Skip to main content

Its been interesting to watch the huge RW PR campaign and crying and knashing of teeth this week since Chief Justice Roberts caused a sheetstorm by joining a majority and writing a strange opinion that called the Mandate a Tax.  Lots of heads exploding and threats thrown down, some funny to watch, others, not so much. What a week!

Now, OMFG,  the Whitehouse is taking the approach that even though  the Supreme Court Decision ruled that the ACA was constitutional they got it wrong-- that the mandate is not a tax, but a mere penalty.  

This announcement surely will stir some ripples in the dark side of the force....

U.S. News
Carney: It's a penalty, not a tax

Read more:

Jay Carney, President Obama's spokesman, said the Congressional Budget Office estimates only 1 percent of the population would be affected by the payment. Carney spoke to reporters on board the presidential plane Friday en route to Colorado.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority of the Supreme Court, upheld the individual mandate to buy health insurance Thursday on the grounds that the payment for those who fail to do so is a tax.

"It's a penalty because you have a choice," Carney said. "You don't have a choice to pay your taxes, right? You have a choice to buy -- if you can afford health insurance. … So if you don't buy it, and you can afford it, it is an irresponsible thing to do to ask the rest of America's taxpayers to pay for your care when you go to the emergency room. So your choice is to purchase healthcare reform or a penalty will be administered."

Read more:

Interesting strategy, which will might be used to help publicize the relatively small number of people who will have to pay ACA penalty for not getting coverage.

H.R. 676, the “Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act,”  

 In other news, one group of Physicians believes that even with the decision,ACA falls so short of meeting our needs that we should work right now to pass a government option:

The major provisions of the ACA do not go into effect until 2014. Although we will be counseled to “wait and see” how this reform plays out, we’ve seen how comparable plans have worked in Massachusetts and other states. Those “reforms” have invariably failed our patients, foundering on the shoals of skyrocketing costs, even as the private insurers have continued to amass vast fortunes.

Our patients, our people and our national economy cannot wait any longer for an effective remedy to our health care woes. The stakes are too high.

Contrary to the claims of those who say we are “unrealistic,” a single-payer system is within practical reach. The most rapid way to achieve universal coverage would be to improve upon the existing Medicare program and expand it to cover people of all ages. There is legislation before Congress, notably H.R. 676, the “Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act,” which would do precisely that.

What is truly unrealistic is believing that we can provide universal and affordable health care in a system dominated by private insurers and Big Pharma.

Physicians for a National Health Program ( is an organization of more than 18,000 doctors who advocate for single-payer national health insurance. To speak with a physician/spokesperson in your area, visit or call (312) 782-6006.
"Medicare Part E for Everyone."
Someone here in another thread  DKos said we can call it "Medicare Part E for Everyone."

Multiple Plans
Why wait til 2014 to see if we can beat back the massive  lobbying efforts of Big Insurance and Big Pharma and ALEC to undermine the ACA?

PNHP believes we should work  for Medicare for All because polls show it to be so popular.

In talking about the budget in the Open Thread Meteor Blades said this

Open thread for night owls: Don't be stuck with just two choices. Support the Sanders budget.
It is certainly true that getting any of these budgets passed in the current state of affairs is not going to happen. But we have to get past the idea that there are only two budgets worth debating each year: 1) the extremist, devil-take-the-hindmost, dismantle-the-New Deal-and-Great Society, shrink-the-government, cut-taxes-on-the-wealthy, spend-more-on-defense-and-less-on-education Republican budget; and, 2) the slightly less draconian but nonetheless mediocre Democratic budget.

We need a third choice. A progressive choice. A choice that doesn't buy into all the austerity baloney that the two other budgets are shackled to. That third choice needs to be heard even if it takes a long time before becoming an alternative that more and more voters clamor for. Senator Sanders's budget provides a blueprint.

I agree and I think this idea of multitasking can apply here as well. The Republicans have a plan, they say. Democrats have the the ACA : it has some great features and millions benefit.

