It’s A ‘Tax’ When It’s Convenient For Us But It’s A ‘Penalty’ When It’s Convenient For Us: Deceitful ObamaCare Attorney Mocked By Supreme Court Justices

In the penultimate scene in the movie Chinatown, Faye Dunaway’s character literally gets the truth beaten out of her.  Her interviewer repeatedly says, “I want the truth!”  And Evelyn says, “She’s my sister …” (slap).  “She’s my daughter …” (slap).  “My sister, my daughter …” (slap, slap).  And then finally the awful truth comes out: “She’s my sister AND my daughter!”

That kind of literally inbred thinking is what ObamaCare – and for that matter the psychotic “We-have-to-pass-the-bill-so-that-you-can-find-out-what-is-in-it” Democrat Party – is all about.

What is ObamaCare?  It’s whatever it has to be at any given moment to impose it on the American people:

March 26, 2012
Obama Lawyer Laughed at In Supreme Court

On the first day of health care reform arguments before the Supreme Court, two justices needled a top Obama lawyer for simultaneously calling the fine that will be paid under the law for not purchasing insurance a “penalty” and a “tax.”

The confusion arises because of the administration’s argument that the power to enforce the individual mandate is rooted in Congress’ taxing power — but that the mechanism itself is designed to be a penalty, not a revenue-generating policy.

The narrow but important distinction created a communication challenge for the lawyer representing the Obama administration.

U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli used the phrase “tax penalty” multiple times to describe the individual mandate’s backstop. He portrayed the fee as a penalty by design, but one that functions as a tax because it’s collected through the tax code.

“General Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax. Tomorrow you are going to be back and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax,” said Justice Samuel Alito, in one of the few laugh lines throughout the 90 minutes of argument Monday.

The remark underscores the fine line the White House is walking in its argument. On one hand, it says the backstop is not a tax, because that could subject it to the Anti-Injunction Act — the focal point of Monday’s arguments — and delay a ruling to at least 2015. On the other, they claim that the power to impose a penalty derives from Congress’ broad taxing power. That’s in part because calling it a tax makes defending the mandate easier — Congress’ power to levy taxes is less in question than its power to require people to do things.

Justice Elena Kagan asked whether refusing to buy insurance would constitute breaking the law, to which Verrilli responded that if people “pay the tax, then they are in compliance with the law.” That caught the attention of Justice Stephen Breyer.

“Why do you keep saying tax?” Breyer interjected, to more laughs.

The justices, particularly the four Democratic-appointees, and Justice Antonin Scalia, appeared skeptical that the fine constitutes a tax.

The distinction is nuanced, but key to one of the administration’s arguments.

Alito to Verrilli: Is it a tax or isn’t it?

Contrast this discussion with the previous words of our Liar-in-Chief on ABC News:

STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it’s still a tax increase.

OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase.

This man is a liar whose lies reverse themselves and then twist back like a pretzel.  And the really amazing thing about it is that at no point in the process is he EVER telling the truth.

At least the Supreme Court officially has officially recognized that Barack Obama is a disingenuous lying weasel.  Although I hope that isn’t our consolation prize, that at least has to count for something.

ObamaCare is literally a bill of lies that promised a cost of $938 billion (through all kinds of gimmicks that have since fallen apart just as conservatives rightly and accurately predicted they would); it now costs $176 trillion – basically DOUBLE what Obama looked us in the eye and promised only a couple of years ago.

From a Yahoo News story:

President Obama’s landmark healthcare overhaul is projected to cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, reports the Congressional Budget Office, a hefty sum more than the $940 billion estimated when the healthcare legislation was signed into law. To put it mildly, ObamaCare’s projected net worth is far off from its original estimate — in fact, about $820 billion off.

Backtracking to his September 2009 remarksto a joint session of Congress on healthcare, Obama asserted the following: “Now, add it all up, and the plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years — less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration.” 

When the final CBO report was released before the law’s passage, critics surmised that the actual 10-year cost would far exceed the advertised projections. In other words, the numbers were seemingly obscured through a political ploy devised to jam the legislation through Congress.

“Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation,” asserted Philip Klein of the Washington Examiner, “the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014.” This accounting maneuver allowed analysts to cloak the true cost of ObamaCare, Klein alleged, making the law appear less expensive under the CBO’s budget window.

That is one expensive inbred socialist takeover.  And of course “controlling costs” was one of the lies that ObamaCare was sold under.

Here’s another lie ObamaCare was sold under: it would insure 40 million Americans:

[F]rom the CBO’s Tuesday report. Revised estimatesof ObamaCare’s coverage provisions indicate that 2 million fewer people will acquire coverage by 2016.

Moreover, the CBO estimates that 4 million Americans will lose their employer-sponsored health plans by 2016, a far cry from the 1-million-person figure forecasted last year. Further yet, 1 million to 2 million fewer people will be granted access to the federally-subsidized healthcare exchanges, while an additional 1 million are estimated to qualify for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Provision.

In a second blog post published on Tuesday, Mr. Klein summed up the debacle: “It’s also worth noting that we were told time and again during the health care debate that the law didn’t represent a government takeover of health care. But by 2022, according to the CBO, 3 million fewer people will have health insurance through their employer, while 17 million Americans will be added to Medicaid and 22 million will be getting coverage through government-run exchanges.”

Pay far more, get half as much.  All that matters is that the Marxist Democrat Party is allowed to usurp control over the health care system so you have to vote for them just to save your own wretched life.

Everything about this bill is dishonest and depraved.  Including how the Obama lawyers are trying to sell their load of lies to the Supreme Court.

Tags: , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: