Did I Mention That Obama Is A Liar – When A Tax Isn’t A Tax

Last night, in bitter disappointment, I posted that our President lied to us when he claimed that Obamacare wasn’t a tax.  Scott Erb and Nickgb called shenanigans.  The claim is that when Obama was claiming that his law wasn’t a tax, he believed it.  Only later did it turn out that he would be wrong and the court would strike down the law based on the commerce clause and uphold it under congresses ability to tax.

Certainly valid points.  But what is Obama’s administration saying now?

The White House and the Obama campaign today insisted that the individual mandate in the president’s health care bill is a “penalty,” not a tax, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling to uphold the law under Congress’ taxing power.

“For those who can afford health insurance but choose to remain uninsured, forcing the rest of us to pay for their care, a penalty is administered as part of the Affordable Care Act,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters aboard Air Force One today.

“You can call it what you want. If you read the opinion, it is not a broad-based tax,” he said, stressing that the “penalty” would affect 1 percent of the population, based on CBO estimates. “It’s a penalty because you have a choice. You don’t have a choice to pay your taxes, right?”

Obama isn’t going to call this a tax.  It IS a tax, that’s the law.  As he sends his administration and his campaign out saying that it isn’t it does two things:

  1. That Obama knew this was a tax when he was working to pass this law.  The words know and the words then certainly are beginning to sound the same.
  2. That he’s lying now.

It’s settled.  This new law is a tax hike, rumor has it it’s the biggest tax hike in history.  In that lens , Obama is going to have to answer to that.

33 responses to “Did I Mention That Obama Is A Liar – When A Tax Isn’t A Tax

  1. Insurance premiums are not taxes. Penalties for not buying insurance are not taxes. That is irrefutable, those are by definition different things. Obama and most liberals believe the Commerce Clause allows this power, but if Roberts wants to take it from another part of the constitution they’ll accept it. To say that’s lying is false. Moreover, Politfact has already demolished claims that it’s the ‘biggest tax hike in history’ and if the GOP tries to claim that insurance premiums are taxes, well, they’ll look very silly. Face it, they’re grasping at straws now. Better to try to improve the law, especially since it looks like it’s not going away.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/28/rush-limbaugh/health-care-law-not-largest-tax-increase-us-histor/?fb_action_ids=10150885511252343&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

    • Penalties for not buying insurance are not taxes. That is irrefutable, those are by definition different things. Obama and most liberals believe the Commerce Clause allows this power, but if Roberts wants to take it from another part of the constitution they’ll accept it.

      Sorry Scott. You might claim that you disagree with the decision. But the decision is the decision. I may claim that Obamacare is unconstitutional, but I’d be wrong.

      And so are you.

      The court has decided that the mandate is made possible because the government has the right to tax. This makes what Obama calls a penalty a tax. It’s the new definition and it’s the law.

      When a person claims that a thing isn’t true, when it is, that is lying. The administration is now lying. The law, like it or not, says it’s a tax. It IS a tax.

      Obama won.

      And now he has to face those consequences.

  2. I add that Politfact does note that there are tax increases due to the bill, but those are not that large, and offset by savings. It’s a good analysis of the impact of the bill. Again, I don’t like many aspects of the bill and hope that Republicans and Democrats decide to fix what isn’t going to work well rather than just defend it or condemn it. I don’t think there’s much of a chance it’ll go away.

  3. rumor has it it’s the biggest tax hike in history.

    Rumor has it? The numbers are out there, do some research.

  4. OK, you can call the penalty a tax. But only the penalty. I think Obama can say “sure, if people don’t follow the law and have insurance, they’ll pay a penalty. It’s their choice. But that’s not a tax increase for any citizen who follows the laws and has their own insurance. If someone speeds and is caught, they pay the government a penalty. The same is true here.”

    So all this stuff about huge tax increases vanishes into thin air. Now if Romney wants to call insurance premiums a tax, well, the Democrats will heap scorns of ridicule on that!