Progressives can also work in support of  passing a law that covers the millions still left out by ACA.

And its popular:

Polls have repeatedly shown an improved Medicare for all, which meets these criteria, is the remedy preferred by two-thirds of the population. A solid majority of the medical profession now favors such an approach, as well.
I know, I know, the House Republicans, the House Republicans.  They are relentless in coming up with new ideas to tear down the New Deal etc.

We should be just as relentless in pushing Forward for our vision as well.


PDF of H.R. 676, the “Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act,” here.


4:17 PM PT: Chris Bowers just had a great front page post that will work towards  Medicare for All :   How to make improving the health care law a reality+

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Thanks for reading, hope you get a chance to (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    addikell, 2020adam

    look at the language in the bill.

  •  From what I understand, it was the taxing (3+ / 0-)

    authority that was upheld, but it isn't really a tax per se, but a penalty under the taxing authority. Just hard to explain :D.

  •  it is a tax penalty (3+ / 0-)

    there.. everyone is correct.

    Peace and low stress ..

    by mdmc on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 12:00:00 PM PDT

  •  So Is It a Penalty Then For Failing to House (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    dependent children?

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 12:15:14 PM PDT

  •  If it's not a tax (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    divineorder, wsexson, annecros

    then it is unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court.  A majority said it was unconstitutional as Commerce Clause regulation.  So, it's either a tax, or it's unconstitutional.  

    So, there are the choices:  unconstitutional, or a tax.

    I don't think the White House is going to have much success backing away from the "it's a tax" argument, since it was their lawyer who made the "it's a tax" argument, and since that's the only thing that kept the whole law from going down.  

    •  I think that's a false choice (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      divineorder, Wednesday Bizzare

      Roberts just said that the government's taxing authority was precedent to say we could penalize someone for not paying something the gov't says you have to pay for.

      The IRS doesn't call its penalties "taxes."

      They call them penalties.

      And the mandated insurance premiums aren't a tax that's being penalized. Those are paid to private companies.

      •  You're wrong. Roberts said it was a tax. (4+ / 0-)

        Some quotes from his opinion:  

        cl. 1.

        The Government’s tax power argument asks us to view
        the statute differently than we did in considering its commerce power theory. In making its Commerce Clause
        argument, the Government defended the mandate as a
        regulation requiring individuals to purchase health insurance. The Government does not claim that the taxing
        power allows Congress to issue such a command.  Instead,
        the Government asks us to read the mandate not as ordering individuals to buy insurance, but rather as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product.
        But, for the reasons explained above, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power.  Under our precedent, it is therefore necessary to ask whether the Government’s alternative reading of the statute—that it only imposes a tax on those without insurance—is a reasonable one.
        And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax
        Even if the taxing power enables Congress to impose a tax on not obtaining health insurance, any tax must still comply with other requirements in the Constitution.
        And the ultimate holding:
        The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax.  Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.
        The opinion directly called it a tax, over and over and over.  If it had not been found to be a tax -- as the Administration itself argued it was, see above -- it was unconstitutional, as a majority of the Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional as a penalty under Commerce Clause regulation.    

        Tax or unconstitutional.  Take your pick.

        •  I'm not arguing that Roberts didn't go on (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          to politicize his decision. That's exactly what I AM arguing.

          My entire opinion is premised on that common sense view of how he behaves.

          It's telling that Roberts uses the terms "characterized as a tax" or "is in effect just a tax hike."

          Politicians accuse Romney of "in effect" raising taxes in Mass. by imposing fees all the time. And sure, it feels the same, it works the same in a way, but it's not a tax.

          He know it isn't one, but he also knew that he could hold the vote hostage and throw Republicans a bone.

          I suspect that was the entire point. I don't think the conservatives wanted to kill the ACA (most of it was a conservative idea anyway). I think they just wanted to contrive a way of politicizing it while still allowing most of the conservatives to vote to overturn it.

          •  My point is that, as things now stand, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            valion, annecros

            it's either a tax, or it's unconstitutional.  That's the holding of the Supreme Court.  

