So, since this was not a tax bill, the procedure for passing it was invalid. What does it mean? Well, to a regime that enforces or waives laws at it's whim, probably nothing.
Actually, it's just the opposite: Because it wasn't a tax Bill, it was passed constitutionally (it originated in the Senate, not the House - which would have been required if it was a "revenue" bill). The problem is that in the filings with the Court on the Mandate cases, the Administration has argued that it's not a per se mandate, and is instead a tax; the taxing and spending clause has been interpreted so broadly that if the Court finds that it's a tax and not a fine, it's probably going to be upheld.
Here, the administration official - under penalty of perjury no less - is saying that the mandate is indeed a fine, and not a tax, which of course drives a stake through the heart of the Obmacare defense posited by the Administration.
That's another issue, and I agree that's a mess they are in. But I was referring to the "reconciliation" bit they used to pass it. I thought that was only allowed to be used for budget-related legislation and they said this contained taxes so it could be... I don't know if I'm saying this correctly. The whole process is so Byzantine that it mocks the very idea of representative government responsible to the people.
"I thought that was only allowed to be used for budget-related legislation and they said this contained taxes so it could be... "
Right. Remember, they used budget reconciliation to pass the second Bill - that was the Bill that protected unions from the Cadillac tax, among other things.
The first Bill - which is what is being challenged by with the mandate lawsuits, was passed conventionally; the House adopted and passed without amendment, the Senate Bill in its entirety. Of course, the only reason the House Democrats agreed to do that, was the guarantee by Reid that he would hammer the second Bill through the Senate using reconciliation.
Now Jay Carney needs to be asked whether the president agrees with his solicitor general, who will argue before the Supreme Court that the penalty is a tax, or his OMB director, who claims that it is not. Should make for very entertaining video.
I think it is most telling that the OMB director when asked this question first looks confused - "deer in the headlights" comes to mind - and then says Obamacare "will save money". The saying is almost like a litany answered to any question asked.
So, since this was not a tax bill, the procedure for passing it was invalid. What does it mean? Well, to a regime that enforces or waives laws at it's whim, probably nothing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, it's just the opposite: Because it wasn't a tax Bill, it was passed constitutionally (it originated in the Senate, not the House - which would have been required if it was a "revenue" bill). The problem is that in the filings with the Court on the Mandate cases, the Administration has argued that it's not a per se mandate, and is instead a tax; the taxing and spending clause has been interpreted so broadly that if the Court finds that it's a tax and not a fine, it's probably going to be upheld.
Here, the administration official - under penalty of perjury no less - is saying that the mandate is indeed a fine, and not a tax, which of course drives a stake through the heart of the Obmacare defense posited by the Administration.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's another issue, and I agree that's a mess they are in. But I was referring to the "reconciliation" bit they used to pass it. I thought that was only allowed to be used for budget-related legislation and they said this contained taxes so it could be... I don't know if I'm saying this correctly. The whole process is so Byzantine that it mocks the very idea of representative government responsible to the people.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I thought that was only allowed to be used for budget-related legislation and they said this contained taxes so it could be... "
Right. Remember, they used budget reconciliation to pass the second Bill - that was the Bill that protected unions from the Cadillac tax, among other things.
The first Bill - which is what is being challenged by with the mandate lawsuits, was passed conventionally; the House adopted and passed without amendment, the Senate Bill in its entirety. Of course, the only reason the House Democrats agreed to do that, was the guarantee by Reid that he would hammer the second Bill through the Senate using reconciliation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat a tangled web we weave...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCountdown to spin "Of course they are taxes, just not NEW taxes - the bill was passed over a year ago"....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNow Jay Carney needs to be asked whether the president agrees with his solicitor general, who will argue before the Supreme Court that the penalty is a tax, or his OMB director, who claims that it is not. Should make for very entertaining video.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think it is most telling that the OMB director when asked this question first looks confused - "deer in the headlights" comes to mind - and then says Obamacare "will save money". The saying is almost like a litany answered to any question asked.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat was painful to watch. I actually kinda felt sorry for the guy. You can tell he knows he was about to say something he shouldn't.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse