Chris Wallace skewers Obama's Chief of Staff as he tries to squirm out of the fact that Obamacare is a massive tax on the middle class. Lew denies the fact that it is a tax every which way he can think of.
At the end of the segment, Wallace shows Lew a clip of Obama's own Solicitor General arguing in front of the Supreme Court that Obamacare is a ... tax.
Why can't these bastards just tell the truth?
They're starting to figure out what the Supreme Court ruling on the ObamacareTAX really means, and what the ruling means for their political future.
Heh.
When they were trying to get it passed through the Congress, it wasn't a tax.
ReplyDeleteWhen they tried to defend it in front of the Supreme Court, it suddenly became a tax.
And now that it's been upheld by the Supreme Court--as a tax!--it's not a tax anymore. Because that would mean that it's a massive tax increase on the middle class, which Obama promised wouldn't happen.
This is the three ring circus we call the Obama Administration. To make matters worse, half of the electorate wants to reelect this clown and that the half of us who don't must be racist.
JQ
Article 1, US Constitution: "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."
DeleteTaxes must originate in the House. This one didn't. Unconstitutional. Again.
TRISH
Taxes must originate in the House. This one didn't.
DeleteUmm, no. Once again facts are your enemy. The House took up a version of the ACA in November 2009. The Senate passed a version in December of 2009. The House then abandoned its version in favor of the Senate version via reconciliation, which is a perfectly valid means of incorporating two versions of a bill into one.
Silly Anonymous, expecting that Trish has any understanding at all about how government in the US works.
DeleteRight wing morons just love to get all worked up about anything involving Obama, but they have no understanding of what they're angry about.
So the Senate version of the bill is what was signed into law.
DeleteSo I'm right.
Yes, you can incorporate two bills into one using incorporation. And in most cases it doesn't matter if it originates in one house or the other. Considering the the fact that the administration was arguing that it was not a tax, it wasn't germane to a non-revenue bill.
But the fact that a valid process was used to incorporate the two bills into one doesn't negate the fact that it was the Senate version that stood and the House version that fell.
TRISH
So the Senate version of the bill is what was signed into law.
DeleteNo. It was the reconciled version that was signed into law. Almost all bills go through reconciliation, including appropriations and revenue bills. Reconciliation is where the members of both houses get together with their respective versions and work out how to mesh the two together into a final product.
"The House then abandoned its version in favor of the Senate version via reconciliation..."
DeleteYou said so yourself.
TRISH
You said so yourself.
DeleteYou seem to have missed the "via reconciliation" language. It wasn't the Senate version that was signed into law. It was a blended version that emerged from reconciliation. The reconciliation process adopted the Senate version because more of the House members liked that one than the original House version, but the bill originated in the House. Go look at the legislative action history yourself if you want.
Off topic, but topical.
ReplyDeleteThe Higgs Boson walks into church.
The priest says 'We don't allow Higgs Bosons in here'.
The Higgs Boson protests 'But without me, how can you have mass?'
Groans gratefully accepted. At least it's better than the FTL neutrino, which doesn't exist.
That was actually funny!
DeleteA neutrino walks into a bar. Right after it left.
A gluon pops into a bar. Asks the bartender: Where is the ex-nihilo sign?
Chris Wallace skewers Obama's Chief of Staff as he tries to squirm out of the fact that Obamacare is a massive tax on the middle class.
ReplyDeleteOkay, point to which part of the ACA is a "massive tax on the middle class". As in, identify the specific provisions that tax the middle class. You keep saying it is a tax on the middle class, but looking at the legislation, what I see is that it specifically provides subsidies to low and middle income individuals for insurance.
You must buy a product under law. If you don't, you have to pay a fine, which has now been declared a "tax." If it weren't a "tax" it wouldn't be constitutional.
DeleteErgo, the middle class is being taxed.
Here's another clue, Anonymous. Those "subsidies" that you speak of aren't free. They're subsidized by the taxpayer. The middle class pays federal income taxes. I should know, I'm one of those middle class taxpayers. So this subsidies are funded by...me.
Also, Obamacare contains 21 new taxes. Some of them might not seem to apply to the middle class. Those are the "corporate" taxes that are handed on to the consumer in the price of goods we buy.
Beyond those, there are taxes on medical devices and on tanning beds. There's a surtax of 1% on people who refuse to buy government approved insurance, rising to 2.5% by 2016.
TRISH
You must buy a product under law. If you don't, you have to pay a fine, which has now been declared a "tax." If it weren't a "tax" it wouldn't be constitutional.
