Skip to comments.A 2nd Roberts Rescue Needed for ObamaCare? Yes, itís possible.
Posted on 11/16/2012 5:36:50 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVetEdited on 11/16/2012 5:40:29 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
I have been reading this Cato Institute legal research paper by Michael Cannon and its making me realize that the GOP governors could really make Obamacare a political liablity for the Democrats by refusing to set up a state run health exchange. It is a fascinating read and I highly recommend it. In summary, it looks like the Obama Adminstration ultimately is going to have to count on a second John Roberts rescue. Heres why. First, from Philip Klein:
With the election over and Obama reelected, repealing the law is not going to happen over the next four years. So 30 Republican governors will have to make a decision about whether they want to help the federal government implement Obamacare, or keep the onus on the Obama administration.
One of the silver linings of the Supreme Court decision is that it gave states the ability to opt out of the Medicaid expansion. Medicaid is one of the programs that is crushing state budgets and if implemented as intended, Obamacare will add 18 million beneficiaries to the programs rolls. Though the federal government lures states with a honey pot in the short term covering all of the expansion through 2016, by 2020 the states will be asked to kick in 10 percent of the cost, amounting to billions of dollars of spending imposed on states nationwide each year. It would be to the long-term benefit of governors to opt (out) of the expansion...
Never surrender and never give up hope. In a few years this monstrosity will be absorbing so much of the federal budget that the only alternative for the left will be to print money and bring on massive monetary inflation. We may have to endure some real hard times to open some folks eyes but that will do the trick.
The Constitution (not that Roberts reads it) states:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
There are two and only two choices. Either the tax has to be apportioned or it must be uniform. Smaller states would never have allowed the larger states to tax me and not thee.
It is becoming more clear that 0bamacare taxpenalty is neither. Scalia pointed out in his opinion that this is still a pending issue because neither side was given the opportunity to address it in the original case.
But when a federal appeal court rules that banning race from consideration in admission to public universities is unconstitutional, the federal bench as become little for than a sad joke.
And if the penalty is a tax....then every person who is working will pay...including those making less than $250,000...you know....the middle class folks who will NEVER be asked to pay more....cough, cough
Who cares what the Supreme Court says? A courageous governor and his/her state is not bound by them.
The decision will be made when the state’s citizens vote out the governor who turned down Federal goodies which were a condition of implementing Zerocare.
Unless Zerocare is so ruinous that they’re better off on their own.
They tried to blackmail Petreas. I wonder what they had on Roberts. I also wonder why George Bush didn’t know what they had on him. Was he properly vetted or did he do something AFTER he was sworn in.
So I’m directed from FR to ‘Minuteman News’ to Red State in order to get to a Cato study?
Roberts is the Major Frank Burns of the SCOTUS “4077th” unit.
Yeah, I make millions directing people to three or four sites at a time.
well he has had a couple of well publicized seizures....total speculation but I wonder if its health related
What the Republican governors should do is remove the negotiating rights of state workers and force them into the same type of health insurance and retirement program as private sector workers.
Right now, the SEIU members and teachers believe that their health insurance coverage is sacrosanct, that they will never be forced to into the same rationed care system that they have pushed on the rest of us. We need to make sure that they suffer the same fate as the rest of us and know that it is coming, especially the teachers. Oh, that goes double for politicians.
You do good work posting threads here. Just seemed like a circuitous route to get there.
Yeah, I don’t know why they did that. The Red State headline was many miles too long for here, so I decided to post the other, otherwise I’d have gone to the original source.
Check this out.....STATES are the last bulwark against the FEDS.... http://www.wheresthelineamerica.com/SitePages/wheres-the-line-america.aspx
State wont set up health insurance exchange, Walker tells feds
That is a well-written and thoughtful piece. Good score, and worth preserving for future reference.
Roberts has two adopted kids, from Latin America, if I remember correctly.
It would be a damn shame if those birth mothers appeared claiming their kids were stolen, wouldn't it?
Traitor John Roberts File.
And that's exactly what will happen, eventually a Democrat will be elected Governor and that state will take the federal goodies never to give them back.
It is becoming more clear that 0bamacare taxpenalty is neither.
Besides, a tax on inactivity does not fall within the prescribed functions for which taxes may be levied, nor the forms of taxes permitted.
AND the bill originated in the Senate. All revenue bills (i.e., tax bills) must originate in the House.
Roberts has that “hand in the cookie jar” look on his face right after Obamacare.
“Either the tax has to be apportioned or it must be uniform”
Not true, methinks. All indirect taxes must be uniform and almost all direct taxes must be apportioned. The income tax, which is a direct tax, does not need to be apportioned, per the 16th amendment. No doubt the Obamacare mandate taxalty/penatax will be deemed an income tax.
By the way, the correct answer for what is the taxalty is that it is a tax on insurance owning status, and therefore an illegal direct tax. SCOTUS will, if it hasn’t already, declare it either an income tax or to not know what the hell it is except that it’s legal.
“a tax on inactivity does not fall within the prescribed functions for which taxes may be levied”
It is not so much a tax on nonaction as on the status of not possessing insurance. Which makes it akin to all manner of direct taxes, for instance the tax on having earned so much income in the last year or a tax on ownersio of property.
“nor the forms of taxes permitted.”
True. If it us a direct tax, and it is, it must be apportioned. If it is an income tax, which it isn’t, it wouldn’t need to. But it isn’t, so it doesn’t.
“All revenue bills (i.e. tax bills) must originate in the House.”
All spending bills must, too. So it was illegal on those grounds whether or not it made a new tax.
I read on FR fairly recently that the blackmail on Benedict Roberts re his cute adopted kids is that they are illegal because they came from !Ireland!. ~~~~~~ Makes sense to me.
That is a problem. They have justice Roberts by the short and curlies over the unorthodox adoption of his children. He would do anything to avoid losing his children.
What was it about the adoption of his children, I forget?
Roberts in this picture is beet-red. The younger man also needs a Mediterrean-diet, Omega-3 pills, Niacin, Folic Acid and Plavix.
It’s exactly a “tax” on inactivity. (Actually, it’s not a tax at all — it’s a penalty.)
“It’s exactly a ‘tax’ on inactivity”
Yes and no. Yes in the sense that the income tax, for instance, is a tax is effectively a tax on the activity that earned you income. No in the sense that the income tax, for instance, is a tax on the status of having earned a certain amount of money in a certain period of time.
I see where you’re coming from; it’s the same place that recognizes the absurdity of regulating inactivity. You can’t regulate something that doesn’t exist. But taxation is different: you can tax something that doesn’t exist by taxing the status resulting from its nonexistence.
“Actually it’s not as tax at all — it’s a penalty”
Absolutely, but as in many things SCOTUS forces us to play makebelieve.
I believe this is what will happen in 2014. It will take a while for a suit by someone with standing—in this case, a taxpayer—to wend its way upward, and possibly the Obamination will have several wise Latinas in place by then, so it will all be for schloe, but one can hope.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.