CNN's Candy Crowley Doesn't Think It Matters If ObamaCare Mandate Is a Tax or a Penalty
One of the key parts of Thursday's Supreme Court ruling regarding the President's healthcare bill was that the fine for not complying with the individual mandate must be considered a tax in order for it to be constitutional.
On CNN's State of the Union Sunday, host Candy Crowley didn't think this was a very important distinction (video follows with transcribed highlights and commentary):
In the middle of a discussion about the ruling, Crowley said, "Another tactic that Republicans used coming out of the Supreme Court decision, this is Minority Leader, Republican leader Mitch McConnell on the floor right after the vote."
A video clip was aired of McConnell discussing the fact that the Court ruled the penalty under the individual mandate was a tax, and that this went completely against what the President promised when it was proposed as well as how it was sold to the Congress and the American people.
“This was one of the Democrats’ top selling points because they knew it never would have passed if they said it was a tax…The bill was sold to the American people on a deception,” McConnell told Senators.
After the clip, Crowley asked guest CNN White House correspondent Dan Lothian, “Is there any resonance to this? I just, fine, penalty. I love Nancy Pelosi’s reaction, ‘Call it an aardvark, it’s constitutional.’ You know, essentially what she said. Is there resonance here?”
“I think we’ll have to wait and see,” Lothian answered. “The President clearly said, I mean, there was an interview I think was it ABC News where he said that it was not a tax, but immediately after the Court ruled, Republicans jumped all over this, and I think they’re going to continue pushing it.”
Lothian was correctly referring to a September 2009 interview Obama gave to George Stephanopoulos when he "absolutely" rejected the penalty being a tax.
Crowley didn't seem to care.
“It fits into the storyline that Republicans want to push which is he’s going to raise taxes on the middle class,” Crowley said. “But it just seems like we’re dancing on the head of a pin here. It’s a tax, it’s a penalty, it’s a fine.”
Really? So how a piece of legislation was sold to Congress and the American people is "dancing on the head of a pin?"
Even if the bill wouldn't have passed if it had been properly conveyed by the President?
Do you think Crowley would have the same opinion if a Republican president got an unpopular bill enacted under false pretenses?
Quite the contrary, she and virtually all of her colleagues would be screaming from the rooftops about the deception.
But when a Democratic president does it, not so much.
Witness her other guest USA Today’s Washington bureau chief Susan Page who completely agreed with Crowley saying, “It’s not what people hate about the healthcare law. They hate that it’s such big government, and they hate that it’s a, it’s a mandate, it’s the federal government telling them what they have to do. So it seems to me that’s not the big issue and the reason that people don’t like the healthcare law.”
No, a president lying to the American people to get a bill passed isn't "a big issue" even if it breaks his campaign promise of not raising taxes on folks earning less than $250,000.
You see, everything's acceptable no matter how deceitful as long as that president is a Democrat.
To receive my articles hot off the presses follow me on Twitter ow.ly/btalc and Facebook ow.ly/btald.
— Noel Sheppard (@NoelSheppard) June 9, 2012
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Kevin McCullough's column at
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 11:16am.
Kevin McCullough's column at townhall.com says this:
Obamacare has been outed--by the authoritative voice of the nation's highest court-as a fraud. Yes the administration pitched it as a "penalty," as something that would not carry with it the burdensome label and politically repulsive thought of a tax. But Chief Justice Roberts seduced the four Obama supporters on the bench into agreeing that President Obama had in fact lied to the nation all through his 2008 campaign. Promising tax-cuts for 95% of the nation (a promise wrapped in a lie all its own), he has instead raised taxes--primarily on middle class families to the tune of $1.7 trillion dollars for the next decade. (And THAT'S just the starting point!) A tax, and nothing but a tax, is the only way the mandate funding could be understood in order for President Obama's only domestic initiative to survive. So a tax it is...
But who cares, right, Candy??
From a practical sense, I agree with Crowley
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 8:41pm.
From a political sense, the definition of the mandate as either a tax or a penalty was significant, but that's all water under the bridge now thanks to Roberts. Denying that it is in fact a tax will be a problem for Obama, but I don't think it will matter much because he's going to compare Obamacare to Romneycare, which has always been a burden for Romney.
But whether it is labelled a tax or a penalty won't matter to those who have to pay it. In 2016, if one earns $100,000, the tax/penalty will be $2500.
