They Can’t Even Keep Their Stories Straight….Obama’s Budget Director: “ObamaCare Not A Tax”

Loading

Talk about walking head first into a trap. This video clip would be so much fun to watch over and over again if the consequences of ObamaCare weren’t so real.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MULXFA2hJBw[/youtube]

So here we have Obama’s budget director telling Congress that no, ObamaCare isn’t a tax. But then we have the DOJ arguing to the Supreme Court that yes, it is a tax.

This has always been a tricky argument for the Obama administration, because admitting that the mandate is a tax means that Obama violated his pledge not to raise taxes on those earning less than $250,000. In September 2009, Obama told ABC’s George Stephanapoulos that the mandate was not a tax. But by the following June, his administration was arguing in court that it was.

So the administration is making both arguments simultaneously. Before Congress, Zients is arguing that it is not a tax. But before the Supreme Court, the administration will argue that it is, in fact, a tax.

Which means at this very moment Zients is being raked over the coals by Obama and pals, soon to be replaced, and message to be back on track. What’s the message you ask?

That Bush and his Patriot Act was trampling on all of our rights……err, forget that one. That recess appointments are unconstitutional….forget this one too. That indefinite detentions of our citizens was unconstitutional….and this one. No war for oil….oh wait, Libya. That our deficit is unpatriotic….naw…just forget all these messages. Obama is in power now and all that is just fine and dandy.

Along with a federal mandate to force every person to pay for the health insurance of the other.

Wonderful.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
14 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Obama’s administration does have historical precedent for telling citizens that what they are doing is not a tax, and then telling SCOTUS that it is.

FDR employed the same tactics to get Social Security passed.

When Rep. Garrett asked if he chose not to get ObamaCare, but still has to pay for it, would it be a tax, he forgot to mention that ObamaCare would get rid of the private insurance companies because no company is going to pay for ObamaCare AND private insurance for their employees, because the companies who choose not to have private insurance will have a price advantage over those who do. The ones who have both will either go out of business or drop private insurance.

When there is no choice, ObamaCare ain’t a tax, I guess.

It is a tax.
It is NOT a tax.
ObamaCare is a disaster.

Remember when the OMB first scored it?
According to their numbers it would not be too expensive.

BUT their numbers relied on being told the truth by Obama.
And Obama lies.

ObamaCare, according to OMB, would be paid for and reduce the deficit by assuming all scheduled cuts would take place.
But stopping the annual ”doctor fix,” was one of those many cuts.
And, so far, it has not happened.

In fact the doctor fix keeps being added to the budget (what budget?) every year despite promises that stopping it would make all the difference between ObamaCare working vs not working.

This year the ”doctor fix” will amount to 27% of what doctors get for serving Medicare patients.
In 2005 the 10 year projection of not cutting doctors but putting in the ”doctor fix,” was projected to add $48 Billion.
But this month the CBO admitted it is costing $316 Billion.
So, how do we pay for ObamaCare?

@Nan G:

That isn’t all, either. As of January 6th of this year, 1,231 companies and groups, including Obama’s union supporters, such as the AFL-CIO, SEIU, and numerous teacher’s unions. In fact, to date, the overwhelming majority of people affected by those waivers are part of some union or another, to the tune of 87%. Given that the waivers cover upwards of 4 million citizens, that means roughly 3.5 million union members get a waiver. AND, since 14.8 million workers in the country belong to unions, around 25% of ALL union members in the country are covered by the waivers, vs. the .3% of all non-union workers in the country being covered by the waivers. Coincidence? Or an example of cronyism by Obama’s WH?

http://news.investors.com/article/597373/201201101851/big-labor-free-rides-on-obamacare-waivers.htm
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/how-many-businesses-are-exempt-the-final-number-of-obamacare-waivers-is-in/

@johngalt: You said:

As of January 6th of this year, 1,231 companies and groups, including Obama’s union supporters, such as the AFL-CIO, SEIU, and numerous teacher’s unions.

Not picking on ya’. But this isn’t a complete sentence. Did you mean that these unions got waivers?

@anticsrocks:

Yeah, I didn’t proofread it before posting it. I did mean ‘waivers’, you are correct. Thanks for the heads up.

Bring on Single Payer in your second term Obama! Socialism all the way! Yeah! Let wingnuts who hate it just die…and go away so this country can truly progress without these old white, male, dinosaurs.

The US cannot provide [free] condoms, and eradicate jobs to save $$
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/23/us-china-economy-condoms?CMP=twt_gu

Here is a Gem for those who deny Obama care is nothing more than a Government Power grab…..
Congressman John Dingell, Democrat from Michigan and former House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman had a Freudian-slip moment earlier this week when he spoke about the legislation. He said, “It takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”

Yes, you read that correctly. “To control the people.” I can’t imagine a more effective means of granting a government total control over the lives of its people than by yielding control of our health to a bureaucracy. Since they will have control over treatments and care, they will have ultimate control of life and death decisions, life styles, and diet.

http://larsenfinancial.us/obamacare-aims-to-“control-the-people

ObamaCARE is DANGEROUS GROUND [IGNORANT/Socialist] AMERICANS ARE WALKING ON….Not to mention UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!

@FAITH7: #8

“It takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”

Different times I have said that whenever today’s democrat speaks without a script in front of them, they either babble on and say nothing, or they tell the truth.

@johngalt: So this waver thing is something that I’ve never understood. Aren’t we a country of laws, and doesn’t something in the constitution guarantee and equal playing field, equal protection or something. How, can wavers just get tossed around w/o major constitutional law suits?

@Tearfang:

There are two issues with the waivers that are important to note.

-One, the issuing of waivers from the entirety of Obamacare seems to, on the surface, violate the 5th Amendment, which, when coupled with definitions from the 14th Amendment, defines what is called the “equal protection” clause. And, in simple terms, means that no one person, or group, should receive special consideration, or be exempted from, laws that are passed. In other words, ALL laws should apply to citizens of the US equally.

-Two, the original scoring of Obamacare done by the CBO was based on the participation by ALL. So, one has to wonder exactly how some 4 million plus people, all exempted from it, changes that scoring, and the Obama admin’s claim, that Obamacare will actually “save” money over the long run.

@johngalt: #11
I remember reading some place that ObamaCare was passed illegally because there is a three day waiting period for bills before they can be voted on. I can’t find anything about this on the Internet. Does anyone know if this is true.

Another thing that was mentioned was that each time a bill is revised, it becomes a new bill and has to go through the waiting period. Since the bill was constantly being changed right up to the time it was voted on, that means there was no waiting period at all.

I was at the protest against ObamaCare the day before the democrats voted for it. We tried our best to try to get them to do what “We The People” wanted, but they had stopped doing that long before.

@johngalt: You said:

In other words, ALL laws should apply to citizens of the US equally.

Unless you are a member of Congress and you get this hot stock tip…

Hrm so does anyone know if there are law suits currently under way around the waver issue and the “equal protection” clause? The only suit currently in flight I have heard of, is the one objecting to the individual mandate.