Carney: It's a penalty, not a tax

upi.com ^ | 6/30/12 | UPI

[philman_36]

But don’t feel bad, Congress didn’t understand the Act and they actually voted on it!
How can one understand what one hasn't even read?

Congress didn't "vote on it", per se. The Democrats had the votes to make passage foolproof and they (a political Party, not Congress) forced it through, plain and simple.

[Darren McCarty]

Carney, you are full of shit. If you don’t pay the “penalty”, you go to prison for five years. The crime. Tax evasion.

[Meet the New Boss]

The point is not the specific nature of the command ("you must obey the speed limit when you drive"; "you must purchase health insurance" or whatever).

The point is that IT IS A COMMAND.

Pick your own analogy.

There are thousands of laws where a government says "you must do x" and if you don't there is a penalty of a monetary fine or jail time.

ObamaCare says "you must do x":

"An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month."

...and then says if you don't, there is a penalty:

"If an applicable individual fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months during any calendar year beginning after 2013, then, except as provided in subsection (d), there is hereby imposed a penalty with respect to the individual in the amount determined under subsection (c).

Roberts is wrong on this, and Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito were right.

[Jo Nuvark]

[... So if you don’t buy it, and you can afford it,
it is irresponsible to ask America’s taxpayers to
pay for your Emergency care...]

So if you CAN work, but choose NOT to work, it is
irresponsible to ask American taxpayers to support
your lazy arse.

There! Fixed it.

[philman_36]

If you don’t pay the “penalty”, you go to prison for five years. The crime. Tax evasion.
Oops! I'd say somebody is 'in a sticky wicket' with that little factoid.

[Meet the New Boss]

isn't Carney actually disagreeing with the Court's decision instead of agreeing and supporting it?

Yes! You are absolutely right.

Carney and Obama are laughing their asses off at what a fool Roberts was.

Roberts thought he was going to win the "Strange New Respect Award" (awarded by The American Spectator for supposed conservatives who abandon conservative positions in order to bask in the approval of the MSM) but in reality they are just laughing at him.

Roberts should have taken the many statements by Obama and the Congressional leadership that it was NOT a tax as an admission or stipulation to that effect and then gone ahead and voted with Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito.

[Darren McCarty]

The highest law of the land says it’s a tax.

So does the bill itself when it references the Internal Revenue Code. The punishment for not paying the "penalty" is a tax evasion felony.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

Yep, and the SCOTUS also ruled that the right to abortion on demand is in the US Constitution, when we all know it is clearly not.

The SCOTUS often pulls law out of their ass that has no foundation in the Constitution, and they did so here with Roberts’s idiotic blunder of biblical proportions.

[Meet the New Boss]

Hey I just noticed that in sub-clause (e)(3) American Indians are exempt from the ObamaCare mandate.

I suggest we all contribute a couple of recipes to an Indian cookbook like Elizabeth Warren and then declare ourselves exempt from ObamaCare!

[Venturer]

We have a winner.

[Reagan69]

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

They lie like they breath.

[philman_36]

You are citing the wrong part of the Act.
BTW, the relevant part of "the Act" is
SEC. 1501. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.
Public Law 111–148 111th Congress
An Act Entitled The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Just "search" 1501 and you'll see that SEC. 1501(b) has this...

b) IN GENERAL.—Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new chapter:
‘‘CHAPTER 48—MAINTENANCE OF MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE
‘‘Sec. 5000A. Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage.

So when you say I'm citing the wrong part of the Act you're correct. I was citing Title 26 (that's the Internal Revenue Code), just as you were.

You have to go back to Public Law 111–148 SEC. 1501(b), to see how, and why, SEC. 5000A came into existence.

Be sure to note this as well...

Subtitle F—Shared Responsibility for Health Care
PART I—INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY
SEC. 1501. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE. (a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following findings: (1) IN GENERAL.— The individual responsibility requirement provided for in this section (in this subsection referred to as the ‘‘requirement’’) is commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce, as a result of the effects described in paragraph (2).

The Court kind of blew that argument right out of the water, didn't they.

[philman_36]

Do a little more reading. Like I said, just “search” 1501 and spend about ten minutes reading.

[Electric Graffiti]

There are thousands of laws where a government says "you must do x" and if you don't there is a penalty of a monetary fine or jail time.

State or Federal?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Why are we talking about taxes or fines when Congress has no authority to mandate HeLLCare at all.

[philman_36]

Roberts should have taken the many statements by Obama and the (Democrat) Congressional leadership that it was NOT a tax as an admission or stipulation to that effect and then gone ahead and voted with Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito.
But an individual mandate wasn't Constitutional unless it was a tax. Don't you get it?

The "meat" sandwich got turned into a "feces" sandwich and they're going to have to eat it!

[headstamp 2]

It’s notta tumah!

[MarkL]

Dear Mr Carney, You might want to check with the government lawyers who argued the case before the SCOTUS. They DID argue that it WAS A TAX! It was the opposition that argued otherwise.

Of course, if you continue to insist it's not a tax, maybe the pubies will create adverts stating, "The Obama regime told US, the American public, that Obamacare wasn't a tax (show carney and obama stating it's not a tax, while government lawyers argued before the SCOTUS that it WAS a tax. Does audio of the arguments exist? It would be great in an advertisement.!

Mark

[hal ogen]

I am soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo tired of this clintonian “it depends on what the meaning of is is” crap. Vote all the morons who support or supported any of nobama’s anti-Free-America schemes. All the bums and their idiot supporters should be on Devil’s Island.

[hal ogen]

I am soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo tired of this clintonian “it depends on what the meaning of is is” crap. Vote out all the morons who support or supported any of nobama’s anti-Free-America schemes. All the bums and their idiot supporters should be on Devil’s Island.

[Meet the New Boss]

“But an individual mandate wasn’t Constitutional unless it was a tax. Don’t you get it?”

In my view, it is not constitutional EVEN AS A TAX.

See my analysis here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2901385/posts?page=28#28

Under the Constitution, Congress cannot impose a tax on people for just existing, unless it is census-apportioned.

Can Congress impose a tax on all people for just existing, with an exemption for people with red hair?

Can Congress impose a tax on all people for just existing, with an exemption for people who drive Dodge Vipers?

Can Congress impose a tax on all people for just existing, with an exemption for people who purchase a a certain insurance contract?

In my view it is not possible for Congress to take an unconstitutional direct tax and then somehow make it constitutional by simply tacking on a category of exemption.

If the direct tax is unconstitutional, they cannot make it constitutional just by adding a certain exemption to it.

The dissenters were correct in faulting Roberts in putting out this tax analysis without sufficient deliberation on how it should be analyzed under the Direct Tax clause of the Constitution.