In the first regular meeting with reporters since the Supreme Court’s upholding of ObamaCare, White House spokesman Jay Carney was asked about the court’s branding of the mandate as a tax when President Obama had protested that the mandate was not a tax. His whole response:
“Well, I think you need to read the opinion. I know it’s long, but the opinion in question here said that the Affordable Care Act was entirely constitutional under Congress’s taxing power. And what I can tell you is that if Republicans want to talk about taxes, then we’re happy to have that debate, because there is a very clear difference here.
President Obama has cut taxes by $3,600 for the average middle- class family in this country since he’s been in office. As you know, Republican budget plans would raise taxes on every middle-class family to give every millionaire and billionaire a $250,000 tax cut. There is simply no way to achieve the revenue-neutral promise that has been made on that expensive, many-trillion-dollar tax cut unless middle- class Americans get hit hard.
And the facts are clear with regard to the Affordable Care Act. The health care law provides a significant tax cut of up to $4,000 for 18 million middle-class individuals and families — a tax cut that, by the way, Republicans in Washington continue to vow to repeal, which, if that were to occur, would result in another hit to the middle class.
With regard to the penalty, as was discussed by Chief Justice Roberts in his opinion, 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. And this is estimated by the CBO to affect 1 percent of the population — 1 percent. This is not — you can call it what you want, but it is affecting 1 percent of the population, because most people either have health insurance or will do the responsible thing, and if they can afford health insurance they will purchase it. Those who cannot afford it, as you know, will benefit from the generous credits and subsidies that exist in the Affordable Care Act as a part of the expansion of coverage to 30 million Americans.
I would also note — it is important to remember this — that the penalty within the Affordable Care Act that would apply, by CBO estimates, to 1 percent of the population, is modeled exactly on the penalty that exists in the health care reform that was promoted and signed into law by Governor Romney in Massachusetts.”
“So you guys are still saying it’s a penalty, not a tax?” a reporter then asked.
“You can call it what you want. If you read the opinion, it is not a broad-based tax. It affects 1 percent, by CBO estimates, of the population. It is not something that you assess like an income tax,” Carney responded.
“But for that 1 percent, is it a tax or a penalty?”
“It’s a penalty because you have a choice. You don’t have a choice to pay your taxes, right?” Carney responded. “…So your choice is to purchase health care reform or a penalty will be administered.”
A tax can be a penalty… sorta like mob guys saying “Nice house and family… shame if something bad was to happen to it.”
Semantic BS on Carney’s part. IT’s a tax
Nope it’s a penalty and pushing the it’s a tax meme is unlikely to work with the general public because only one guy (out of 9) on the SCOTUS actually thinks that it is one.
What’s Romney’s response going to be when Obama says, “I agree with conservative justices Scalia and Thomas and conservative governor Romney that it’s a penalty that forces people to behave responsibly.”
“Then. Mr. President, you agree that the individual mandate–which you just said includes a penalty and not a tax–is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause?”
That should work.
He’s gonna say “Tax Schmax. Penalty Shmenalty. On the day I’m inaugurated I’m signing waivers for all 50 states.”
It has to be a tax, and it has to be an income tax,, for the Federal government can impose no other kind of direct tax, except in proportion to population, which, if any waivers are given from the requirement to have insurance due to poverty, it would not be.
Less filling! Tastes great! Great, let’s get them to spend the next four months trying to explain what the hell it is. Just helps us keep the issue on the front burner. Hey, it’s a candy mint! No, it’s a breath mint!
I sorta expected something like this. When they need it to be a tax (for it to be constitutional, for example) it’ll be a tax. When it turns out taxes are unpopular…oh, it’s not a tax, it’s a penalty. It’s whichever is needed to get it approved, and to win the argument. If you read Carney’s statement the right way, it’s a tax and it isn’t, right in the same sentence.