DeleteDo you have health insurance already? If so, you pay no fine and are not taxed.
Here's another clue, Anonymous. Those "subsidies" that you speak of aren't free. They're subsidized by the taxpayer. The middle class pays federal income taxes. I should know, I'm one of those middle class taxpayers. So this subsidies are funded by...me.
Unlikely.
First off, have your tax rates gone up? if not, you haven't been taxed anything more than otherwise.
Second: The middle class pays a very small percentage of the revenue paid to the Federal government. (The middle 20% of taxpayers pay about 14% of the total income tax). The top 5% of taxpayers paid 53% of the income tax. If you are middle-class, those subsidies are being primarily funded by people who have a lot more income than you.
Also, Obamacare contains 21 new taxes. Some of them might not seem to apply to the middle class. Those are the "corporate" taxes that are handed on to the consumer in the price of goods we buy.
Sorry, but pricing doesn't work that way. You need to go back and study some remedial economics.
Egnor: They're starting to figure out what the Supreme Court ruling on the ObamacareTAX really means, and what the ruling means for their political future.
ReplyDeleteNo, this is more like conservatives desperately trying to find a silver lining in the Supreme Court decision that upheld the law. You, guys, lost this one no matter how you look at it. Repealing the ACA was an uphill battle before the Supreme Court decision. Now it's going to be a Herculean task.
This sucks, you're right.
DeleteBut the good news is that Obama is going to have to defend his new tax, after telling us that there was no way he was going to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 per year.
TRISH
Am I getting this correctly?
ReplyDeleteOnce a tax law is established it is extremely difficult to repeal or change? Oleg calls such an effort 'Herculean'. What about the people's general dismay. You are, after all, a republic. Is there no protection from this tax afforded to those states or individuals that wish to opt out?
I believe there was once a tax on Tea imports that was compulsory and it was 'repealed' with some ferocity...no?
Once a tax law is established it is extremely difficult to repeal or change?
ReplyDeleteThe ACA is much more than a tax law, despite Egnor's shrill rants otherwise.
Anon,
DeleteIt's simple really. No tax, no service. Strike down the tax and effectively repeal the entire benefits plan. A new source of revenue must be found in order to fun such a service. Am I wrong?
Crus,
DeleteAssuming you have the votes, this should not be a problem. But at the moment the votes are simply not there.
As things stand, the Republicans have a simple majority in one parliamentary chamber (the House) and are in the minority in the other (the Senate). The House can repeal the ACA but the Senate will not go along with it.
What the Republican absolutely must accomplish in the November elections is either of these:
1. Retain a majority in the House and get supermajority (60 to 40 or better) in the Senate. The supermajority is required to override President Obama's veto.
2. Retain the majority in the House, get a simple majority in the Senate, and get Romney elected.
Good luck accomplishing either of those.
It's simple really. No tax, no service. Strike down the tax and effectively repeal the entire benefits plan.
Deleteit isn't actually that simple. Large portions of the plan can operate quite effectively without any input of tax money.
But not only that, the law in the U.S. doesn't work like "no tax to support it, no enforcement". Even if there is no specific tax to pay for something, a Federal agency is obligated to do what it can to discharge the law as it interprets its provisions anyway.
Doesn't matter that the law isn't *just* the mandate. The fact that it's legally a revenue law means that the whole thing can be struck down in the Senate in a filibuster-proof way, via reconciliation (just as the whole thing, and not just the mandate, got through the Senate in the first place via reconciliation). Sure, the Democrats will undoubtedly try to change their story and claim that that procedure isn't legitimate anymore if the Republicans try to do it too, but so what? If the Republicans find the courage to pass the repeal that way anyhow, and Romney signs it, it won't matter what they say.
DeleteBut to get it through via the reconciliation process they still have to have the majorities that oleg outlined above.
DeleteThe Republicans have to take the Senate and House by veto-proof majorities (good luck with that), or retain the House, and take the Senate and Presidency. each of those scenarios seems less than likely.
Thanks for the explanation, Oleg. I am still not sure I understand the whole Senate/Filibuster side of this, but I am at least clear on your position now.
DeleteYour saying (correct me if I am wrong) that the ACA could be struck down, but it would require a shift in both the houses and the president's office. Therefore it would be a very difficult task to accomplish over a short period of time. It would take several election cycles to do so, and until then ACA is a done deal.
Is that a correct assessment?
