White House Admits Obamacare’s Individual Mandate is a Tax

WaveCameCrashin

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/20/mor ... -is-a-tax/

Throughout his presidential campaign, then-candidate Barack Obama promised the American people: “If you’re a family that’s making $250,000 a year or less, you will see no increase in your taxes.” After he became President, Barack Obama reiterated that pledge, promising the American people in his September 9th health care press conference: “The middle-class will realize greater security, not higher taxes.” But Obamacare does contain tax hikes. Tons of them. From taxes on tanning beds to taxes on employment and investments, Obamacare is a certified job-killing machine.

None of these taxes touches the lives of every American as closely as the individual mandate to purchase health insurance. For the first time in American history, Obamacare forces all Americans to purchase a product or face sanction from the Internal Revenue Service. This is clearly a tax, as pointed out by ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos during a September 20th interview with the President himself. In an exchange that can only be described as “Clintonesque” Stephanopoulos pressed President Obama to admit his individual mandate was a tax. But President Obama refused to acknowledge reality and denied it. Stephanopoulos was forced to read the definition of “tax” straight from Merriam Webster’s Dictionary. But even then Obama refused to come clean: “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. … Nobody considers that a tax increase.” Well nobody but President Barack Obama’s Justice Department.

The New York Times confirmed Friday that in preparation for defending constitutionality of the Obamacare individual mandate in court, an Obama Justice Department legal brief argues that the penalty used to enforce the mandate is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes. Mr. Obama’s own Justice Department further repudiates the President’s earlier statement by noting that the penalty is imposed and collected under the Internal Revenue Code, people must report it on their tax returns, and that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will cost Americans $4 billion a year. Yale Law School professor Jack Balkin told a meeting of progressive activists last month that President Obama “has not been honest with the American people about the nature of this bill. This bill is a tax.”

The fact that the Obama administration and their allies are now admitting the individual mandate is a tax betrays their very real fear that the Supreme Court could find Obamacare’s individual mandate unconstitutional. In the bill itself, Congress identified the Commerce Clause as the source of their authority to force all Americans to buy health insurance. But as our legal team has made eminently clear, the mandate does not purport to regulate or prohibit commerce of any kind. To the contrary, it purports to “regulate”—and penalize—inactivity. If the Supreme Court allows the Obamacare individual mandate to stand, then Congress could do anything it wanted. They could: require us to buy a new Chevy Impala each year to support the government-supported auto industry; require us to buy war bonds to pay for the Iraq and Afghan wars; or force us to eat our vegetables.

But even if the Obama administration is now admitting the individual mandate is a tax, that still does not make the law constitutional. Rather than operating as a tax on income, the mandate is a tax on the person and is, therefore, a capitation tax. Therefore the 16th Amendment’s grant of power to Congress to assess an income tax does not apply. The Constitution does allow Congress to assess a capitation tax, but that requires the tax be assessed evenly based op population. That is not how the Obamacare mandate works. It exempts and carves out far too many exceptions to past muster as a capitation tax. The Obamacare mandate is still unprecedented and unconstitutional.

But perhaps more importantly, what does the episode say about the integrity of the White House? The President went on national television and insisted in unequivocal terms that his individual mandate was not a tax. Now his administration is saying the exact opposite. At what point do the American people lose all faith in this President’s word?

gimmesometruth27

2 words

heritage foundation

:roll:

Electric_Delta

I never had faith in him to begin with. He's a fraud and a liar.

twisted thoughts

I think at this point Americans are losing faith in a lot of things. Faith in government shoulda been lost a long time ago.

OutOfBreath

Moving on to the next reason why and how Obama is ruining America and the world?

Peace
Dan

WaveCameCrashin

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

2 words

heritage foundation

:roll:

So what it's a conservative website we all know that. Please by all means show us what's not true about the article.

_

You know what else keeps me from taking what people say seriously? When they call people (or laws, etc.) names. Just another sensationalist tactic used to detract from the real issues at hand.