  5. Also, you need to understand the definition of “lying.” Lying means you are saying something you know to be false. The Administration does not consider a penalty the same as a tax, nor do I. So I will not call it a tax. The Supreme Court may label a penalty a tax, but if I don’t agree with the Supreme Court there is nothing requiring me to accept their definitions. Just as if President Reagan disagrees with Roe v. Wade he was not obliged to give up his belief that abortion is murder. By your logic, anyone who equates abortion with murder is a liar because the Supreme Court ruled otherwise.

  6. Got this from facebook: “At the risk of stating the obvious: if you construe the mandate as a ‘tax’, it only applies to people who do not have health care insurance and refuse to get it after receiving subsidies that allow them to buy it.”

  7. Pino,

    So you believe President Obama is a liar ? I am shocked . You are so disrespectful . Our President is one of history’s greatest wordsmiths . Or to put it in the words of the common man , he is a BS Artist of the highest order .

    Scott ,
    When you intentionally mislead, you are lying.
    One of the best articles I’ve ever read on the issue of lying, or specifically Obama lying, or more specifically Obama lying about his health care bill was written several years ago by Charles Krauthammer .

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/228267/does-he-lie/charles-krauthammer

    • You owe me a very stiff drink of a very fine whiskey for making me bother with a Krauthammer article. Here’s what’s wrong with that piece of garbage that you call “one of the best articles [you’ve] ever read on the issue of lying”:
      1) Krauthammer is saying Obama is lying about the deficit because he is insisting that costs be offset by spending reductions in the future if necessary. Why is this a lie? Because Congress could ignore that and just increase spending. Of course, that’s ALWAYS possible, so by that standard every single President lies when they talk about balanced budgets and deficit-neutral bills. Obviously that’s not the standard we apply. Rather, if a bill on its face calls for deficit neutrality, that’s all we can hope for. Krauthammer won’t give the president credit for insisting that Congress keep it deficit neutral, because congress can go back on their word, and he charges that against the President.
      2) Krauthammer says the President is lying about illegal immigration because, after Joe Wilson’s hysterical outburst, the Senate Finance Committee put in additional measures to prevent illegal immigrants from receiving any benefits. Krauthammer insists this is proof that they could before, because the Finance Committee would surely never take action to prevent something unless it was already allowed. This is a complete lie; there are many redundancies in federal law. The fact that something is explicitly disallowed in a law does not mean it was otherwise allowed. More to the point, the law Obama signed had those protections in place, but Krauthammer is mad that the original text didn’t have the exact same restrictions as the final version. This is absurd.
      3) Krauthammer calls the President a liar for saying they would cut waste and fraud in Medicare. To Krauthammer this is complete impossiblity; he assumes that the program is inherently fraudulent. I assume, then, that Krauthammer would also call a president a liar for ever saying he’d cut waste and fraud down anywhere else in the Federal Government? Of course not, he applauds every conservative politician for exactly that, even though they have a horrible track record (whereas the President’s proposal hadn’t taken effect yet).

      Krauthammer’s piece IS a wonderful subject for the study of flagrant deception, just not the way you think. If you really think he’s making good points, you need to re-read it more critically.

  8. Nickgb ,

    I would be happy to buy you a couple of drinks . Maybe if you get your blood alcohol to the correct level you will understand logic. Here is the point . President Obama shifts the hard choices into the future . Any Congress or President that makes the real cuts will be unpopular . Obama, Pelosi, and Reid spent like drunken Democrats . Drunken sailors are not even in their league .

    Saying that any President is lying does not make sense. As much as I hated Clinton, he still cut spending to bring down the deficit . He did not push it off into some fantasy future . Obama uses cuts that will happen long after he is gone . That is pure BS .

    And do not even tell your theory of immigration . President Obama totally ignores any law he feels like on that issue . If he doesn’t like it he pretends it does not exist . Democrats want illegal immigration because it gives them more political power . If illegals ever start voting Republican your guys will suddenly become America’s biggest immigration bigots .

    Your statement on Medicare fraud is beyond comprehension . Of course Mr. Krauthammer is right . To believe President Obama will wring out the savings he says he will is lunacy . Maybe he can . So why doesn’t he just do it ? He did not need ObamaCare for that .

