"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments:
rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws;
rights derived from the Great Legislator of the universe."
-- John Adams
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Monday, July 2, 2012
Examiner Editorial: As a tax hike, Obamacare is another broken promise
Examiner Editorial: As a tax hike, Obamacare is another broken promise
July 1, 2012
The Washington Examiner
Examiner Editorial: As a tax hike, Obamacare is another broken promise
Sunday Reflection: After the recall, big trouble for Big Labor
Examiner Local Editorial: Court blocks attack on crisis pregnancy centers
Obamacare says every American must purchase a government-approved insurance policy or else pay a fine. Had Chief Justice John Roberts been unwilling to treat this provision as a tax in last week's Supreme Court ruling -- despite much evidence to the contrary -- all of Obamacare would have been wiped off the books. How amusing it is, therefore, to watch Obama's surrogates examine the teeth of the gift horse the Roberts court has given them.
On the Sunday interview shows, they spun furiously against the idea that Obamacare's individual insurance mandate is a tax. The spinners included White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "It's a penalty that comes under the tax code," Pelosi said on "Meet the Press." She then nearly slipped and called it a tax as she argued that it was not a tax. "It's a ta--it's a penalty for free riders," she said.
One can forgive Pelosi for her confusion here, because she and President Obama are trying to have it both ways. When Obama's solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, argued in court that the mandate both was and was not a tax, at least he was engaging in an accepted legal tactic -- "arguing in the alternative," by which an attorney makes a second argument for his position in case the first one is rejected. But once the issues of law and fact are settled, there is no more argument in the alternative, nor is such an argument ever persuasive in the political arena. There is only what George Orwell called "doublethink" -- the simultaneous acceptance of two mutually contradictory ideas. Obama's allies want to wear the "tax" fig leaf that the court's 5-4 majority gave them, and also go naked at the same time.
The Democrats' hesitation to accept Obamacare as a tax hike comes in defense of Obama's early promise not to raise taxes on the middle class -- a broad promise ruling out even "one single dime" and "any form of tax increase," which he made without any qualifications. In fact, Obama has not been terribly solicitous of this promise anyway -- note, for example, his imposition of a cigarette tax hike in early 2009. Given the Supreme Court's capricious decision to modify the rules governing Obamacare's Medicaid expansion, this newly anointed tax will likely fall upon the uninsured working poor. Obama would rather not go before the voters this fall with such an obvious breach of his tax promise on record.
Judge Henry Hudson of the Eastern District of Virginia, in deciding Virginia's challenge to Obamacare (the one that did not reach the Supreme Court), ruled out the possibility that the law's individual mandate was a tax, and correctly, in our opinion. He noted that the Obama administration's "use of the term 'tax' appears to be a tactic to achieve enlarged regulatory license."
Indeed, the Democrats' chatter of this past weekend is proving this now. Insofar as it helps them enlarge government, Obamacare is a tax hike. Insofar as it embarrasses them politically, it isn't.
July 1, 2012
The Washington Examiner
Examiner Editorial: As a tax hike, Obamacare is another broken promise
Sunday Reflection: After the recall, big trouble for Big Labor
Examiner Local Editorial: Court blocks attack on crisis pregnancy centers
Obamacare says every American must purchase a government-approved insurance policy or else pay a fine. Had Chief Justice John Roberts been unwilling to treat this provision as a tax in last week's Supreme Court ruling -- despite much evidence to the contrary -- all of Obamacare would have been wiped off the books. How amusing it is, therefore, to watch Obama's surrogates examine the teeth of the gift horse the Roberts court has given them.
On the Sunday interview shows, they spun furiously against the idea that Obamacare's individual insurance mandate is a tax. The spinners included White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "It's a penalty that comes under the tax code," Pelosi said on "Meet the Press." She then nearly slipped and called it a tax as she argued that it was not a tax. "It's a ta--it's a penalty for free riders," she said.
One can forgive Pelosi for her confusion here, because she and President Obama are trying to have it both ways. When Obama's solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, argued in court that the mandate both was and was not a tax, at least he was engaging in an accepted legal tactic -- "arguing in the alternative," by which an attorney makes a second argument for his position in case the first one is rejected. But once the issues of law and fact are settled, there is no more argument in the alternative, nor is such an argument ever persuasive in the political arena. There is only what George Orwell called "doublethink" -- the simultaneous acceptance of two mutually contradictory ideas. Obama's allies want to wear the "tax" fig leaf that the court's 5-4 majority gave them, and also go naked at the same time.
The Democrats' hesitation to accept Obamacare as a tax hike comes in defense of Obama's early promise not to raise taxes on the middle class -- a broad promise ruling out even "one single dime" and "any form of tax increase," which he made without any qualifications. In fact, Obama has not been terribly solicitous of this promise anyway -- note, for example, his imposition of a cigarette tax hike in early 2009. Given the Supreme Court's capricious decision to modify the rules governing Obamacare's Medicaid expansion, this newly anointed tax will likely fall upon the uninsured working poor. Obama would rather not go before the voters this fall with such an obvious breach of his tax promise on record.
Judge Henry Hudson of the Eastern District of Virginia, in deciding Virginia's challenge to Obamacare (the one that did not reach the Supreme Court), ruled out the possibility that the law's individual mandate was a tax, and correctly, in our opinion. He noted that the Obama administration's "use of the term 'tax' appears to be a tactic to achieve enlarged regulatory license."
Indeed, the Democrats' chatter of this past weekend is proving this now. Insofar as it helps them enlarge government, Obamacare is a tax hike. Insofar as it embarrasses them politically, it isn't.
