What's That Smell?

So the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as ObamaCare, 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts the deciding vote.  Obviously, the Democrats are largely cheering, the Republicans are largely booing, and the independents are deciding if they are going to vote for Obama in November (remember, this bill has had upwards of 70% of the country against it, and the independents are crucial for Obama’s re-election – so Obama may have just screwed himself with this victory he’s basking in right now). 

*Full Disclosure:  I have a financial consultant father, whose business was partly built on group health insurance.  So from a personal standpoint, my parents’ financial future going into their retirement years – which is negatively affected with every step closer we get to universal health care - is important to me.*

While this family concern matters, it doesn’t really play that big of a part in why I don’t like the bill.  I was wary of the bill right from the beginning, largely because it was thrown together very quickly, no one in Congress even read the bill (at 2700 pages, who could have?), and the administration itself didn’t know what was in it.  Many will remember that this is when Nancy Pelosi famously said, “We need to pass the bill, so that we can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy,” securing her position as one of the more prolific blowhards in American politics.  Apparently, it wasn’t important to make the American public knowledgeable about the bill – you know – to minimize that controversy, maybe?  Just pass the thing – we’ll tell you all about the ramifications later.  The level of arrogance was astounding, even by politicians’ standards.  The smell of BS just saturates…

So the critical issue for the Supremes to decide on was the Individual Mandate.  For anyone not up to speed, the Individual Mandate would require, as of 2014, anyone who does not have health insurance to buy some, through their employer (if available), or on their own through insurance exchanges (if established in time – unlikely, according to several states).  If you refuse to purchase insurance, you will be assessed a fine on your annual tax return, which can vary from $0 (under $9500 in income) to $4700 (over $200,000 in income) – PER PERSON (up to 3 people per household).

Now, here’s the legal rub that’s gotten everyone in a tizzy:  The Individual Mandate is not, and never was, a tax.  Obama and his administration swore up and down, over and over, that it was a penalty, not a tax.  And does anyone remember why they were so adamant that it wasn’t a tax?  Back when the bill was being debated in Congress, there were rumors going around that Obama wanted to include jail time as a possible penalty for non-compliance.  When asked, he said that it was mentioned as an idea, but never seriously discussed.  Then portions of the bill were being leaked, and one of the leaks involved the penalty being applied to our taxes, and that some 16,000 IRS agents would have to be hired to deal with compliance.  This had everyone in an uproar – that Obama really was going to put people in jail, but was going to do it through the back door, aka “tax evasion,” charged on anyone refusing to pay the penalty.  To quell the brewing firestorm, Obama mounted a campaign of denying that the penalty was a tax, and that tax evasion jail time was not going to be a punishing tactic.

But then the administration got it's rear handed to them by the Supremes on the Commerce Clause issue.  They only called it a tax because that's the only way it would be considered, rather than thrown out.  Once they start losing their shirts... then it's a tax.  Apparently, truth only really matters when the agenda isn't at risk, yes?

They got so wrapped up in winning the argument with the Supremes, they didn't bother to notice that, even if they did present the case as a tax, the tax would be illegal.  There are only three types of federal taxes:  Income, Excise, and Direct. 

Income is based on income, naturally (IM has nothing to do with income).
Excise is based on selected types of transactions (also sometimes referred to as an “event tax”), collected by the producer or retailer.  At the federal level, excise taxes are usually uniform – fuel, alcohol, tobacco, and firearms are the exceptions that vary by state..  (IM is based on the LACK of a transaction, and the penalty varies based on regional location).
Direct is applied to persons and/or ownership of property, and is apportioned to each state based on population (IM involves no ownership of property, and is apportioned to the INDIVIDUAL, regardless of population).

Even John Roberts said in his opinion, ”A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax.”  So this would lead to the obvious question:  What kind of tax is it, since you've deemed it constitutional?  But as I described above, there is no tax that this mandate would apply under.  So if it is a tax, it's an illegal one.  And by the by, according to the rules of taxation in Congress, taxes can only originate in the House of Representatives.  As they only called it a tax out of thin air recently to get it upheld by the Supremes, there's no way this tax would be constitutional.  Which leaves Roberts' opinion severely lacking, and it has engaged the Supreme Court in re-writing a statute's verbage in order to uphold it, which is outside their scope.  They are only to judge based on the argument presented as written.  Changed arguments usually are denounced by the court.

But that's just semantics.  The administration wasn't concerned about legal, or fact - just about winning.  And the Supreme Court has once again insulted our intelligence (Citizens United and Scalia's opinion on immigration are other recent slaps to the face), playing politics instead correctly interpreting and applying the law, further tarnishing the integrity of the court.  The big winner in this isn't Obama or health care - it's John Roberts, who, with very deft political maneuvering, has essentially seized control of the Supreme Court for the foreseeable future.  Siding with the opposition has rendered him "beyond reproach," claims of partiality and partisanship won't stick to him anymore - leaving him as the only member of the court with any perception of credibility.  The fact that he has positioned himself so advantageously while utilizing a complete lapse in logic to contradict his own argument, and then upholding the bill anyway, means he’s either a level of genius that we just can’t comprehend, or he really doesn’t hold our intelligence in much regard.  His little game will help the conservatives in the future, but right now, it just leaves a sour taste in the mouth...