You're saying**
DeleteSorry. Just in the process of caffeinating, here :P
Anon,
DeleteSimply shifting the costs to another federal agency is changing the name and the 'pay by' date, but not the source of the funding. Federal agencies are supported by tax revenue, no?
What I am saying, is that it seems to me that such an approach as shifting the funding to an agency would appear disingenuous to a significant population that DID oppose the ACA, and thus result in further opposition and general discord. It seems to me that people opposed to the institution of said tax would view this as saying something akin to "Okay honey, you did not want to spend the money, so I put on the Credit Card. We'll pay later, with interest."
I would not pull that one on my wife, let alone a disgruntled grass roots movement that is focused on states rights (10th Amendment?) .
Maybe I have mixed apples and oranges here, but that is how it appears to me: A powder keg approach.
Simply shifting the costs to another federal agency is changing the name and the 'pay by' date, but not the source of the funding. Federal agencies are supported by tax revenue, no?
DeleteAgencies are required to execute the laws as well as they can, using their resources as best they can. One can quibble with how this is done, but a simple lack of specific tax revenue for this purpose would not prevent it from being a requirement that the agencies would have to follow.
And agency cannot simply throw up its hands and say "oh darn, no money, I guess we won't do anything".
Crus,
DeleteThat's more or less what I am saying. The Republicans don't have the votes now and it isn't clear whether they will have the votes in 2013. They need a Republican President and a majority in the Senate, neither of which they have. And if Obama stays then they will need a supermajority in the Senate.
And those are just the necessary, but not sufficient, conditions.
Cheers, Oleg.
DeleteI think I have a better grasp of the process now...at least when it comes to the normal channels of governance. You have demystified it for me!
Thanks :)
Anon,
ReplyDeleteYou mistake my critique. I am not putting forward that I cannot understand the logic of such a tactic. I am suggesting the REACTION to such a tactic could well prove disastrous in the current political environment. It could well turn states rights movements into secessionist or revolutionary movements.
This issue is not some minor disagreement by a fringe of the US populace, but a major one that is being focused on by the very movements noted above. I could see such a tactic feeding into or 'supplying ammunition' to folks who see the current system as irredeemable and unworkable.
Such tactics in such times are either great folly, or intended to create a dialectic of forced synthesis.
Better to beat such opposition in the Houses of Government, than to push the issue aside. Better to admit a (unlikely) defeat than to jeopardize the continuance of the nation, no?
You mistake my critique. I am not putting forward that I cannot understand the logic of such a tactic.
DeleteIts not a tactic. It is a requirement of the law. Agencies are not supposed to pick and choose whether to follow a law. If legislation says "agencies are supposed to do X", then they are supposed to do their best to do those things, regardless of whether Congress fully funds it or not.
In fact, the U.S. government routinely has to borrow large sums of money every year because Congress does not fully fund the laws they passed, but has at the same time prohibited agencies from spending less than Congress tells them to. (In the U.S. appropriations, the directions that are given to agencies concerning how much to spend, are different from revenue laws, and the two are not usually connected).
[Its not a tactic. It is a requirement of the law. Agencies are not supposed to pick and choose whether to follow a law. If legislation says "agencies are supposed to do X", then they are supposed to do their best to do those things, regardless of whether Congress fully funds it or not.]
DeleteBut that's exactly what the Obama administration is doing with immigration law.
Why the double standard?
Mike,
Delete"But that's exactly what the Obama administration is doing with immigration law."
That is exactly why I assumed de-funding would work in the first place, and also why I described it as a 'tactic'. I often use such words. Please try to think of them as analogous. It is my training shining through, I suppose.
"Why the double standard?"
That would be my question also.
Anon,
you state:
"If legislation says "agencies are supposed to do X", then they are supposed to do their best to do those things, regardless of whether Congress fully funds it or not."
I'll freely admit that this aspect completely mystifies and fascinates me.
Two questions!
First and multifaceted: If congress and/or the senate de-fund a project or initiative, are they not doing so on behalf of their electorate? A follow up to this: If that is so, who or what authority does an agency have to defy the will of the peoples elected bodies? That is to say, what legal route is there to appropriate funds from other sources that are not mandated by the electorate via the houses of government?
The second question is: What if the initiative is GUTTED. Not merely a loss of some funding, but completely hamstrung by closing all source of revenue (ie the supporting tax funding)?
PS / Also
DeleteMy final question: Will the States rights movement see this 'tactic' of appropriations as sound and accept it as the norm, or will they react as I have predicted?