And despite Roberts' rejection of the Commerce Clause argument, the key in this decision is that a precedence has been established: the Federal government can impose a cost of any amount on citizens for not buying a commercial product.
This is the most anti-citizen decision since Kelo vs. New London.
Moer Than $2500 Possible
Submitted by stratman on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 10:08pm.
Galv,
No one can say for sure what the top cost will be for the "tax" since no one knows what the cost of "Bronze" level equivalent insurance will be in 2016.
But, projections are the top "tax" cost in 2016 could near twice of what you wrote. It could also be more!
It was so inconsequential
Submitted by metaphorsbwithu on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 11:17am.
It was so inconsequential that CNN reported initially that the mandate had been overturned arguing using the commerce clause argument was bogus, THEN reported it WAS Constitutional because the Court decided it on the basis it is a tax.
That is a BFD, but now they want to bury the facts and just move on.
I guess come January
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 11:18am.
Dems will be looking to let the Bush aardvark cuts expire.
Here is an interesting take
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 11:23am.
Here is an interesting take on the HellCare ruling....
http://www.ijreview.com/2012/06/9398-why-chief-justice-roberts-made-the-...
In a way, it does make me feel better the fact that the Federal Government has no power to enforce this law on the individual States.
My question is, if a State decides not to participate in Obamacare, Wisconsin, Florida and others are saying they won't implement the Hellcare law, can the Federal government still tax you for not having healthcare insurance? anyone?
OR
can you now only be taxed for not having healthcare insurance only in States that have chosen to participate in this step on our Freedoms and Rights Hellcare law?
Read the attached article and I would love to see what people think.
Interesting Question
Submitted by Jimbo on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 11:44am.
Interesting question. And I'm not sure anyone knows the answer yet. Since Thursday, we are officially on the long slow slide to socialism, and continue to break new ground on the way down. I don't think it would take too much insight to think that Washington would think that it can impose the tax regardless of State participation, while States will believe otherwise. Perhaps the question will wind up back on Robert's desk.... and he will punt us further down the slope...again...
This is all eerily reminiscent of 1860.....
Saw that also Liberallies
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 11:45am.
I am waiting to hear what Levin thinks about it. So far, he hasnt found much silver in this cloud.
Boudin and Jimbo,
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 12:02pm.
Boudin and Jimbo,
Unfortunately, Levin doesn't come on Chicago radio until 9pm CST. :-(
I am hoping that Roberts did what the article above says he did and gave more power to the States.
I do agree with you Jimbo, this looks like it will end back up in the Supreme Court when a State choses to opt-out and the Federal Government attempts to tax a resident of that State. But there is a huge State vs. Federal Government rights brewing up. And we the citizens are stuck in the middle.
I also whole heartly agree with the article about the Commerce Clause. This clause has been abused by Congress for decades. Now there is a decision in the books, setting clear precedent, that the Commerce Clause cannot be used to force Americans to buy anything the Federal government deems we must buy.
Also, as a Catholic, I have been reading news on this in Catholic websites and publications. The Roman Catholic Church has come out and said that complying with Obama's HellCare law is a sin! Most of the Masses I have gone to since the whole fight began with the HHS Mandate, the priest has said how immoral and unchristian the HHS mandate is. And at least where I live, it has resonated. The Knights of Columbus were at my parish a few weeks back. They set up in the Catholic school classrooms with pre-typed letters address to our Congressman and Senators demanding that the HHS Mandate be removed.
I also know Catholic schools, Catholic business who have said they will NOT comply with Obamacare's HHS Mandate. They have dropped healthcare insurance for their employees since it is against their Catholic beliefs to provide a service that will force the employer to pay for contraceptives.
I think this is much bigger than the media or the policians want us to know or believe.
It is time for civil disobedience and you are starting to see it with Catholics.
That may be the "dumb as a fox" plan....
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 2:31pm.
Get all these different entities to drop health insurance so everyone ends up in the "public pool."
THAT is why this MUST be overturned.
The "Plan"
Submitted by Jimbo on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 2:50pm.
What you describe is undeniably, without a doubt, the "plan". Obama knows he can't wave his liberal wand and make the insurance companies go away and force the people flock to him for their health coverage. He knows it must be done is stages. The first stage is to make the environment so hostile the insurance companies will exit the market "of their own free will".
On a related note, how does any public company compete with the government, when the government has the power to print more money to remain solvent???