    Here is why I like Charles Krauthammer . Your hero Barak Hussein Obama slings the $**t so profusely that I can’t follow him . Mr. Krauthammer can translate the BS because he is a former Liberal and knows the false arguments and double speak of our historic Chief Executive .

    • Saying that any President is lying does not make sense. As much as I hated Clinton, he still cut spending to bring down the deficit . He did not push it off into some fantasy future . Obama uses cuts that will happen long after he is gone . That is pure BS .

      What if Clinton’s congress had insisted on getting rid of Clinton’s tax cuts while maintaining high spending? Then Krauthammer would say Clinton was a liar, because he promised to cut the deficit knowing full well that Congress could ignore his commands. Krauthammer wants to put Congress’s disobedience on the president’s tab, which can be fair if you’re willing to do it to every president who promised something that required congressional cooperation. (For example, “No new taxes”, repealing or enacting any law, etc.)

      And do not even tell your theory of immigration . President Obama totally ignores any law he feels like on that issue . If he doesn’t like it he pretends it does not exist .

      I didn’t tell you my theory of immigration, because it’s irrelevant. Krauthammer is making up BS arguments to “prove” things. Let’s say you owned a shop and someone tripped over the front step, then sued you for not warning people about it. You said it’s a pretty obvious step, but you add a sign to your front door anyway, because getting sued is a hassle even when it’s stupid. Krauthammer would say that proves the step was a hidden menace, because why else would you add a sign?

      Your statement on Medicare fraud is beyond comprehension . Of course Mr. Krauthammer is right . To believe President Obama will wring out the savings he says he will is lunacy . Maybe he can . So why doesn’t he just do it ? He did not need ObamaCare for that .

      Every single year, Republicans say they are going to cut government waste. It’s the only reliable lie from the right. They never do it. So…you’re willing to concede that they’re all liars?

      As for Krauthammer’s lies on health care, they are well documented.

      Here is why I like Charles Krauthammer . Your hero Barak Hussein Obama slings the $**t so profusely that I can’t follow him . Mr. Krauthammer can translate the BS because he is a former Liberal and knows the false arguments and double speak of our historic Chief Executive .

      My hero? You don’t know me, Alan, but the President isn’t my hero. I do admire a lot of what he’s done, but I also dislike a lot of what he’s done. But Krauthammer is a pathological liar at this point. But from the content and tone of your arguments, you sound like someone who isn’t actually going to spend some time looking at Krauthammer’s record because he’s feeding you the tripe you agree with.

  9. You owe me a very stiff drink of a very fine whiskey for making me bother with a Krauthammer article.

    Now now….you fellas make us read Krugman. I say it’s YOU that owes us the drink. But in the spirit of spirits, I’ll buy:

  10. I like where this discussion has led!

  11. Add Romney to your liar list, Pino. He came out swinging that this was a tax, but suddenly the campaign backed off. If the individual mandate is a tax, then Romney’s raised taxes in Massachusetts and is vulnerable to the same attacks he’s leveling at Obama. So…Romney’s people are now calling it a penalty. Politics can have unusual twists and turns.

    • Add Romney to your liar list, Pino. He came out swinging that this was a tax, but suddenly the campaign backed off. If the individual mandate is a tax, then Romney’s raised taxes in Massachusetts and is vulnerable to the same attacks he’s leveling at Obama.

      Romney can have it both ways. States can do things that the feds can’t.

      But yes, this is weird. No one thinks it’s a tax with the possible exception of Obama’s lawyer who, of course, argued that it was a tax. And yet, it IS a tax.

      Truly weird.

      • From wikipedia on the Massachusetts act:
        Residents of Massachusetts must have health insurance coverage under Chapter 58.[28] Residents must indicate on their tax forms if they had insurance on December 31 of that tax year, had a waiver for religious reasons, or had a waiver from the Connector. The Connector waiver can be obtained if the resident demonstrates that there is no available coverage that is defined by the Connector as affordable.[24] In March 2007, the Connector adopted an affordability schedule that allows residents to seek a waiver. If a resident does not have coverage and does not have a waiver, the Department of Revenue will enforce the insurance requirement by imposing a penalty. In 2007, the penalty was the loss of the personal exemption. Beginning in 2008, the penalty is half the cost of the lowest available yearly premium which will be enforced as an assessed addition to the individual’s income tax.