WaveCameCrashin

satans kitchen wrote:

I think at this point Americans are losing faith in a lot of things. Faith in government shoulda been lost a long time ago.

Im not going to loose my faith but Im very dissapointed bcos even if the republicans do get back one or both houses they can do just as much damage as the current majority has.

WaveCameCrashin

scb wrote:

You know what else keeps me from taking what people say seriously? When they call people (or laws, etc.) names. Just another sensationalist tactic used to detract from the real issues at hand.

so what.. BFD would you like it better if they called Gov run healthcare. I don't really care anyway you can choose not to believe it or not doesn't make a difference to me.

gimmesometruth27

prfctlefts wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

2 words

heritage foundation

:roll:

So what it's a conservative website we all know that. Please by all means show us what's not true about the article.

any writer who refers to the health care plan as "obamacare" in an attempt to negatively bias the reader is automatically dismissed by me.

in my opinion, heritage foundation is the same thing as fox news, the water carriers for the GOP.

WaveCameCrashin

so what your saying is if it came from the huffington post or media matters you would believe it ? am I right ?

WaveCameCrashin

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

2 words

heritage foundation

:roll:

So what it's a conservative website we all know that. Please by all means show us what's not true about the article.

any writer who refers to the health care plan as "obamacare" in an attempt to negatively bias the reader is automatically dismissed by me.

in my opinion, heritage foundation is the same thing as fox news, the water carriers for the GOP.

jesus man you really need to to take your guard down. go to the web site , you can watch the interview with Obama and Stefanopolis. The heritage Foundation is not some fly by night website that just sprang up all of a sudden.

inmytree

prfctlefts wrote:

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/20/morning-bell-white-house-admits-obamacares-individual-mandate-is-a-tax/

Throughout his presidential campaign, then-candidate Barack Obama promised the American people: “If you’re a family that’s making $250,000 a year or less, you will see no increase in your taxes.” After he became President, Barack Obama reiterated that pledge, promising the American people in his September 9th health care press conference: “The middle-class will realize greater security, not higher taxes.” But Obamacare does contain tax hikes. Tons of them. From taxes on tanning beds to taxes on employment and investments, Obamacare is a certified job-killing machine.

None of these taxes touches the lives of every American as closely as the individual mandate to purchase health insurance. For the first time in American history, Obamacare forces all Americans to purchase a product or face sanction from the Internal Revenue Service. This is clearly a tax, as pointed out by ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos during a September 20th interview with the President himself. In an exchange that can only be described as “Clintonesque” Stephanopoulos pressed President Obama to admit his individual mandate was a tax. But President Obama refused to acknowledge reality and denied it. Stephanopoulos was forced to read the definition of “tax” straight from Merriam Webster’s Dictionary. But even then Obama refused to come clean: “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. … Nobody considers that a tax increase.” Well nobody but President Barack Obama’s Justice Department.

The New York Times confirmed Friday that in preparation for defending constitutionality of the Obamacare individual mandate in court, an Obama Justice Department legal brief argues that the penalty used to enforce the mandate is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes. Mr. Obama’s own Justice Department further repudiates the President’s earlier statement by noting that the penalty is imposed and collected under the Internal Revenue Code, people must report it on their tax returns, and that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will cost Americans $4 billion a year. Yale Law School professor Jack Balkin told a meeting of progressive activists last month that President Obama “has not been honest with the American people about the nature of this bill. This bill is a tax.”

The fact that the Obama administration and their allies are now admitting the individual mandate is a tax betrays their very real fear that the Supreme Court could find Obamacare’s individual mandate unconstitutional. In the bill itself, Congress identified the Commerce Clause as the source of their authority to force all Americans to buy health insurance. But as our legal team has made eminently clear, the mandate does not purport to regulate or prohibit commerce of any kind. To the contrary, it purports to “regulate”—and penalize—inactivity. If the Supreme Court allows the Obamacare individual mandate to stand, then Congress could do anything it wanted. They could: require us to buy a new Chevy Impala each year to support the government-supported auto industry; require us to buy war bonds to pay for the Iraq and Afghan wars; or force us to eat our vegetables.

