Even Former Clinton Operative Stephanopoulos Doesn't Buy Jack Lew's Spin
In the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision that upheld the Affordable Care Act as constitutional under the taxing powers of Congress, the Obama administration can’t seem to call it a tax. Instead, they’re trying to peddle the “tax” as a penalty. White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew did his run through the Sunday morning talk shows with this entertaining spin. Even former Clinton operative George Stephanopoulos was unconvinced: “As you know, President Obama denied all along that this was a tax. Is he now prepared to defend it?”
Mr. Lew stuck to the "not a tax" spin: “I think we have to take a step back. What is in the law is a penalty. It starts by saying all Americans have a right to health insurance. For Americans who buy health insurance or who can't afford it and get it through a government program, there is no penalty.”
However, Stephanopolous pressed on with “you keep wanting to use the word penalty...they [The Supreme Court] found it constitutional because it is a tax, not a penalty. Here is the Chief Justice. Right here, he said, "The shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax, not a penalty." Lew denied it again and indirectly called the American people stupid, stating:
LEW: The Supreme Court looked at what the structure of the law was, and they saw that 1 percent of the people would be paying this charge if they chose not to avail themselves of health insurance. But more middle-class people are going to get a tax cut in this law. There's a tax cut of $4,000 for people who need help paying for health insurance.
For the very, very few who choose to go uninsured, and who can afford it, and who are saying that if I need health care, it's going to be someone else's burden, it says they have to pay a charge.
You know, if you look at the past, since President Obama's been in office, middle-class families have gotten a $3,600 tax cut. In this law, there's a $4,000 tax cut for people who need help paying for health insurance. For that 1 percent who have chosen not to buy health insurance and just to pass the burden onto others, there's this penalty.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you do concede -- and you keep wanting to use the word penalty -- you do concede that the law survived only because Justice Roberts found this to be a tax?
LEW: You know, I think, if you look at the decision, which is a very complicated one, you know, there are arguments that support different theories. There was...
STEPHANOPOULOS: But the argument of Chief Justice Roberts is that it's a tax.
LEW: He -- he went through the different powers that Congress has and he found that there is a power, whatever you call it, to assess a penalty like this.STEPHANOPOULOS: He called it a tax. So you're conceding that?
LEW: I'm saying that it was set up as a penalty for people who choose not to buy insurance, even though they can afford it, and for that 1 percent, we call it fair.
Lew’s assertion of the opinion being complicated, even though the part we’re discussing is explicitly clear in the written opinion, highlights the progressive left’s inherent condescension. I guess the vast majority of Americans, who aren’t members of educational elite with learned diction, can’t possibly understand the difference between a tax and a penalty. How progressive of them? Mr. Lew’s shameless spinning and distortion of the facts even has liberals in the media saying he’s wrong.
- Matt Vespa's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
The SCOTUS called it a tax
Submitted by c5then on Mon, 07/02/2012 - 2:26pm.
That was the only way (even though it was specious) to uphold it. If the administration claims it's not a tax then it is NOT Constitutional and therefore unenforcable.
If it is a tax, then all the Democrats who voted for it voted for the largest and broadest tax increase ever perpetrated on the American public and they did it under false pretenses and in the wee hours of the night to hide it.
They have to decide..is it a cake or a pie. It can't be both or neither.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Since when?
Submitted by jon_torlin on Mon, 07/02/2012 - 2:59pm.
I have to laugh, no offense, c5, that people keep thinking that the executive branch should be concerned with playing by the rules when they haven't played by the rules on ANYTHING since they first came out soon after the election was over in 2008....otherwise we'd never have an "office of the president-elect" rolling around as if he were really in charge instead of Bush until Jan 20, 2009.
That's something I'm trying to get everyone to understand, especially those that say "remember in November" and etc, which in my opinion is also specious, what makes anyone think we're going to be "allowed" to have elections in November? I fully expect this bogus potus to take some sort of action in preventing the elections, that's how they work and to hell with the rules and the Constitution.
-Jon
They, the Progressives (communists)
Submitted by almostacowboy on Mon, 07/02/2012 - 3:14pm.
also couldn't care less about the "optics". Roberts alleged concern about the court's appearing activist again plays into the left's hands.
I'm sick of it. If you are not a conservative you're the enemy, voting not only against your own freedom, but trying to take mine away too.
Lew is another example of how
Submitted by celator on Mon, 07/02/2012 - 3:33pm.
Lew is another example of how these White House people can look at the American people right straight in the eye and lie their butts off, without even a hint of shame. There isn't a molecule of integrity in the whole lot.
Time to go back to SCOTUS!!
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 07/02/2012 - 4:05pm.
Let Obama's lawyers go in and claim it's not a tax, but they still have the right to levy it because....well....just because.
the phrase "1%" must have polled well
Submitted by mom_rox on Mon, 07/02/2012 - 6:27pm.
with the focus groups.