        It’s almost exactly the same as the setup that was called a tax at the federal level, but you want to insist that it’s a tax at the federal level and not a tax at the state level? I think you need to backtrack on that.

        • It’s almost exactly the same as the setup that was called a tax at the federal level, but you want to insist that it’s a tax at the federal level and not a tax at the state level? I think you need to backtrack on that.

          I don’t understand you when you acknowledge that the states have powers the feds don’t have. When you say that, you MUST believe that there are things one can do that the other can’t.

          States can implement mandates and penalize failure.

          The federal government can’t implement mandates. They can only tax. The only reason this was upheld was because congress can tax.

          I think that it’s you that needs to reconsider what you mean when you acknowledge that states can do things that the federal government can’t.

          In short, a state can mandate and not call it a tax. The supreme court ruled, like it or not – and I don’t – that the federal government can tax. By the way, Obama argued this in front of the supreme court.

          You can disagree with the ruling. I can disagree that eating my own wheat is illegal. But legally, we’re both wrong. As it stands, Obamacare is a tax. Romneycare is a penalty. And it’s all because Obama is a President and Romney is a Governor.

          • I don’t understand you when you acknowledge that the states have powers the feds don’t have. When you say that, you MUST believe that there are things one can do that the other can’t.

            Absolutely. States cannot enter treaties, while the Feds can. Etc. That doesn’t mean that something is a tax when done at the federal level but isn’t a tax at the state level.

            States can implement mandates and penalize failure.
            Sure. They can mandate things and then put you in jail or fine you civilly for not following regulations. They can also tax you.

            The federal government can’t implement mandates. They can only tax.
            No, that’s absolutely, 100%, demonstrably false. The federal government issues mandates all the time, with punishment of prison or fine. If you just mean that the federal government can’t implement an individual mandate for health insurance, then you’re getting closer but you need to understand that that is NOT actually binding in any way. If John Roberts had written that whole section on the commerce clause as an op ed in the WSJ, it would have had exactly as much legal force.

            The only reason this was upheld was because congress can tax.
            The taxing authority was found to be sufficient to support the mandate. That doesn’t mean that other federal powers wouldn’t also support it. It won’t even require another court to overturn this decision.

            You seem to think that, just because state and federal governments do some things differently means that something which is a tax for one cannot be a tax for another. Many states have income taxes, by your argument they’re just penalizing income.

            When something is a tax when the feds do it, it’s a tax when the states do it, unless you can show me some legal reason why they are considered differently at those levels.

            In short, a state can mandate and not call it a tax. The supreme court ruled, like it or not – and I don’t – that the federal government can tax.
            The federal government can mandate, too. For example, the federal government can mandate things like capital reserves for investment firms. See above.

            By the way, Obama argued this in front of the supreme court.
            Well, he didn’t, the solicitor general did. And the SG argued it as an absolute last resort, to save the ACA in case the conservatives were as crazy as they, it turns out, are. That doesn’t mean that he wants it to be a tax, it means he wanted to preserve health care.

            You can disagree with the ruling. I can disagree that eating my own wheat is illegal. But legally, we’re both wrong.
            I don’t disagree that the taxing power gives them the authority. I think it’s silly to use it when the commerce clause has always done this work, especially since at the end of the day, they didn’t do anything to limit the commerce clause.

            While we’re at it, Wickard was about the amount of wheat you grow, not about whether you’re allowed to eat your own wheat. But these are all just facts and details, I understand why you wouldn’t care about them.

            As it stands, Obamacare is a tax. Romneycare is a penalty. And it’s all because Obama is a President and Romney is a Governor.
            Obamacare is justifiable as an exercise of the taxing power. If you want to call it a tax simply for that reason, that’s fine. Romneycare’s mandate was structure almost exactly the same. It was the state tax agency that oversaw the mandate, you reported it on your tax returns, etc. The only difference is that the federal program penalized you a direct amount, while Romneycare just took away your tax deductions to punish you. Romneycare directly raised your taxes as a punishment.

