Democrats had a little trouble with their messaging yesterday in the wake of what should have been a big victory for them last week at the Supreme Court. Instead, the legal victory has given way to a huge political headache, and perhaps even alinguistic headache as well. How can Democrats argue that ObamaCare isn’t a huge tax when the Supreme Court decision that upheld it clearly states that it’s only constitutional as a huge tax? Nancy Pelosi tried arguing that it’s not a tax but a penalty when challenged by David Gregory on Meet the Press, but even she couldn’t spit that one out cleanly:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kag-nQRmqLQ[/youtube]
Politico’s Josh Gerstein noticed it, too:
“It’s a penalty that comes under the Tax Code,” Pelosi said on NBC’s “Meet The Press” as host David Gregory pressed her to say whether she agreed with the Supreme Court, which deemed the law constitutional because the fee used to enforce the individual mandate amounts to a tax, or with President Barack Obama, who has maintained the fee is not a tax.
“It’s a ta—; it’s a penalty for free riders,” Pelosi said, nearly uttering the dreaded T-word before cutting herself off.
Actually, Pelosi slips twice in this clip. The first time comes when she asks Gregory, “Well, who is the ta — who is the penalty on?” Obviously, Pelosi hasn’t grown comfortable with the official Democratic nomenclature as they try to unwind the political damage that comes from their legal victory.
Of course the mandate is a tax, and neither Gregory nor Chris Wallace with Jack Lewactually get to the heart of the problem.
If ObamaCareless is NOT a tax… then what in the hell is the IRS doing in the middle of it? Jes sayin”…
@FedUp:
Good point! The IRS does not enforce Congressional enacted penalties, (outside of those IRS agency charged fines for tax evasions) all non-tax related fines are enforced by other law enforcement entities.
@Ditto and @FedUp, the points about the IRS collecting a penalty was addressed by the dissenting judges on pg 149 of the opinion. The IRS does plenty of collecting of “penalties” already.
Ergo, the IRS collects both taxes and penalties, and has been doing so for some time.
If it’s NOT a TAX… then by the Ruling, it’s ALSO UNCONSTITUTIONAL…. it was upheld BECAUSE SCOTUS CALLED it, SPECIFICALLY, a TAX, and NOT a “Fine”… due to Commerce Clause issues..
Mata: Touche… the IRS DOES collect such as “revenue”…
but they are NOT the ENFORCEMENT arm that would be normally used to enforce those regulations in dispute HERE..
IRS has the power to ENFORCE collection on all matters TAX however… and there’s the rub…
Actually, Hankster, the IRS is the “enforcer”, but they are limited to their collection enforcement methods. The legislation stated unpaid “penalties” (heh) would be subject to the usual procedures for collecting unpaid taxes, except that any asset liens or criminal sanctions for tax evasion were prohibited as it relates to the amount unpaid for the health insurance assessment.
This reinforces the idea that it is a tax and not an unlawful act (penalty), because the unpaid amounts are collected by the IRS via means outside of property liens, and no criminal charges will be filed against the delinquent payer. It also leaves limited collection means by the IRS… likely a garnishing of wages.
@Hankster58:
That’s the point I was trying to make.
Ditto, the IRS being the enforcer and collection agency isn’t the deciding factor as to whether it’s a penalty or a tax… since the agency collects both. What makes the difference is whether the legislation makes nonpayment of the penalty, or not purchasing health insurance, an “unlawful act”, subject to criminal penalties. It doesn’t.
I got it, just was RE-ITERATING it!! LOL!! Don’t think others quite got the Gist…. too much DOUBLE TALKING BS in DC today…
I never said that the collection agency enforcing it determines whether it is a tax. Everyone has to pay for the Obamacare “tax,” which makes it more inclusive than the Social Security tax, because it requires ALL adult citizens of all classes and incomes types to pay for the “taxes” that are included in the bill(s). Failure to pay will result in the penalty clause which will (via the penalty) collect the “TAX” that you didn’t pay. Most IRS penalties on taxation are added on top of the tax which must be paid. This penalty also reimburses the government for the amount of “tax” that was evaded. We can argue until the cows come home over whether it should be considered a tax, but our debate makes no difference. The SCOTUS decision states it’s a tax and has rewritten the law to say so. You know as well as I that the dissenting opinion of a SCOTUS ruling only disagrees with said ruling, it does not modify the final result. The final majority opinion holds sway, which makes it the current law of the land, ergo, it’s a TAX. Period, end of argument! Until repealed or the SCOTUS changes it’s mind. SCOTUS say’s it’s a tax, so as far as the legal semantic definition is concerned today, some penalties are now also to be considered taxes. I don’t like it either, but we are stuck with Robert’s SCOTUS opinion.
Ditto, I’m not arguing it is *not* a tax. It clearly meets all the criteria of a tax. The argument over that should be taken up with both POTUS candidates, who say otherwise.
Bottom line, I am (won’t speak for you guys) sick and tired of the Two faced “meaning of the word “is”” BS twisted Liars nonsense we are FORCED to Swallow from Washington, or ANY politician anymore. Word games, lies, FALSE reported statistics.. time we FIND, and elect MEN (or conversely, WO-MEN) to offices, who can talk STRAIGHT, NOT LIE, and KICK ASS…. If we don’t soon.. the ride is over… only MEMORIES if the “once great” US will be left…
how dare they penalize the tax payers, for a non crime,
since when is a penalty is given for not comiting crimes,
if they call it a penalty and collect it. then they should not separate the accused in two parts of society, those who they say cannot pay to be claiming recipients of welfare should also, be penalize as well, for the same crime, because many are richer than those not in welfare who struggle to live on a small salary because they reject to be on welfare, that is a blatant injustice the GOVERNMENT ARE DOING, TO DIVIDE AGAIN THE NATION, THEY ARE AFRAID TO INCLUDE THE WELFARE RECIPIENTS, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO DEPEND ON THEIR VOTES, WHICH MANY LATINOS ARE VOTING DEMOCRAT EXACTLY FOR BEING UNDER THEIR UMBRELLA, THEY NEVER FIGURED THAT THE MONEY DOESN’T COME FROM OBAMA’S POCKETS BUT FROM THE HARD WORKERS PAYING THEIR TAX, GOING INTO
THE WELFARE RECIPIENTS NEEDS,,
IF THEY DISREGARD THE CONSERVATIVES WHO ARE THE BIG WORKERS MAJORITY IN AMERICA,
AND IF THE LATINOS ARE ARROGANT ENOUGH TO SAY WE WILL VOTE FOR OBAMA PUBLICLY I WAS READING LAST WEEK,
THEY WILL DESERVE MANY ANGRY FINGERS POINTING AT THEM IF THE NEW PRESIDENT IS NOT MITT ROMNEY,