Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by crosspatch 2012-07-02 03:04||
#2 And this is exactly what the Supreme Court found, the same thing the Justice Department was saying in 2010:
The law describes the levy on the uninsured as a "penalty" rather than a tax. The Justice Department brushes aside the distinction, saying "the statutory label" does not matter. The constitutionality of a tax law depends on "its practical operation," not the precise form of words used to describe it, the department says, citing a long line of Supreme Court cases.
Moreover, the department says the penalty is a tax because it will raise substantial revenue: $4 billion a year by 2017, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
In addition, the department notes, the penalty is imposed and collected under the Internal Revenue Code, and people must report it on their tax returns "as an addition to income tax liability."
It doesn't matter what you CALL it, it matters how it actually operates. You an call a sheep a goat but it is still a sheep.
Posted by crosspatch 2012-07-02 03:07||
#3 Moved to Opinion.
--tw for the Moderators.
Posted by trailing wife 2012-07-02 07:25||
#4 It's up to the people to decide if Congress votes on it again. And that's the way it should be in a democracy. It's also why I am, and the founders were also, not a big fan of democracy.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2012-07-02 08:16||
Repeal relies on the Senate as well as the House, however, and the Senate currently only has 47 Republicans. It might be possible to get 4 Dem votes in the Senate but if not we should focus on taking back the Senate as well as defending the House in November.
Actually, we should be doing that even if somehow Obamacare is repealed before November. There's a lot more work to be done ...
Posted by lotp 2012-07-02 08:37||
#6 I thought in law, taxes, and D&D words have a very particular meaning.
Had the same thought gorb, by changing the wording of the law, it would have to be re-submitted, same as if it was passed by one half of congress to the other.
And that is what they should start calling it, a confirmation vote, pointing out waivers should now have to apply to the IRS for tax-exempt status.
Posted by swksvolFF 2012-07-02 10:55||
#7 The White House is fighting the "tax" label hard now. They and Justice Roberts know something. "Tax" definition presents a possible nail in the coffin. The rest of America needs to fiqure out exactly what this legislative/procedural/legality nail is.
Posted by Thriling Jomons3297 2012-07-02 11:17||
#8 ...we obviously need to put the bill back in front of Congress to be voted on again.
John Kyl noted Saturday morning on Larry Kudlow's radio show that this is precisely what they're going to do. The House will hold a new vote on Obamacare with the mandate explicitly defined as a tax. The Senate won't be able to defeat a Democratic filibuster to force a similar up or down vote but they'll offer Obamacare as an amendment or the like & force a vote that way.
Posted by AzCat 2012-07-02 13:18||
#9 The House Pubs can vote on the repeal of ObamaCare. They can also ask that the word "tax" be inserted into ObamaCare in place of "penalty." There is some value in publicizing the tax issue in that House Democrats are running for re-election. They will have to try to explain all the ObamaCare tax issue(s) in their home district. New taxes are never a popular issue in elections. Harry Reid will again block a vote in the Senate (What a worthless pogue). He is probably afraid the Pubs might peel off some of the Dems who are up for re-election and he is not about to let that happen. It will be interesting to see what happens in the House vote, that is, how many House Dems go along with the Pubs.
Posted by JohnQC 2012-07-02 16:48||
#10 If in the next 100 years or so that true conservatives are ever in power they should use this decision to require every adult to buy a gun and take required training provided by the NRA. Or pay a fine equal to the price of the gun and training or 1% of their income. After all owning a gun is a right and not everyone can afford one.
Posted by Airandee 2012-07-02 18:40||
#11 If in the next 100 years or so that true conservatives are ever in power they should use this decision to require every adult to buy a gun and take required training provided by the NRA.
Isn't that what the Swiss do?
Posted by trailing wife 2012-07-02 20:22||