Are you serious? Are you serious?

Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 28 March, 2010 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

[Publius]

The only remotely similar event was when 11 of the then 33 states succeeded from the union, precipitating the Civil War in 1861.

Succeeded? Succeded? SUCCEEDED?

Who stole Congressman Billybob's password and posted this thread? It's seceded!

Sir, I denounce you as an imposter! The real Congressman Billybob would never make that mistake!

[DrC]

“Are you saying that Madam Caligula possibly made threats, or budgetary of political sacking variety?”

I don’t know one way or the other. At the beginning (cost estimates last summer/fall), CBO used to bend over backwards to remind readers of the caveats in their analysis, e.g., that doc fix wasn’t included etc. By the end, they seemed to have run out of steam, just cranking out estimates without all the nuances.

That said, from the get-go they have never treated the individual mandate as a “tax.” Remember that Peter Orszag used to run CBO before being hired as Obama’s OMB director. He was intensely interested in health reform, believing SOMETHING was needed to bend the cost curve. It may be that during his tenure a strategic decision was made not to throw a barrier in front of HCR by treating any of the mandates as taxes. I just don’t know, but given the tightness of the vote, this change in view may have been enough to let Pelosi squeak it through even if she wasn’t directly responsible for any pressure.

[Hostage]

I suspect Obama followed through on “wearing them down”.

It also seems like party kept memory of the Hillarycare failure, that you informed of, which sank that reform because of tax mandates, so certainly they were not going down that road again.

But tax mandate machinations aside, none of the CBO activity will likely matter when Holder shows up in court with 1935 precedent to support his arguments that this current reform bill is in effect a tax bill so it is constitutional.

Obama has appeared too confident in his court challenge prospects to suit my taste. I believe they have a game plan, or I should say takeover plan and it’s just a matter of time before we get a glimpse of it.

Thanks for the insight. Sounds like you are close to the CBO action. One question, CBO is touted as nonpartisan yet your observations imply they have been influenced. CBO director becoming OMB director is a political appointment, goes without saying that this is the way Obama and his Chicago circle operate. Buy off those needed to push forward the agenda. In this case, forget the caveats, wear them down, word changes to hide tax mandates, etc.

[RichInOC]

Do I think Nancy Pelosi belongs in the House of Representatives, let alone in a leadership position, let alone in the presidential line of succession?

Are you serious? Are you serious?

[stylin19a]

has the CBO issued a final statement ? it’s original statement went to great pains to note it was “preliminary”

[cpdiii]

What is the procedure for the AGs to appeal for “emergency relief” and have the case heard quickly before the Supreme Court? Can one SC justice grant this?

With the 5/4 split on the court now, that grand document is but one vote away from possible extinction. If this comes to pass, like the Phoenix it will rise again from the ashes for it lives in mans heart.

To much blood has spilled and treasure spent to let the blueprint for freedom perish.

[grey_whiskers]

when 11 of the then 33 states succeeded from the union

"Succeeded?" FAIL

Otherwise, a good piece.

[ctdonath2]

Relevant tangent:
IIRC, the income tax a la 1040 is _voluntary_, to wit you can choose NOT to file one so long as you do pay what is owed. The feds can issue you a bill based on what they know about your income (and slam you with fines if they later find you owed more). The 1040 really amounts to a tax exemption/credit request form, telling them what you earned and why you shouldn’t pay full tax on the full amount.

Which gets me wondering:
Is one valid way to approach this current crisis to - perversely - NOT file a 1040, and just pay the full amount the feds decide you owe? Yes that “feeds the beast” more, but:
- this beast thrives on information more than money (face it: the money just ain’t there, won’t be, ever, until hyperinflation destroys what constitutes “money”)
- may give taxpayers grounds to beat this on 4th Amendment grounds.

I am NOT advocating anything illegal here.
I am advocating understanding what is in fact legal and required, and complying in a manner which does exactly what is in fact required ... and no more.

This is not a fully formed idea. It’s a starting point, and I’m wondering what can be done with it.

[ctdonath2]

The Chicago Way is “carrot or stick, pick one.”
Of course I expect Madam Caligula and her masters went that route.
And yes, “stick” includes “we will work you to death if you don’t produce numbers we like.”

[Congressman Billybob]

Of course you are right. That is the most common mistake whenever anyone writes about “the late unpleasantness” as my Birmingham grandmother, granddaughter of a Confederate Infantry Colonel, used to say. My humble apologies.

John / Billybob

[Congressman Billybob]

The request for Emergency Relief goes from a denial of the injunction by the Court of Appeals. It then goes to the Circuit Justice for that Circuit.

In major matters, the one Justice will usually refer to the other Justices, so that at least four other Justices join in granting the Emergency Relief. It is extremely rare for one Justice to grant or deny such relief, if a major issue is presented.

My first win in the Supreme Court was on Emergency Relief, granted by one Justice, who recited that four other Justices joined with his conclusion. Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt.

John / Billybob