            The Administration can't back away from the "it's a tax" position, because it was the Administration who argued that position to the SCOTUS in the first place.  The CJ didn't make it up.  

            It's either a tax, or it's unconstitutional.  The Administration argued it was a tax to save it from being declared unconstitutional.  They are the ones who created that.  They are stuck with it.  

            •  Corporations are people (0+ / 0-)

              Money is speech

              Penalties are taxes.

              Politicians change the meaning of words all the time so that they don't have to change the Constitution. But expediency isn't truth.

              I'm just calling bullshit on it.

              •  You can certainly disagree with the CJ's (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                conclusion. A lot of people do.  But the Administration can't, since it was THEIR ARGUMENT that the CJ adopted.

                And, if you disagree with the CJ, your alternative is that five justices found the law unconstitutional.  So, if the CJ had NOT held it was a tax, the whole thing would have gone down.  That's your two alternatives.  The SCOTUS was not going to find it constitutional as a penalty under the Commerce Clause.  So, practically, you have two choices:  (1) whole law is unconstitutional; or (2) it's a tax.  

                That's where the Administration is.  Either THEIR ARGUMENT was right, and it's a tax, or the whole law is unconstitutional.  

                •  The admin made their argument (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  based on politicized ideas.

                  They can change their argument for politicized reasons.

                  I have no problem with trying to win an election.

                  They aren't calling the penalty a penalty right now to win a politicized argument in a clown show Supreme Court.

                  They're doing it to win an election.

                  I'm not going to sit here and pretend that either process (SCOTUS or elections) has the kind of integrity that defines "truth."

                  •  Admin said it was use of taxing authority (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    addikell, annecros

                    coffetalk is wrong as usual.

                    •  I copied and pasted from their brief (0+ / 0-)

                      it's hard to misquote when you do that.

                      •  You misstate (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        Your quote is correct.

                        It proves you wrong.

                        •  I guess we disagree about the meaning of the words (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          divineorder, annecros
                          The Minimum Coverage Provision Operates As A Tax Law
                          The practical operation of the minimum coverage provision is as  a tax law.  
                          the minimum coverage provision is valid not only as a tax in its own right,
                          Silly me, I thought that when the Administration said "the minimum coverage provision operates as a tax law," they meant the minimum coverage provision operates as a tax law.

                          And I thought that when they said the minimum coverage provision is valid as a tax in its own right, they meant the minimum coverage provision is valid as a tax in its own right.

                          And here's some more quotes from the Administration:

                          Accordingly, if the minimum coverage provision can reasonably be interpreted as a tax
                          —as it surely can be for the reasons given above—
                          then it must be upheld as constitutional.
                          When understood as an exercise of Congress’s power over taxation and read in the context of Section 5000A as a whole, subsection (a) serves only as the predicate for tax consequences imposed by the rest of the section.  
                          First, neither the Treasury Department nor the Department of Health and Human Services interprets Section 5000A as imposing a legal obligation on
                          applicable individuals independent of its tax-penalty consequences; each instead views it as only a predicate provision for the imposition of tax consequenses.
                          You read that as the Administration saying it's not really a tax.  I don't. I read "tax law" as "tax law."  I read "tax consequences" as "tax consequences."  I read "a tax in its own right" as "a tax in its own right."

                          I agree this was an ALTERNATIVE argument, made only in the even that the SCOTUS did not find it constitutional under the Commerce Clause.  But I don't see how you can say that the Administration made the argument that it's "not really a tax."  Unless you think a "tax law" is not really a tax law, and tax consequences are not really tax consequences.

                          •  A tax law not subject to the AIA is . . .? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            I certainly read it as them saying it is not a tax because THAT IS WHAT THEY SAID!!!

                            That is what they say now consistently with what they said then.

                            Do I believe the statements are absurd? OF COURSE  I do.

                            I think it is absurd that the AIA did not apply.

                            We're not arguing about whether it is a tax. OF COURSE it is.