But even if the Obama administration is now admitting the individual mandate is a tax, that still does not make the law constitutional. Rather than operating as a tax on income, the mandate is a tax on the person and is, therefore, a capitation tax. Therefore the 16th Amendment’s grant of power to Congress to assess an income tax does not apply. The Constitution does allow Congress to assess a capitation tax, but that requires the tax be assessed evenly based op population. That is not how the Obamacare mandate works. It exempts and carves out far too many exceptions to past muster as a capitation tax. The Obamacare mandate is still unprecedented and unconstitutional.

But perhaps more importantly, what does the episode say about the integrity of the White House? The President went on national television and insisted in unequivocal terms that his individual mandate was not a tax. Now his administration is saying the exact opposite. At what point do the American people lose all faith in this President’s word?

oh noes...we're done fer...

It's damn hot out today and I blame Obama...

gimmesometruth27

prfctlefts wrote:

so what your saying is if it came from the huffington post or media matters you would believe it ? am I right ?

that is not what i am saying, no.

the term "obamacare" is nothing more than an attempt to discredit the merits of the program and trick the stupid people into being against their own self interests. classic example of the scare and smear tactics of the conservative media outlets.. keep the people stupid and angry at the president so they never realize how bad they are getting fucked by special interests and the corporations.

WaveCameCrashin

YOU MAY HAVE A POINT THERE, as far as the term Obama care goes,but I don't believe thier intentions are to keep people stupid. so let's talk about the merits. What's good about it and whats bad..

_

prfctlefts wrote:

scb wrote:

You know what else keeps me from taking what people say seriously? When they call people (or laws, etc.) names. Just another sensationalist tactic used to detract from the real issues at hand.

so what.. BFD would you like it better if they called Gov run healthcare. I don't really care anyway you can choose not to believe it or not doesn't make a difference to me.

BFD?? :? Big Fucking Deal?

If it actually were government run healthcare, then sure, call it that. Of course, it's not government run healthcare so that would be inaccurate. I just think all the little jabs and inaccuracies that are meant to encourage people to gloss over the actual substance of the issues is counter-productive.

gimmesometruth27

i would like it better is it WAS gov't run healthcare. but with 2 wars, bailouts, and israel to fund we can't afford it...

Godfather.

prfctlefts wrote:

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/20/morning-bell-white-house-admits-obamacares-individual-mandate-is-a-tax/

Throughout his presidential campaign, then-candidate Barack Obama promised the American people: “If you’re a family that’s making $250,000 a year or less, you will see no increase in your taxes.” After he became President, Barack Obama reiterated that pledge, promising the American people in his September 9th health care press conference: “The middle-class will realize greater security, not higher taxes.” But Obamacare does contain tax hikes. Tons of them. From taxes on tanning beds to taxes on employment and investments, Obamacare is a certified job-killing machine.

None of these taxes touches the lives of every American as closely as the individual mandate to purchase health insurance. For the first time in American history, Obamacare forces all Americans to purchase a product or face sanction from the Internal Revenue Service. This is clearly a tax, as pointed out by ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos during a September 20th interview with the President himself. In an exchange that can only be described as “Clintonesque” Stephanopoulos pressed President Obama to admit his individual mandate was a tax. But President Obama refused to acknowledge reality and denied it. Stephanopoulos was forced to read the definition of “tax” straight from Merriam Webster’s Dictionary. But even then Obama refused to come clean: “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. … Nobody considers that a tax increase.” Well nobody but President Barack Obama’s Justice Department.

