Rep. Scott Garrett (R., N.J.) had a nice gambit just now in a hearing with President Obama’s acting OMB director Jeffrey Zients.
First he asked Zients if the Obama budget imposes any new taxes on Americans making less than $200,000. When Zients answered that it did not, Garrett followed up by asking if an individual making less than $200,000 a year opted not to carry health insurance, in contravention of the Affordable Care Act, is the fine associated with that decision a tax?
After some hemming and hawing, Zients answered that the fine did not constitute an tax. Which is a problem, considering the Obama administration’s entire case before the Supreme Court is premised on those fines being construed as taxes, not penalties.
The Obama administration has argued under oath in federal court that the fine that stems from the individual mandate is a tax. That same argument is central to the brief that the administration has filed with the Supreme Court in advance it taking up the challenges to the law. Note this story from January 2012.
The Obama administration on Friday afternoon submitted its opening brief to the Supreme Court defending the constitutionality of the law that virtually all Americans purchase health insurance starting in 2014.
The brief argues that the minimum coverage provision under the Affordable Care Act, commonly called the “individual mandate,” falls within Congress’ constitutional powers to regulate interstate commerce and to lay and collect taxes.
Has so much changed in the span of a month, that what was considered a tax then is now considered something else? Has the administration updated its brief before land’s highest court? If not, why not? If they made such a change, when and why did they make it? The administration really needs to show us their work on this. And the state attorneys general who are challenging the law should secure a recording of Zients’ testimony and play it before the justices. It’ll be must-see TV.
Update: Here’s video of the exchange. The OMB man is spectacularly unimpressive in his attempt to stick to his rehearsed talking points, displaying about half the agility of your average tree sloth.
To be fair (and I haven’t read the brief, although I have followed this pretty closely), I think Obama is arguing in the alternative. That is, the mandate can be upheld under the Commerce Clause OR as a tax.
The tax issue should be a non-starter anyway, IMO. The law itself is crystal clear that this isn’t a tax. All kinds of people are on record that its not a tax. They threw it in because, hey, why not? And it might have been just the weaselly loophole to get a 5th vote.
– just blather or read from prepared statements at hearings when, as here, they ought to be cross-examining administration officials. Ask the set-up question (which you should know the witness’s answer), then close in on them with the follow-up. That’s making a record.
SCOTUS has already made up their minds and aren’t going to be affected by this kind of stuff.
Personally, I think the approach of the suit against obamacare is misguided. Why hinge the case on the narrow technical question of whether a mandate is a tax or not, when the real problem is that the whole messy law is an unprecedented power grab that clearly violates the intent of the 10th amendment. On any given day, Kennedy could feel like a mandate is indistinquishable from a tax or not. It turns the future of the country into a coin flip.
It’s the coming thing in DC – quantum government! It’s a tax and a fine at the same time – whether it’s a tax or a fine depends on which prohibition/campaign promise/restriction they’re trying to get around at the moment.
Obama really IS a genius!
It IS a tax, except when it is not. It kind of works like Social Security and Medicare; the FICA collections are “taxes” when it comes time for a politically advantageous “tax cut”. This is despite the fact that the entire premise behind FICA is that they are not taxes but contributions to federal insurance programs.
It all makes perfect sense….
Obviously, it’s a tax, except when it’s not a tax.
Funny thing whether it’s a tax or fine it doesn’t have enforcement mechanisms behind it unlike Romneycare in MA that does have enforcement.
You are so full of it. The IRS is the enforcement mechanism, and you well know it.
GTFA or DLTSDHYWTGLSY or, alternatively, FOAD.
wait, does anyone catch a hint of perjury here, or is it just me?