                            We are arguing about what the Administration said.

                            I think if you stopped and thought about it, you would find that you and I actually agree for once - the ridiculous contortions that the Administration made in its taxing authority arguments were absurd.

                            OF COURSE it is a tax.

                            But they did not say it was.

  •  For more on why it's not a tax (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    This diary I wrote was rescued to the community spotlight:

  •  1.7% of Americans live overseas (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    They are exempt from the mandate. They still have to file income tax returns though.

    11% of American households don't have a car. They don't have to buy car insurance. But of course they still have to file returns though.

    Think of it that way.

    Actually residing in America is a choice. For American children growing up overseas, moving back to America is a conscious choice, like deciding to become a car owner.

    This is another reason I think the insurance mandate isn't a tax, but rather the result of a choice. Same with the penalty. It's the result of a choice based on a choice.

  •  So, if the Whitehouse (0+ / 0-)

    keeps insisting it's not a tax can Roberts say "okay then, just kidding" and change the ruling? I'm 1/2 being a smart ass, but 1/2 not because I really don't know, although I assume a new case would have to be brought. Or is it really over other than the repeal chants?

    •  Too late for that. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      It was the White House -- the administration -- that argued that it was a tax.  You can go to the Supreme Court website and read the Administration's brief, or read the CJ's opinion stating several times that the Administration's argument is that, if it was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause -- which five justices found it was -- then it was simply imposing a tax on the uninsured.  See my comment above.  

      The Administration was the one who convinced the SCOTUS that it was a tax.  The CJ did not make that up all on his own.  He accepted the Administration's argument on that point.  

      The Administration is on record saying it's the imposition of a tax.  If they now say, well, we only said that to win a case, we were really not telling the truth, they come off as disingenuous and not trustworthy.  

    •  Roberts isn't going to change his mind (0+ / 0-)

      According to Roberts, the penalty is "characterized as a tax."

      He's saying the taxing authority gives us the power to penalize someone for not paying something, but he parses his words carefully.

      Just like politicians "characterize" Mitt Romney's fees in Mass. as tax hikes on the poor/middle class.

      I think the White House can argue it isn't a tax while still saying our taxing authority is the precedent to dole out financial penalties, just like we dole out financial penalties for not paying our taxes.

      If anything, it's the mandate that would be the tax in this equation, and the penalty a penalty. But the insurance premiums don't go to the IRS, so it's clearly not.

      •  That's not what the White House argued (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wsexson, annecros

        before the Supreme Court.

        I think the White House can argue it isn't a tax while still saying our taxing authority is the precedent to dole out financial penalties, just like we dole out financial penalties for not paying our taxes.
        You are trying to rewrite what the Administration actually said.  Let me quote from the Administration's brief to the SCOTUS:
        A. The Minimum Coverage Provision Operates As A Tax Law
        Congress’s power “[t]o lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
        Imposts and Excises,” Art. I, § 8, Cl. 1, provides an independent basis to uphold the constitutionality of the minimum coverage provision.  The taxing power is “comprehensive.”  Steward Mach. Co.  v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582 (1937).  In “passing on the constitutionality of a tax law,” a court is “concerned only with its practical operation, not its definition or the precise form of descriptive words which may be applied to it.”  Nelson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 312 U.S. 359, 363 (1941) (citation omitted).  The practical operation of the minimum coverage provision is as a tax law.  It is fully integrated into the tax system, will raise substantial revenue, and triggers only tax consequences for non-compliance.
        And even more directly:
        Each of these measures is a proper exercise of Congress’s taxing power, and each reflects Congress’s broad discretion to determine how much tax is owed.  In particular, just as deductions, exemptions, and credits operate to reduce an individual taxpayer’s federal income tax liability based on the personal circumstances of the taxpayer, the minimum coverage penalty operates to increase the taxpayer’s total tax liability based on his individual circumstances.  In that sense, the minimum coverage provision is valid not only as a tax in its own right, but also as an adjunct to the income tax, as it merely provides an additional input in calculating the total amount owed on the taxpayer’s income tax return.
        That is the Administration talking.  