Also note the clumsy, statistic-laden, policy-wonk-nerdy argument that the President has cut taxes and will cut them further, except for those evil Republicans, who only want taxes for rich people. The argument is too complex for many of us to follow, and for many of the people that they’re trying to convince–most of the population will vote based on what they already believe, not balderdash like this. I can remember Clinton justifying his tax increase when he first got into office–remember, after he promised not to?–he had this convoluted Rube-Goldberg-inspired rationale that if you owned a home with a mortgage of so many hundred thousand dollars and you were paying such-and-such an interest rate, he’d influence the economy so that you could refinance and save yourself x dollars, so that his tax increase, which was smaller than the money this hypothetical couple with 2.3 children would have received, his tax increase was actually a cut! Carney’s argument is more of the same: Look, if we move the shells around quickly enough, you won’t know where the peanut is, and we can convince you that up is down! Aren’t we smart? Just leave us in charge, everything will be OK!
By the way, there’s one phrase I didn’t hear all yesterday. It’s the mirror image of the one you *KNOW* you would have heard repeatedly, until you were sick to death of it.
Rarely was it mentioned, yesterday, in the euphoria of the ruling, that the decision was 5-4. You never heard the words “Narrow Liberal Majority”. You and I know damn well that if it had failed, the words “Narrow Conservative Majority” would have been coming out of the mouths of every talking head on TV.
Good. Then by Roberts’ opinion, it’s unconstitutional.
He’s only got two choices: it’s a tax, or it’s not within the government’s power.
Period.
Anyone around Washington swear to uphold the Constitution? So it seems to me that when SCOTUS says, “it’s only constitutional if it’s a tax”, your two options are, “gee, sure looks like a tax” or fight it, tooth and nail. Pick one or the other.
Here’s the solution: call it a “fine.” The economy is doing “fine,” so a fine is good. That might sell.
I almost feel sorry for Carney sometimes. It’s got to be difficult trying to put a good light on this administration’s activities. Then I watch him being a smarmy, dishonest, out-of-his depth little elitist a little longer, and the feeling goes away.
In practical terms, does it really matter if it’s called a fine or a tax or a banana? The same number of people will still get stuck paying the same amount of money, won’t they? Or did changing the _name_ of the thing change the cost to us in any way?
I understand that calling it a tax and not a fine makes a difference in legal terms (to one justice, at least). Even that is purely a matter of curiosity, though, as the underlying reasoning was so contradictory and convoluted that this decision cannot be considered to be a serious attempt to apply the law. It’s all just useless blather to get what some folks are determined to get.
Whether it’s a tax or a fine doesn’t affect what it will take to repeal this stinker — conservative Reps and Senators who will stick to their guns (just a metaphor, so settle down). The specific argument they use to achieve repeal is really inconsequential. They will either have the votes or they won’t. They will either have the guts or they won’t. The details of whatever argument they use won’t matter at all.
As far as I can see, whether to call it a fine or a tax is only of real import to people who think that calling it a tax produces a better weapon to club Obama with. That remains to be seen, as America is fully stocked with people who would love more government.
Okay, the government can’t make you buy health insurance but, if you don’t you have to pay a penalty but, you’re not being penalized if they call it a tax. What kind of imbeciles do they think we are? I mean WTF?
Okay Jay. If it’s a penalty then I’ll refuse to pay it because according to the majority SCOTUS opinion just released, a penalty for not engaging in commerce is unconstitutional.
As if anyone was expecting the WH to call ACA a tax.
They are painted into this corner now by the Supremes upholding the only major legislation in the past 4 years as a TAX.
Can Obama and his minions go out in public and denounce the Supreme’s decision? Spin is Spin, and we all know it.
Carney..you are such a stupid twit…Your Government is full of socialist scumbags…Your boss is lower than that.
So the Buffet Tax was aimed at “The 1%” of the population, and it was a tax. But this is also aimed at A 1% portion of the population, so it is not a tax. Huh?
She’s my daughter. She’s my sister. She’s my daughter. My sister. My daughter.
Makes you wish Jack Nicholson were there to slap Carney and the rest of them around a bit.