            You’re arguing nonsense right now. You have absolute proof that Romneycare was structured exactly the same way, and you’re insisting that it’s not a tax simple because it was a state program. That’s nonsense.

  12. Scott ,

    I agree with you on Massachusetts Romney-Care . However I don’t live there . If I did I could move . I cannot escape Obama-Care . Since Mitt promises to repeal Obama-Care, I and a whole lot of other likely voters do not find Romney-Care relevant at all .

    • Alan, the point is that Romney keeps saying he didn’t impose a tax, but Romneycare was exactly the same as Obamacare on this respect. Scott is saying that Pino has to call Romney a liar too, then, but he refuses. Your point isn’t relevant.

      Also, your point is wrong, the President has a huge lead based on health care: http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/07/obama-has-point-lead-on-health-care-in-latest-poll-127942.html

    • Perhaps, but Romneycare certainly limits what Romney can say against Obama. You and hardcore Republicans may not care, but independents might.

      • Perhaps, but Romneycare certainly limits what Romney can say against Obama. You and hardcore Republicans may not care, but independents might.

        Only to people who don’t understand the difference between a federal government and a state government. Which, sadly, considering the condition of our population, is almost everyone.

        • How does it being done at the state level make it something different? If it’s a tax it’s a tax, if not, it’s not. I see Romney flip flopped on this one after getting pressure, but his message is already muddled. I think Romney should be bolder and say states SHOULD enact something like Romney care, and that every state could plan its own approach, and that the federal government could make it easier for states to do this by altering how the feds deal with health care. He shouldn’t treat Romneycare like the crazy uncle everyone hides, he should show pride in it.

  13. Nickgb ,

    ” What if Clinton’s congress had insisted on getting rid of Clinton’s tax cuts while maintaining high spending? ”

    Irrelevant . Clinton had Newt and his merry band of spending cutters . Now President Obama has a Tea Party House to help him . You can’t help those who will not help themselves .

    ” Krauthammer is making up BS arguments to “prove” things. ”

    Krauthammer does not make BS arguments. His name is Charles, not Barak. Charles did not write a fictional auto biography.

    ” Every single year, Republicans say they are going to cut government waste. It’s the only reliable lie from the right. They never do it. So…you’re willing to concede that they’re all liars? ”

    One of the best ways to cut government waste is to cut overall spending, which Republicans cannot do while Barry and Harry have so much power . Republicans never said that they would cut so much waste that now we can spend hunerts of $ Billions on new ginormous entitlements . Your guy Barry said that . As far as being liars, sometimes yes . Compared to your boys and girls, not so much .

    ” You don’t know me, Alan, but the President isn’t my hero. ”
    Who are your heroes ? 🙂

    ” As for Krauthammer’s lies on health care, they are well documented. ”
    The CBO was fed a diet of unrealistic assumptions . GIGO. Media Matters is not documentation .

    • This has descended to the point of being absurd. You reject hypotheticals on the grounds that they didn’t actually happen. You deputize Krauthammer into your argument on the grounds that he’s Krauthammer. When given a Media Matters link that contains plenty of documentation as to why Krauthammer is unreliable, you reject it because you don’t trust Media Matters. I’m done trying to engage someone who simply regurgitates Krauthammer’s garbage without addressing the arguments.

      • Krauthammer is a propagandist. He also gets nasty when he’s proven wrong. When fellow neo-conservative Francis Fukayama changed his mind on the Iraq war and said that the neo-conservative argument had been shown to be wrong on a number of levels, Krauthammer was livid. He’s not dumb, just untrustworthy.

        • Krauthammer is a propagandist. He also gets nasty when he’s proven wrong.

          This goes back to you boys owning me a drink every time you invoke Krugman.

  14. Pino ,

    Since Romney-Care is a major point of contention, I kinda would like to know if it was passed with the same kind of chicanery that Obama pulled . It could be argued that Governor Romney gave the citizens of Massachusetts exactly what they wanted . Obama, Pelosi and Reid had to make all kinds of shady deals and make false economic assumptions to govern against the will of the people . I wonder if Romney did the same thing .