        Do you really think the Administration will have any credibility whatsoever if it now tries to say, we didn't mean it, it isn't really "a tax in its own right" or a "tax law"?  

        •  It's interesting how liberals quickly (0+ / 0-)

          point out when the Obama admin is wrong on issues like drones or putting whistleblowers in prison, but on this one they think that just because the admin said it, it has to be true.

          I don't think that's an argument.

          Corporations are people, money is speech, penalties are taxes. Politicians change the meaning of words so they don't have to change the Constitution, but it's just political expediency - nothing more.

          •  Wow. Just wow. Lawyers who make false (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            arguments to courts that are not based in good faith positions, but instead just for the sake of  "political expediency," are sanctioned and disbarred.  ESPECIALLY the Solicitor General -- whose credibility with the SCOTUS is far, far, far more important that one case.    Are you really suggesting that is what happened when the Solicitor General filed  briefs with the Supreme Court of the United States?  

            A lawyer making an argument to the Supreme Court is not the same as a politician making an argument for "political expediency." And if ANYBODY at the Administration said that's what the Solicitor General of the United States was doing when he made that argument, that would discredit the Administration far, far, far worse than the "it's a tax" position does.  

            I certainly hope nobody else even comes close to saying that the SG was being disingenuous by just making arguments for "political expediency" when he appeared before the SCOTUS.  

            •  LOL (0+ / 0-)

              If that were actually true in practice, there wouldn't be any conservatives on the Supreme Court or lawyers arguing cases in front of them.

              I really don't think conservatives actually believe that corporations are people either.

              If you can convince people that words don't mean what they mean or that people didn't murder people they murdered, then you too can win a case.

              •  This is beyond ridiculous. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                First, I'm a lawyer, and if the President of the United States directly instructed the SG to make a disingenuous argument to the Supreme Court of the United States, then I WOULD call for the President's impeachment.  That is clear, clear misconduct on the part of a lawyer.  If that's what happened, the SG should have resigned rather than make an argument that he did not believe was justified in the law.  I can't believe that you are, in effect, arguing that the administration should come out and say that it made a disingenuous argument to the Supreme Court of the United States.  

                If the SG made a disingenuous argument on his own, I would call for the SG's resignation.

                But that's not what happened.  The Administration made an argument that it believed was supported by the law.  That is what happened, regardless of your attempts to paint the Administration as liars.  

                By the way, the SCOTUS in Citizens United DID NOT HOLD THAT CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE.  That's a myth. The Court specifically held that corporations are NOT "natural persons.  READ THE OPINION.

            •  You always misstate what the Adminstration argued (0+ / 0-)


              •  I copied and pasted from their brief (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                It's hard to misstate when you do that.

                •  You copied and pasted (0+ / 0-)

                  the Administration arguing it was a tax? No you did not. You copied and pasted them saying it was an exercise of the taxing authroiuty.

                  Why not stick to the truth once in a while?

                  If you want to argue that EVERY exercise of the taxing authority is a tax, then do that.

                  Of course, that would mean the AIA should have been invoked. Hey, it wasn't. How do you explain that one?

                  Here's how, not every exercise of the taxing authority is a tax.

                  Try harder to tell the truth next time.

                •  From YOUR comment (0+ / 0-)

                  "Congress’s power “[t]o lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
                  Imposts and Excises,” Art. I, § 8, Cl. 1, provides an independent basis to uphold the constitutionality of the minimum coverage provision.  The taxing power is “comprehensive.”  Steward Mach. Co.  v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582 (1937)."

                  So is it a duty? An impost? An excise? When does it operate?

                  Is it a mandatory tax? Or a conditional tax?

                  IF it is a TAX then how is it that it was not subject tot the AIA?

                  Oh it wasn't THAT type of tax?

                  BTW, I think it is a tax. But the Administration did not argue it was a tax.