If it is the latter, then once again would it not be more prudent to argue these matters in the houses rather than force the issue by agency mandate and the appropriation of funding from other programs and initiatives.
But that's exactly what the Obama administration is doing with immigration law.
DeleteWhy the double standard?
In law enforcement there is a principle called "prosecutorial discretion" that is not applicable in other government actions.
If anyone thinks the Obama Administration is not enforcing the immigration laws properly, they could bring a writ of mandamus to try to compel it to do so. No one in Congress has done this. I wonder why that is?
Will the States rights movement see this 'tactic' of appropriations as sound and accept it as the norm, or will they react as I have predicted?
DeleteThe "States rights" movement is a fringe ideology with limited political power. They couldn't even secure the Republican nomination for Ron Paul, the putative champion of that ideology.
You seem to think that U.S. Federal taxes are segregated when collected, earmarked for specific purposes when they are levied. Though this is the case in some limited areas (for example, the gasoline tax is earmarked for transportation improvements) it isn't usual, and isn't how the taxes under the ACA appear to work. Taxes raised by the government go into the general fund, and are then divvied up by the Treasury to agencies as needed to discharge their obligations as directed by the appropriations laws.
"The "States rights" movement is a fringe ideology with limited political power."
DeleteForgive me for disagreeing but most of the Americans I know are at least partially inclined or sympathetic to this 'fringe ideology' (they call it 'Constitutionalism' btw). Pretty much ALL the folks I work with in the US Military (mostly Army, but also some Marines, Navy, USAF, and USCG too) are very pro States rights.
"Taxes raised by the government go into the general fund, and are then divvied up by the Treasury to agencies as needed to discharge their obligations as directed by the appropriations laws."
So if a program is de-funded and there is no extra funds to be had due to debt and deficit expenses, something else must be cut in order to pay for the program - even if that de-funding has been democratically mandated? That seems a very problematic system in terms of making sure the money gets where it is supposed to go.
No wonder there is such a massive debt!
Maybe that is something that should be reformed?
[In law enforcement there is a principle called "prosecutorial discretion" that is not applicable in other government actions.
DeleteIf anyone thinks the Obama Administration is not enforcing the immigration laws properly, they could bring a writ of mandamus to try to compel it to do so. No one in Congress has done this. I wonder why that is?]
Obama has explicitly refused to enforce many aspects of immigration law. Indeed that is prosecutorial discretion.
Prosecutorial discretion can be used with other laws as well.
You have a double standard if you demand that republicans enforce obamacare to the letter of the law, but you have no objection to democrats' flouting of immigration law.
You have a double standard if you demand that republicans enforce obamacare to the letter of the law, but you have no objection to democrats' flouting of immigration law.
DeleteI didn't say that I have no objection to the Democrats not enforcing immigration law. I said why it is a different situation than with respect to the ACA.
Forgive me for disagreeing but most of the Americans I know are at least partially inclined or sympathetic to this 'fringe ideology' (they call it 'Constitutionalism' btw).
DeleteAnecdotes aren't data. The data is that the "states rights" movement is politically flimsy.
"So if a program is de-funded and there is no extra funds to be had due to debt and deficit expenses, something else must be cut in order to pay for the program - even if that de-funding has been democratically mandated?"
Programs are generally not specifically funded, except in the case of the generally decried "earmarks". Agencies are given appropriations with general instructions as to their use. In the case of the ACA, administration of the provisions of the statute has been directed to the Department of Health and Human Services. I seriously doubt any political movement could defund HHS without an effort large enough to make repealing the ACA look like a cakewalk in comparison.
"Anecdotes aren't data. The data is that the "states rights" movement is politically flimsy."
DeleteAgreed. Experience (the anecdotes you refer to) is first hand. Data (especially political) is often compiled by think tanks with an agenda attached to the payroll of the organization. That aside, the only data I have seen is in the form of US government reports that suggest such movements are 'volatile'. Some even suggesting 'domestic terrorism' may result from these type of 'fringe' groups being antagonized.
"Programs are generally not specifically funded, except in the case of the generally decried "earmarks"."
This is an interesting point you make. I had always thought the 'earmark' issue was concerning private political fabvours in return for votes. Kind of like 'you vote for me (or contribute to my election fund), I'll get your save the field mice/coal mine in the national park bill.' That kind of thing. What I am suggesting is that the revenue agencies work out what they need and for what for the programs they have before the decide how much to tax the public. Example: We need X for the defence budget, so we will need X from the coffers in 2013.