The New York Times confirmed Friday that in preparation for defending constitutionality of the Obamacare individual mandate in court, an Obama Justice Department legal brief argues that the penalty used to enforce the mandate is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes. Mr. Obama’s own Justice Department further repudiates the President’s earlier statement by noting that the penalty is imposed and collected under the Internal Revenue Code, people must report it on their tax returns, and that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will cost Americans $4 billion a year. Yale Law School professor Jack Balkin told a meeting of progressive activists last month that President Obama “has not been honest with the American people about the nature of this bill. This bill is a tax.”

The fact that the Obama administration and their allies are now admitting the individual mandate is a tax betrays their very real fear that the Supreme Court could find Obamacare’s individual mandate unconstitutional. In the bill itself, Congress identified the Commerce Clause as the source of their authority to force all Americans to buy health insurance. But as our legal team has made eminently clear, the mandate does not purport to regulate or prohibit commerce of any kind. To the contrary, it purports to “regulate”—and penalize—inactivity. If the Supreme Court allows the Obamacare individual mandate to stand, then Congress could do anything it wanted. They could: require us to buy a new Chevy Impala each year to support the government-supported auto industry; require us to buy war bonds to pay for the Iraq and Afghan wars; or force us to eat our vegetables.

But even if the Obama administration is now admitting the individual mandate is a tax, that still does not make the law constitutional. Rather than operating as a tax on income, the mandate is a tax on the person and is, therefore, a capitation tax. Therefore the 16th Amendment’s grant of power to Congress to assess an income tax does not apply. The Constitution does allow Congress to assess a capitation tax, but that requires the tax be assessed evenly based op population. That is not how the Obamacare mandate works. It exempts and carves out far too many exceptions to past muster as a capitation tax. The Obamacare mandate is still unprecedented and unconstitutional.

But perhaps more importantly, what does the episode say about the integrity of the White House? The President went on national television and insisted in unequivocal terms that his individual mandate was not a tax. Now his administration is saying the exact opposite. At what point do the American people lose all faith in this President’s word?

I saw this coming and my gut tells me this is just the tip of the iceburg..and you guys thought Bush was a wacko, this is going to get real nasty.

Godfather.

mikepegg44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

2 words

heritage foundation

:roll:

why do you always question the source any time something comes up you disagree with, why don't you read it? Is old George S part of that conservative mouth piece for pressing Obama? The justice department, and now the entire administration is forced to call this what it is, a tax. So was he obama stretching the truth about what it was, or did he truly not consider this a tax increase. I would say probably the latter. But now that it is being challenged in court they are forced to define it as a tax so that it can be seen as constitutional.

whether you want obamacare or not is irrelevant. It is just another story that shows the hope and change that was promised has not come. there are the same old dirty politics as with anyone else. Sad really.

I don't care if the call it a tax or a mandate, it makes no difference to me, I still think that unless we are going to go to a single payer system like canada or the UK we shouldn't have done anything at all.

WaveCameCrashin

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i would like it better is it WAS gov't run healthcare. but with 2 wars, bailouts, and israel to fund we can't afford it...

the gov can't even run the post office without going in the red.and look what they did to ss medicaid and medicare,and you want them to run our healthcare ??? :shock: :shock: No thanks...

_

mikepegg44 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

2 words

heritage foundation

:roll:

why do you always question the source any time something comes up you disagree with, why don't you read it? Is old George S part of that conservative mouth piece for pressing Obama? The justice department, and now the entire administration is forced to call this what it is, a tax. So was he obama stretching the truth about what it was, or did he truly not consider this a tax increase. I would say probably the latter. But now that it is being challenged in court they are forced to define it as a tax so that it can be seen as constitutional.

whether you want obamacare or not is irrelevant. It is just another story that shows the hope and change that was promised has not come. there are the same old dirty politics as with anyone else. Sad really.

I don't care if the call it a tax or a mandate, it makes no difference to me, I still think that unless we are going to go to a single payer system like canada or the UK we shouldn't have done anything at all.

:? Shouldn't we always question the sources of information? Isn't that part of critical thinking?