This kind of stuff is what drives me crazy about politics.
They say whatever they think they need to say to push something through.
Back in September, President Obama had a spirited interview with George Stephanopoulos about whether the penalty that will be imposed on people who choose to not get health insurance is really a tax. Since the President made the promise about no new taxes, he had to adamantly refute the idea that the penalty in any way, shape or form could be construed as being a tax.
Here's the video. He makes it quite clear that it would be crazy to consider this penalty as being a new tax. (I tried to find a video without any side comments but all the others were much longer. This one had just the part I wanted.)
Now fast forward ten months. Twenty states are bringing lawsuits against this new healthcare law and are saying that it is unconstitutional.
Guess what the administrations legal team is argueing now? They now say that it is constitutional because the penalty is nothing more than a tax and Congress has full constitutional power to lay and collect taxes. Here's what has been reported in the New York Times:
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."
Because the penalty is a tax, the department says, no one can challenge it in court before paying it and seeking a refund.
Now isn't that special. Where were these guys when this stuff was being debated? You can't have it both ways. You can't sell it to the people as nothing having to do with a tax and then come back and defend it as being constitutional because it's just a tax in sheep's clothing. I guess you can but then you should be ready to be recognized for being a liar that can't be trusted in the future. If he was mistaken back in September, then he should come out and say so.
What are the chances that the President will go back on TV with George Stephanopoulos and say that he was wrong about this not being a tax. Let him then try to square this with his no new taxes promise. That would be a change that I could believe in. Until then, he is nothing more than the common politician who says whatever he needs to say. What a shame. I was hoping he would prove me wrong about my feelings that he is nothing better than George Bush and all the others.
Comments(1)