                  •  they called it a "tax law." Several times. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    What is a "tax law"?

                    And they said it is "valid as a tax in its own right."  What does that mean?

                    And in your quote, the Administration said "taxing power."  What did they mean by "taxing power"?  

                    I disagree with the conclusion that it is a tax.  I think that was a weak argument.   But there's no question that the Administration argued it was "a tax law," that it "imposed tax consequences," and that it "was valid as a tax in its own right."  

                    And there's no question that the CJ specifically held that it was a tax, and that holding by the CJ was the only thing that prevented the SCOTUS from declaring the law unconstitutional.

                    My point is that there's no way the Administration can now say, "we didn't mean it -- it's not REALLY a tax law."  

                    •  A tax law is a law (0+ / 0-)

                      that invokes the taxing authority according to the Administration.

                      A tax law is something that may not be subject to the AIA.

                      IT is an absurd argument by the Administration.

                      But they made it.

                      They did not argue what you say they argued.

                      •  So a tax law is a law that is not really a tax? (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        It can be a tax law AND be under the taxing authority -- which is exactly what the Administration argued.  In fact, it has to be either a tax or a duty or an impost or an excise to be valid under that provision.  The administration did not hide which one of those four THEY were arguing it was -- they called it a tax law over and over.  They said it was "valid as a tax in its own right."  

                        Nowhere -- nada, zilch -- did the Administration say, "it's not really a tax, but it's under the Taxing Authority."

                        No, they said over and over - it's a tax law, it imposes tax consequences, its "valid as a tax in its own right" and it's valid under the Taxing Authority.

                        There's no way they will have any credibility if they now say, when we said "tax law," we didn't mean "tax law."  There's no way they will have credibility if they say, "when we said tax law, we didn't mean that it was a law about a tax."  There's no way they will have any credibility if they say, when we said "valid as a tax in its own right," we meant it's valid even if it's not a tax."  

                        If you think "tax law" means a law that's not related to a tax, then you and I just disagree.  I think they were arguing both that it was a tax and that it was authorized under the taxing authority.  

                        •  As I said before (0+ / 0-)

                          For once we agree. The Adminsitration's argument is absurd.

                          •  Their AIA argument was particularly absurd, I (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Armando, annecros

                            think.  They argued that while the provision was a "tax law" (not a duty law, an impost law, or an excise law, but a "tax law") substantively, and thus authorized under  Art. I, § 8, Cl. 1, PROCEDURALLY it was a penalty and not a tax law under th AIA -- that Congress could define "tax law" for purposes of the AIA differently from the meaning it held in the Constitution,  Art. I, § 8, Cl. 1.  

                            That, I think, was ridiculous, but that was the Administration's argument -- that it was substantively a tax law for purposes of the Constitution, but procedurally a penalty pursuant to the AIA.  

                            But that's their argument, and the CJ adopted their argument.  And if he hadn't, the entire law would have gone down.  

        •  The taxing power (0+ / 0-)

          is not limited to imposing taxes.

  •  OK, this is just stupid. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    You don't have a choice to pay your taxes, right?
    If I choose to buy a car I pay sales tax, if I choose to continue using a car I already have I do not pay sales tax. I just made a choice whether to pay tax or not.
    It's a penalty because you have a choice.
    So sales taxes are a penalty?
    •  No, you made a choice to buy a new car (0+ / 0-)

      Nobody buys a new car for the purposes of paying sales tax. Nobody in the history of mankind.

      In your metaphor, health insurance is the car, but you don't explain the corresponding metaphor that relates to the sales tax.

      If buying new cars was mandated by law and you refused to buy one, then the penalty you had to pay for doing so wouldn't be a tax, it'd be a penalty.

    •  Also... (0+ / 0-)

      I could "choose" not to pay income and payroll taxes by quitting my job.

  •  Hey, owe the IRS taxes and watch the PENALTIES (0+ / 0-)

    Increase. So yes penalties are in the taxing authority tax code. And it goes to the IRS.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site