Yet more proof Pelosi never read the health care bill

Washington Examiner ^ | 11/4/2010 | Mark Hemingway

[markomalley]

Yesterday, in President Obama’s press conference he mentioned the possibility of eliminating the health care bill’s onerous 1099 provision — which requires small businesses to submit a 1099 form to the IRS every time they make an expenditure of $600 or more — as point of potential comprise with the GOP on health care reform. (Of course, it wasn’t that long ago Democrats were protecting the provision from GOP attempts to repeal it, but funny how post-election the President seems a bit more flexible on the matter.)

In any event, soon-to-be-former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi just gave an interview to Diane Sawyer at ABC News where they discussed health care reform:

So, I– I don’t– I don’t– think they’re going to take health care apart. There are certain parts of it that we all may want to review– one way or another. Put it up there. But the fundamentals of it, you know, when we have our patients’ bill of rights about no preexisting conditions, and those provisions, they are– they cannot be there unless you have this basic structure of health care reform.

So, when we have this debate piece by piece, I think the American people will see how they like pieces of it, and how they relate to each other. And that some of that– you know, a 1099, it was a Senate provision. We didn’t like it in the House. The President mentioned it today. We’ve already passed on the floor– the repeal of 1099 in the House of Representatives. So, you know, there are certain pieces of it that should always be subjected to review.

Um, okay. First, Pelosi’s flat out wrong about one thing. The 1099 provision was included in the language of the House bill, perhaps Pelosi will get around to reading it one of these days. As for whether the House has passed a repeal of the 1099 provision, I don’t know what she’s talking about either. Republicans attached a motion to recommit the 1099 provision to H.R. 5893 over the summer. Rather than allow the 1099 provision to be repealed, Democrats pulled the bill. It was brought up again shortly afterward and it failed to garner the two-thirds needed for passage because Democrats used tax increases elsewhere to make up for the money that would be lost.

Pelosi can spin all she wants, but the President’s concession on the 1099 provision should be seen for what it is — a total about face on the issue.

[Godzilla]

Yep, demonrat promises - shovel ready for application for spreading around the garden.

[kabar]

He who frames the discussion usually wins it. Once we start fixing the bill, we become owners of it. Why fix something you say you want to repeal?

[Psycho_Bunny]

No. I explain it in 37.

[Timocrat]

Can you clarify where in the bill it says that?

EVERYTHING I have read says it is off the top—on the Gross sale price & 3 real estate agents say the same thing.

On 3/30/10 the President signed into Law HR 4872 which was an amendment to the Main Healthcare Bill. It was needed to clarify certain provisions in the original bill and to raise more money. Look on page 88 of said Bill where the following obscure language is used:

‘‘SEC. 1411. IMPOSITION OF TAX.

3 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection

4 (e)—

5 ‘‘(1) APPLICATION TO INDIVIDUALS.—In the

6 case of an individual, there is hereby imposed (in ad

7 dition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) for

8 each taxable year a tax equal to 3.8 percent of the

9 lesser of—

10 ‘‘(A) net investment income for such tax

11

able year, or

12 ‘‘(B) the excess (if any) of—

13 ‘‘(i) the modified adjusted gross in

14 come for such taxable year, over

15 ‘‘(ii) the threshold amount.

In order to understand this you should be familiar with the relevant Sections of the IRS code dealing with Investment income. Also note that this applies not just to the profit on the sale of a house but to all other investment income once the taxpayer meets the threshold amounts. All part of the transparency in Government we were promised.

[samadams2000]

Thank you for the clarification! I guess I can just focus on the unconstitionality of the entire bill.

[SaraJohnson]

I think they just picked up Hillarycare on steroids.

If Republicans (rinos) think for one second that tweaking this monster in negotiations with Bam Bam will cut it with voters, they are insane. If they try to do this, we should just get the hint that the Democrats on the GOP side of the aisle have decided to kill the party and we should act accordingly.

If they diddle with the law, the socialists will spin to the public that Republicans “fixed” it and we will lose our chance to ever repeal it. So the House has to stand firm for full repeal no matter what the rinos in the senate do.

[goat granny]

If I remember correctly via the constitution, all bills originate in the house not the senate. If true, the whole thing is unconstitutional.....on its face..Since the bill includes government spending..

[Phlyer]

Well, I'd say the whole thing is unConstitutional on it's face because of the 10th Amendment, but they pretty much ignore that. However, they pretend to follow the Constitution with lip-service to other provisions.

What the Constitution actually says is that "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House." But 'officially' Obamacare doesn't 'raise' revenue. They steal it from Medicare (for which revenue is already raised), and they set a threshold of $600 for filing 1099 forms (but the law that says transactions declared on 1099 forms get taxed is separate), and they leave a lot of it just unfunded. (Which is why there is a tactical opportunity to gut Obamacare by not funding it.)

So the problem of Constitutionality is not limited to which chamber originated the bill. And of course, for lawyers, they can claim that since the House had a similar bill, it can be 'deemed' to have been originated by the House. Just because, in the end, the House like the Senate version enough to approve it without change doesn't mean they didn't 'originate' the topic. In fact, the House bill was passed first, then ignored in favor of the Senate version in order to avoid a filibuster.

[mo]

Ya know...they can either repeal the damn thing...or perhaps We the People will need to come down to DC to do so ourselves .....

[Hegewisch Dupa]

selfo pingo

[MinuteGal]

MOTHER PELOSI NURSERY RHYME

Although I am the reigning Chair
I've never read ObamaCare
It's not been read as of today
But that won't get into my way

Leni

[goat granny]

Thank you for all that info...interesting....GG