Liberallies
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 4:35pm.
Levin come on the net for free, his pod cast are also free
Interesting
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 11:54am.
If the state I live in chooses not to participate in Obamacare, and I choose not to have insurance, what's to prevent the Feds from taxing me at a federal level? I get the point about Medicaid. But I don't get the point about me, as an individual, not having to pay the penalty/tax if I don't have the type of health insurance that the federal government tells me I have to buy.
My state doesn't go bankrupt because they won't participate in funding the Medicaid portion of Obamacare, but how do I, as an individual, escape the federal tax if I choose not to participate by purchasing a federally approved health insurance plan?
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Kingfish, The more I read
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 12:08pm.
Kingfish,
The more I read into this, it looks like a much bigger mess than anyone believes!
A State can chose not to participate and the Federal Government is powerless to do anything (thank goodness!!!), why, then, will we the residents of this States be punished with a tax for not having healthcare insurance if we can't afford it and the State has chosen not to have more money to cover us?
Unfortunately, I live in Illinois. Illinois chose to jump into Obama's HellCare law back in 2010! AND what has happened? Illinois is in much bigger debt, defeceit, we are right behind California. Illinois can't pay it debt. Health insurance premiums in Illinois have jumped 30% since Obama'shellcare law!
If Wisconsin choses to not participate in Obamacare, I may just move to Wisconsin which is only an hour away from me.
Illinois vs Arkansas vs Wisconsin
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 12:28pm.
I live in Arkansas, which has a Democrat governor, but has not fully implemented Obamacare yet, as they were waiting to see what happened with the SC ruling. I have no clue how this is going to play out with regard to Medicaid in our state. The Dems are going to preach that Arkansas needs to opt in to fund Medicaid with federal tax dollars, (which are high in the short-run but tail off quickly). The Republicans will say if we opt in to Obamacare, that it will bankrupt the state in the long run, because the tax base of the state can not support the increases to Medicaid in the long run.
I can see why you would move to Wisconsin, to escape the tax increases in Illinois. But I don't see how anybody who makes a decent wage ends up avoiding the tax mandated by Obamacare.
At first glance that article you linked gives a slight bit of hope on the judicial level, but it's like the cartoon where someone falls off a cliff and is hanging by a tiny tree branch. The only real hope is on the legislative side.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Kingfish, I was also bumbed
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 1:29pm.
Kingfish,
I was also bumbed out by the SC decision. However, the more time passes, the more energized I feel now to get involved for Mitt Romney and Republicans running for the Senate and House.
In Illlinois the day the SC came out with its decision Mitt Romney adds were playing by mid-morning saying, "On Day One of Mitt Romney's Presidency, He will pass an Executive Order repealing ALL of Obamacare"
The mandate does not go into effect until 2014, I honestly believe we have hope to stop this atrocious law.
I can tell you that know Conservatives who were not too kin on voting for Romney that this SC decision energized them to back him up all the way. To be honest, I was one of those lukewarm supporters for Romney. Today, I am a hardcore Mitt Romney fan! I honestly believe that this has happened all across America!
I was born in Venezuela, when I moved to the USA And learned American history the one thing that struck me that unlike citizens of other nations, Americans in the past have never allowed themselves to be slowly walked to the end of a cliff and pushed over. Americans fight, Americans stand up to the politicians who do not do the will of the people. I believe this is one of those times. It is time to stand up against Obama and ANY AND ALL politicians, regardless of party, who do not do the will of the people.
Politicians, have always feard the American voter, why should it stop now?!
Mitt Romney 2012!!!!
~Problem
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 2:44pm.
I don't care for this promise of Romney's because overturning a law with an EO is the kind of thing Obama does. We don't want to replace an arrogant dictator with another one just because we hope the second one will only do what we want. ObamaTax needs to be dealt with legislatively and Romney needs to get busy enforcing the laws that Obama hasn't, like immigration law and DOMA, lifting unlawful drilling moratoriums, and granting drilling permits.
And here we are....
Submitted by Jimbo on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 12:32pm.
Think for a moment about how history is repeating itself.
This situation is very similar to how England (substitute present day Federal Government) forced upon its colonies (substitute present day states) taxes to cover things they didn't want and for things they were not benefiting from like the expansion of the English empire across the globe (substitute Obamacare in states that opt out).