"gencies are given appropriations with general instructions as to their use. In the case of the ACA, administration of the provisions of the statute has been directed to the Department of Health and Human Services"
So any sort of de funding of the ACA would result in other health programs being scaled down in order to pay for ACA?
" I seriously doubt any political movement could defund HHS without an effort large enough to make repealing the ACA look like a cakewalk in comparison."
Well, in effect is that not what ACA does? I mean unless the HHS budget is dramatically increased by this 'tax' the funds will be greatly reduced by the implementation of ACA, no?
Data (especially political) is often compiled by think tanks with an agenda attached to the payroll of the organization.
DeleteThe data in this case in not compiled by a think tank. The data is that states rights candidates can't even get nominated most of the time, let alone elected.
This is an interesting point you make. I had always thought the 'earmark' issue was concerning private political fabvours in return for votes. Kind of like 'you vote for me (or contribute to my election fund), I'll get your save the field mice/coal mine in the national park bill.'
They usually are, but that's generally where you have specific programs marked out for specific funding. And that's why - a Congressman wants a particular program funded because it helps his constituency, so rather than leaving the specifics of how to procure military equipment to the Department of Defense, they earmark money for a particular weapons system that just happens to be manufactured in large part in that Congressman's district.
That kind of thing. What I am suggesting is that the revenue agencies work out what they need and for what for the programs they have before the decide how much to tax the public. Example: We need X for the defence budget, so we will need X from the coffers in 2013.
There is only one revenue agency in the U.S. government: the Treasury. Specifically the IRS. And they don't set the tax code. Congress does. And they usually set the tax code without regard to the spending bills they pass. The laws concerning revenue and the laws concerning appropriations aren't even passed through the same committees in the legislature.
So any sort of de funding of the ACA would result in other health programs being scaled down in order to pay for ACA?
What I am trying to say is that the structure of federal spending is such that talking about "defunding" the ACA without actually repealing it is kind of a nonsense statement.
"Read my lips. No new taxes." -Bush Sr.
ReplyDelete2 years later, taxes raised. Did you piss and moan about that republican back then? No? Well others did, like Pat Buchanan.
Also, i believe in the U.S. car insurance is mandatory. Buy a car, you gotta have insurance. Why? Because of the potential financial burden on others. "Well, Mulder, its not the same..I can have a license but not auto insurance if I don't drive a car." Then why have a license? Taking the bus doesnt cost anyone else anything.
I'm actually surprised that republicans are against this. Pay your way, and you're OK.
Car insurance is mandatory under state laws.
DeleteFederal laws may not force you to buy things, at least not on the basis of the Commerce Clause, according to the Supreme Court.
Apparently you can be taxed by the feds if you fail to buy things, according to the Court.
mregnor, uninsured people are a Negative Externality just waiting to happen, generally when it's too late to cheaply treat the problem, and too often using ER (both the most expensive and ineffective way) to do it. Besides the moral price, that's already an economic cost you're paying.
DeleteA federal mandate is better than a state mandate, as the same issue of the free rider problem can occur on the state level as the individual person level. (It happens on the nation level too, as Governor Palin or any of the people who hop a border or use the interweb for cheap prescriptions illustrate)
And, Mulder, you shouldn't be surprised that they're against it. Obama came out for it (and, I suspect, the idea of the Individual Mandate was only brought up by the GOP to damp the threat of HillaryCare while still attempting to maintain the fascade of the GOP as the "Party of Ideas" instead of the "Party of 'No!'").
Modus,
DeleteI think the car insurance thing is a bad analogy.
Here's why.
1. People do not HAVE to drive. If they feel the insurance premiums are too high, they can take the bus, walk, hitch a ride, ride a bike etc.
People, on the other hand, do have to live. They cannot simply die for a year or two (credit to one my favourite Atheists - Douglas Adams) to avoid insurance costs or taxes. Therefore car insurance is NOT mandatory because driving a car is not mandatory. Driving is a luxury and a privilege. Living is a right.
2.As previous posters have noted, it is a state controlled law on a luxury/privilege, not a federally mandated tax on a right (life).
As a supporter of universal health care, I am not arguing that some sort of program is not beneficial, I am simply suggesting that the car insurance argument is a straw man.
I still dont see how this is a 'tax.' Typically one pays taxes on services rendered. And penalties for something you don't have, but should. IN NYS, we pay penalties for not having our cars inspected yearly...
ReplyDeleteHey! How do you personally think, has your writting style improved so far?
ReplyDelete