Conservative Humor: Mantyhose
Pantyhose For Men
“If women are worried that their previously exclusive fashion domain is being invaded by men in manscara and man-bras, there’s another cause for concern.
“Mantyhose” are pantyhose for liberal Obama loving men, the latest in a string of men’s fashion trends straight from the bizarre files. And everyone from truck drivers to gay cowboys are wearing them
“If women are worried that their previously exclusive fashion domain is being invaded by men in manscara and man-bras, there’s another cause for concern.
“Mantyhose” are pantyhose for liberal Obama loving men, the latest in a string of men’s fashion trends straight from the bizarre files. And everyone from truck drivers to gay cowboys are wearing them
Democratic Heretics
Democratic Heretics
The never-ending Democratic attempt to resurrect the strategy that destroyed Barry Goldwater in 1964—he’s an extremist, don’t you know—rolls on, with liberals and the media trying to tar the Republican party as an “ideological outlier” in American politics.
There are three legs to this rickety barstool of an argument. One is the pseudo-social science findings of Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann that congressional Republican voting records have lurched sharply to the right in recent years (though it is not obvious why this should be bad news). The second is the populism of the Tea Party, which, to be sure, is a disruptive force in the Republican party much as the anti-Vietnam war movement was a disruptive force in the Democratic party in the late 1960s and 1970s. The wobbliest leg of the triad is the argument, unfortunately abetted by Jeb Bush, that the GOP has become too extreme even for Ronald Reagan.
The use and abuse of Reagan has been going on for a while now, but the claim that Reagan could not be nominated by today’s GOP takes absurdity to a new level. You really need a poker face to suggest that the party that, since 1988, has nominated two Bushes, Bob Dole, John McCain, and now Mitt Romney would find Reagan insufficiently conservative. And Reagan would surely delight in the stronger ideological composition of the House GOP caucus today. One unappreciated aspect of Reagan’s diary is how often he expressed disappointment with congressional Republicans who ran for the tall grass on tough votes. Reagan complained about weak-kneed Republicans in his diary almost as often as he did about Democrats and the media. “We had rabbits when we needed tigers,” was a frequent lament. Today’s Tea Party-influenced GOP caucus would gladden the Gipper’s heart.
The never-ending Democratic attempt to resurrect the strategy that destroyed Barry Goldwater in 1964—he’s an extremist, don’t you know—rolls on, with liberals and the media trying to tar the Republican party as an “ideological outlier” in American politics.
There are three legs to this rickety barstool of an argument. One is the pseudo-social science findings of Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann that congressional Republican voting records have lurched sharply to the right in recent years (though it is not obvious why this should be bad news). The second is the populism of the Tea Party, which, to be sure, is a disruptive force in the Republican party much as the anti-Vietnam war movement was a disruptive force in the Democratic party in the late 1960s and 1970s. The wobbliest leg of the triad is the argument, unfortunately abetted by Jeb Bush, that the GOP has become too extreme even for Ronald Reagan.
The use and abuse of Reagan has been going on for a while now, but the claim that Reagan could not be nominated by today’s GOP takes absurdity to a new level. You really need a poker face to suggest that the party that, since 1988, has nominated two Bushes, Bob Dole, John McCain, and now Mitt Romney would find Reagan insufficiently conservative. And Reagan would surely delight in the stronger ideological composition of the House GOP caucus today. One unappreciated aspect of Reagan’s diary is how often he expressed disappointment with congressional Republicans who ran for the tall grass on tough votes. Reagan complained about weak-kneed Republicans in his diary almost as often as he did about Democrats and the media. “We had rabbits when we needed tigers,” was a frequent lament. Today’s Tea Party-influenced GOP caucus would gladden the Gipper’s heart.
KNIGHT: Court's awful ruling taxes our patients - Washington Times
KNIGHT: Court's awful ruling taxes our patients - Washington Times
When is a tax not a tax? Answer: When you’re busy pushing a major expansion of government like Obamacare. The tax that is not a tax becomes a “penalty” or a “shared responsibility payment” in the text of the bill. In campaign lingo, it becomes an “investment.”
That’s what the Democrats told us when they rammed Obamacare down America’s throat. In a famous clip you can find on YouTube, President Obama adamantly denies to ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that the individual mandate is, in fact, a “tax.”
As soon as it hit the courts, however, the tax that is not a tax morphed back into a tax as Mr. Obama’s attorneys justified it through Congress‘ Article I power to tax and spend. The White House, which lambasted opponents for calling the mandate a tax, argued in court that the mandate’s enforcement under “Assessment” and “Collection” are right out of the code for the Internal Revenue Service, which will collect the tax, er, penalty, er, uh, tax. Yeah, that’s it.
When is a tax not a tax? Answer: When you’re busy pushing a major expansion of government like Obamacare. The tax that is not a tax becomes a “penalty” or a “shared responsibility payment” in the text of the bill. In campaign lingo, it becomes an “investment.”
That’s what the Democrats told us when they rammed Obamacare down America’s throat. In a famous clip you can find on YouTube, President Obama adamantly denies to ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that the individual mandate is, in fact, a “tax.”
As soon as it hit the courts, however, the tax that is not a tax morphed back into a tax as Mr. Obama’s attorneys justified it through Congress‘ Article I power to tax and spend. The White House, which lambasted opponents for calling the mandate a tax, argued in court that the mandate’s enforcement under “Assessment” and “Collection” are right out of the code for the Internal Revenue Service, which will collect the tax, er, penalty, er, uh, tax. Yeah, that’s it.
Founding Father Quote
"A just security to property is not afforded by that government under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species; where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor."
James Madison, Essay, 1792
James Madison, Essay, 1792
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)