Or, if you prefer, in 1860 the States decided that the Federal Government exceeded the authority it was originally given by the founding fathers and began encroaching and nullifying the rights of the citizens of each state - each of which has its own constitution and laws voted on and enacted by the citizens of those states.
And here we are.....
It's my initial understanding
Submitted by metaphorsbwithu on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 12:09pm.
It's my initial understanding that this involves Medicaid expansion.
If you have reached a certain income level and do not purchase insurance you will be "taxed" at an ever-increasing rate until you say "Uncle!"
If you don't qualify for Medicaid you still have to submit to the federal government's mandate or pay up.
The way I see it, Obama would love fo you to pay the "tax" because it does not buy you healthcare and it would go to "insure" his base.
Of course I could be wrong.
Methaphor, Hmmm...yeah, I
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 12:28pm.
Methaphor,
Hmmm...yeah, I was reading that by 2016 the average Middle Class family who doesn't buy health insurance will pay a tax of $2,000!
So, yes, it looks like if a State decides to opt-out, the residents of the States can and will still be taxed!
Honestly, do the idiots on the Left, to Liberals not understand the huge Freedom that has been taken away from us?
I pray and hope that Republicans win both Houses of the legislature and the Mitt Romney wins in Novemeber 2012. If this happens, especially if we get Tea Party backed politicians, ObamaHeallCare will be gone in Feb. 2012!
Liberallies
Submitted by stratman on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 2:08pm.
The cost of the so-called "tax" could go much, much higher.
The article you linked is an rosy optimistic view. It is wrong. Roberts did not have to find for the government. Four of his colleagues did not. The SC itself did not need to bring in an attorney to argue the penalty was a tax. Roberts uses the word "tax" in a novel way because there is no value attached to the tax. The tax payer gets nothing in return. This breaks with the grammatical and legal definition of a tax. Roberts was playing an activistic judge making up new meanings out of whole cloth. Shame on him. There was no need for judicial tricks or trojan horses. Roberts made bad case law. Words have no meaning anymore.
Whatever the States decide to do with ObamaCare, the citizen will remain beholden to the regulations of ObamaCare. Federal government trumps the States in this instance. If you are not exempt and do not have insurance then you will be assessed a "tax". No insurance coverage is conferred by the "tax". You are just out money, but will have the pleasure of knowing you have helped pay for someone elses health care.
"My question is, if a State
Submitted by ckc1227 on Mon, 07/02/2012 - 1:07am.
"My question is, if a State decides not to participate in Obamacare, Wisconsin, Florida and others are saying they won't implement the Hellcare law, can the Federal government still tax you for not having healthcare insurance? anyone?"
Yes, it can. And if the states refuse to set up the exchanges, the feds will set them up for them.
"The Affordable Care Act requires states to have exchanges. A state has several options: It can build the exchange itself, or it can collaborate with the federal government to build it, or it can let the federal government run it. The state has to tell the feds what path it has decided to take by mid-November. If the state does not want to run its own exchange, or collaborate with the feds to run it, the feds will begin setting up the exchange themselves in January."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/bobby-jindals-big-blo...
The headline and story could have been more brief
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 11:40am.
CNN's Candy Crowley Doesn't Think
Using her logic, no law means anything because words are just "things" that are on paper.
Double
Submitted by Jimbo on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 11:44am.
Double
As always, Pelosi, Crowley,
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 11:47am.
As always, Pelosi, Crowley, other Left wing politicians and stupid journalists are counting on the ignorance of the people when they say, "It doesn't matter what the decision says, it only matters that it has been deemed constituitonal!" Geez, let me go to every single law school, judges court and tell them that. Stupid law school professors, why are they making their students read countless upon countless of SC decisions, including decents? the only thing that matters at the end is the final tally. (sarcasm off)
According to Crowley and Pelosi's logic, law schools, paralegal schools, law firms, judges should stop reading the decisions, including decents, of Justices because the ONLY thing that matters, according to this wackos, is whether it is constitutional or not.
Using Pelosi's logic, who cares how Dred Scott was decided, "it was constitutional!"
I swear the more one deals with Liberals the more one realizes that they lack logic and reason.
There isn't much of a difference.
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 12:10pm.
"It’s a tax, it’s a penalty, it’s a fine."
It's an additional burden on the middle class. A Rose by any other name...
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Don't care?
Submitted by Jimbo on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 12:59pm.