    So here is my basic argument, I invite everyone to shoot it down . Romney did want they wanted in his state, Obama did what they did not want in his country .

    • You mean something like, did Romney veto large parts of the immensely popular legislation and get overridden by the legislature? Yes.

      But you’re right, people sure do hate health care. Oh wait, no, they actually really want to keep it.

      • You mean something like, did Romney veto large parts of the immensely popular legislation and get overridden by the legislature? Yes.

        If Romney vetoed large parts of the bill, would it be more proper to call the Massachusetts law, “KindaRomneyCare?” I mean, if the man vetoed large parts of the bill and they were still implemented, it’s hard to ascribe the legislation to him.

        But you’re right, people sure do hate health care. Oh wait, no, they actually really want to keep it.

        I would imagine that if polled, most people would be in favor of other people being taxed so that their health care could be paid for.

        This should not surprise anyone.

    • All legislation relies on deals – that’s the way the founders made it, sides are forced to compromise and have give and take. Obama ran on health care as a major issue and the people voted for him. He had a duty to try to get it passed. If Obama gets re-elected (intrade now has the odds at 56%, up from two weeks ago) then it’s hard to say he violated the will of the people.

  15. ” Krauthammer is a propagandist. ” ” He’s not dumb, just untrustworthy. ” Proof ?

    ” All legislation relies on deals ” Sausage making .
    1200 waivers to OC .
    Center Valley district Ca. gets 5 times more water from Interior Dept.
    Tennessee got $ 100 Million in new Medicaid moola .
    CornHusker Kickback , removed later, but still crucial to the dirty deal .
    $ 1.6 Billion Louisiana Purchase

    Barak Hussein Obama
    ” We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration,”

  16. Absolutely. States cannot enter treaties, while the Feds can. Etc. That doesn’t mean that something is a tax when done at the federal level but isn’t a tax at the state level.

    Right.

    And the feds can’t set state speed limits, drinking laws or marriage requirements. All are examples of things that we reserve for the states and not the feds. Things like mandating the purchase of health insurance

    Sure. They can mandate things and then put you in jail or fine you civilly for not following regulations. They can also tax you.

    Right We agree, States can do things that the feds can’t.

    No, that’s absolutely, 100%, demonstrably false.

    Fair enough. The feds can’t mandate commerce.

    You seem to think that, just because state and federal governments do some things differently means that something which is a tax for one cannot be a tax for another. Many states have income taxes, by your argument they’re just penalizing income.

    A state can mandate insurance. The feds can’t, they can only tax you if you don’t.

    For example, if I choose not to buy insurance, which I’m strongly considering, I can only be taxed. And if I choose not to pay my taxes I’ll be charged with tax evasion, not with “failure to purchase health insurance.” However, if a state mandates health insurance and I fail to purchase health insurance, I’ll be charged with “failure to purchase health insurance.”

    The federal government can mandate, too. For example, the federal government can mandate things like capital reserves for investment firms.

    They are regulating commerce voluntarily entered into. The feds canNOT mandate that I maintain capital reserves for investments that I haven’t made.

    Well, he didn’t, the solicitor general did.

    In every way when the solicitor general argues something for the administration people use the phrase “Obama argued…” Obama’s administration argued that this was a tax. Obama argued that this was a tax. He also argued that it wasn’t [kinda weird] and lost on both of those points. He won when he argued it as a tax.

    It’s a tax. They argued it as a tax. They stood there and said it was a tax.

    I think it’s silly to use it when the commerce clause has always done this work,

    I think the commerce clause is silly in it’s ability to dictate the amount of wheat a man can grow, eat, feed or plant. THAT is patently bullshit.

    But these are all just facts and details, I understand why you wouldn’t care about them.

    You think it’s reasonable to limit the amount of wheat a man can grow on his own farm? In what way and manner can you hold that is consistent with free men living in a free land?

    you’re insisting that it’s not a tax simple because it was a state program. That’s nonsense.

    I don’t think you acknowledge that states have powers the feds don’t have. And I think your guy is in a pickle, that what he’s done is raise taxes, and you don’t like it or even wanna admit it.

Leave a Reply to Nickgb Cancel reply