget, and would be banned from holding conferences that don't comply with relevant laws and regulations.
The GSA would also have to submit quarterly spending reports to Congress, and face restrictions in monetary awards it gives to employees.
The House and Senate better start to care about what they are going to do regarding the “Bush Tax Cuts”.
USA is going to go back to Clinton era rates and policies in about 6 months and no one is talking about it.
Be ready for more tax hikes on top of the health care tax rape.
I think 23 (?) Senate democrats are up for reelection in 2012. They're either going to have to defend ObomaTax or vote against it. Either way, it's a democrat vote loser.
A lot of those democrats - before ObomaTax was spun by Justice Roberts - were in a tight race already.
Face it, to do what you want would require changing this whole GOVERNMENT, not just abolishing the IRS. And by change, I mean historically dramatic change.
They could have done that back in 2011 but they di’int.
“...The bill would have to get through the Senate and be signed by President Obama to become law...” “It’s a start.”
...and the end because it will die in the Senate.
Does the House have the power to simply sequester funding for this disaster without Senate approval and Zero’s signature?
The House should make a point of cutting the budget allocation for HHS by $510 million to recover the money it did not need. They should also cut the budget allocation for the IRS by $510 million for monies they spent in excess of their lawful budget. If agencies are allowed to shift money among themselves, what kind of control do the peoples' representatives have over spending and over priorities?
I wonder if the obie-types would appreciate it if a Republican president were to shift several $$billion to build out an interceptor system or an air craft carrier.
” If you recall this is how they used the Ryan plan twice. The Boehner House votes on a symbolic non- legislative Ryan Plan that was not even a law(cheers) , then they pull out a already agreed to Obama-Reid-McConnell Boehner Debt limit deal and rush through a vote after putting a gun to House members heads to pass it.
Worse yet, now they are crying doomsday over the cuts to the military in that bi-partision debt bill that they passed that Boehner said he got 95% of what he wanted from..”
I remember, thanks to you.
No flat tax. Consumption tax is the only fair tax.
At first I believed that you were only ignorant.
Now I see you’re a liar.
You would force tax slavery on 99% of us simply because you think that 1% “might” not pay as much tax as you “think” they should. You are a very dangerous person and should spend some real time on personal introspection.
You’re now on my list of posters to ignore. Thank you for your time.
Thanks for exposing yourself for the lying foul mouthed charletan that you are.
The unfair tax would steal the life blood out of the working classes, from top to bottom, and you are all for it.
Apparently you don’t read well.
I am 100% in favor of a flat tax; it’s the un-fair tax that has to be exposed for the insanity that it is. It would rob the working classes in order to benefit the ultra-wealthy.
It's another stick with which to beat the do-nothing, incompetent, ineffective, worthless demonicRats and their out of control spending, reckless borrowing, and oppressive taxing.
How about converting nearly every agency and most cabinet positions into 9 member advisory panels who’s only purpose it to provide advice to congress on laws to pass, repeal, or change. Let congress pass the specifics of each law and not wimp out handing over the devil in the details to agencies.
Save some serious cash.
Sadly, it doesn't even rise to that. Everyone knows that the Senate will ignore it. Hell, if we had 65 Republicans in the Senate we couldn't get it through.
We will never get anything of value through the Senate because too many Republicans there are traitors. I don't mean to conservatism. I mean to the Constitution.
“The fair tax is grossly unfair to those that spend a large part of their income on necessities.”
If you had truly read the Fair Tax bill, you would know your comment is wholly inaccurate. The Fair Tax bill PREBATES all taxes paid to EVERY INDIVIDUAL on ALL their income, up to and including the level of income according to the poverty level. Though I suspect you have a biased axe to grind, I hope you wake up and spill your diatribe out into the sewer where it belongs.
Now that the TEA party is energized, voting to increase the debt limit is the dumbest thing the Republicans could do. Oh I forgot, Nancy Pelosi says 0bama can eliminate the debt ceiling with a mere executive order, and probably will.
How about a debate on a fair tax or flat tax! Get rid of the IRS altogether and stop the slavery!
My thoughts about a “Fair Tax” versus a Flat Tax:
“The Unfair Double Tax on the Assets of Prudent Savers under the current Fair Tax Proposal”
Any double taxation of taxpayers is intrinsically unfair, unjustifiable, and ridiculous. But the transition from an income tax to a national consumption (sales) tax (Fair Tax) presents this problem.
Under the current Fair Tax proposal, the savings from earnings of prudent savers and retirees that have already been assessed income taxes that are then used for new purchases would not be exempted from the new national sales tax, resulting in a punishing double taxation.
Assets saved after income taxes have already been assessed must be exempted from a new national sales tax when these assets are used for new purchases. After all, the supposed purpose of a Fair Tax is to tax the spending of new earnings which are no longer subject to income tax, not to double tax the previously taxed funds of savers and retirees used for new spending after the Fair Tax is in force.
Why are the proponents of the Fair Tax being so hypocritical by insisting that this unfair double taxation be imposed?
This unjustified stance must be reversed before the Fair Tax proposal is implemented; otherwise this injustice will be challenged in court and would most likely be rectified at the unnecessary expense of litigation.
If the Fair Tax proponents insist on this unfair double tax, then I would have to support the Flat Tax proposal instead.
Welcome to FR.
The “fair tax proponents” do not insist on anything - they just want to get rid of the 16th and make taxation visible to the maximum extent.
The double taxation thing is an issue today too you know. Earnings are income-taxed, then taxed again when spent [at an average of 10%.] You just don’t see it.
Nevertheless, any double taxation at all is not acceptable IMO. The problem you describe is easily solved btw - just like the business inventory transitional credit was. The transitional inventory credit is to prevent inventory items in stock at the time of transition that had been purchased during the income tax from being taxed again. The same thing will happen w/ existing after-tax savings.
But the exemption will be partial b/c after-taxed savings are already taxed again when spent [about 10% as I said above.]
The important thing is to get rid of the income tax code and avoid bickering about the replacement. As you well know, the main strategy of those who wish to keep our current system is to create arguments on the minutia of any replacement to the extent that no replacement is made.