Not caring if Obamacare is a tax or a penalty is the same thing as not caring if the sky is blue or puke green. I guess if you don't care, well.... then you are comfortable going through life oblivious to your surroundings.
Gee, We're Sorry Candy,...
Submitted by BBallleaper on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 12:54pm.
but do the fact that your are grossly obese our death panel has decided that you are not a candidate for for any surgical or even medical treatment. Therefor, in the holy name of Barry Soetoro Hussein Dunham Barack O'Blame'O we hereby pronounce the death sentence upon you. Your bodily fats and oils will be rendered and made available to those starving in Detroit. May O'Blame'O have mercy upon your voluminous girth. Next case,...Eleanor Clift,....you are hereby charged by the O'Blame'O death panel as being terminally stupid and therefor it is necessary to end your miserable and ugly life. Would you prefer an overdose or being left to starve to death on the streets what used to be Chicago????????????????????? Next,.........................
Crowley
Submitted by Curly on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 1:05pm.
Go have some more dessert Candy....
Crowley's giving us a heads
Submitted by celator on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 1:30pm.
Crowley's giving us a heads up for what the MSM will be pounding on for weeks to come: tax or penalty, what's the diff?
So we know that the WH is worried about the tax issue just by hearing Crowley's strange view on the issue. ObamaCare as a tax will be a hard sell for the WH in a re-election year, impossible really. It's a stinking albatross around Obama's neck.
Romney is perfectly positioned to pound the bat snot out of ObamaCare as a HUGE tax on the citizenry. Will he do it effectively? Who knows?
The WH and D's lost the commerce clause piece and, was it Ginsburg or Sotomayor, (I forget) was incensed about that, and said so in her analysis. She knew the implications of that move!
So did Roberts knowingly drop a hand grenade in the middle of ObamaCare by saying it was a tax, and at the same time, close the door to the commerce clause excuse? Did he whittle the big wooden stake that will finally kill this legislative monster forever by stabbing it in the heart? We'll see.
Penalty? Tax? What's the difference?
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 2:05pm.
Most people won't care. For example, if we simply substituted the word "penalty" or similar phraseology on, say... oh, I don't know... the 1040 Form. Would anyone really notice? Would anyone really care?
Come on. We've got ObamaTax now and we've got several people to thank for it in November. It's about time we took on the Free-Riders anyway.
bk, I don't know my.... super serial number......lolz
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 3:02pm.
however I was looking for a spot to enter my Penalty ID number...
No worries, soon there will be mailer from the revenuers ...
You Didn't Build That.
Watch out Occupy, your next!
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 7:07pm.
Classic BK,
the same Bimbo asked
Submitted by ferv888 on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 2:50pm.
why companies sitting on 2 trillion were not hiring to Carly Fiorina.
Answer,they don't need them, their production matches demand. It is elementary Candy, it is called supply and demand. No liberal ever understands a company is not the welfare system, they have to make money, unlike a fool liberal.
BTW, Candy, you may soon discover that soon with CNN's ratings being in the toliet
PO
Supply and Demand
Submitted by Jimbo on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 2:52pm.
The liberal's understanding of supply and demand is "I demand that you supply me!"
The Ruing
Submitted by Crash on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 6:13pm.
Being that Obama's attorney argued that Obamacare is a tax and the supremes ruled on it as such, any denial would mean that Obama lied to the highest court in the land. Candy is not sophisticated enough to understand the game of chess.
Despite the fact that I hate
Submitted by Chris Norman on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 7:45pm.
Despite the fact that I hate this abomination of a decision as much as Crowley probably delights in it, I have to say, she's right. The average not-terribly-involve voter won't remember the distinction come November - all they'll remember is that it was declared "constitutional". Any conservative who seeks warmth and comfort in the ruling thinking that it will "limit" the interstate commerce clause is going to freeze to death.
Why does everything..........
Submitted by GregE on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 9:56pm.
.........Obama does have to be spun and explained as not what it is?
I see these and wonder if
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Mon, 07/02/2012 - 4:02am.
I see these and wonder if Christian Healthcare Ministries qualifies under a fed insurance. It has no defined benefits. It relies on God and God's people to pay the bills.
TOO LOGICAL!
Submitted by billb on Mon, 07/02/2012 - 11:40am.
You can determine the intelligence of the voter by the rhetoric they accept. Just like Pelozi promised, "we have to pass it to find out what's in it"
Unnecessary liberal complication works every time.
This the way it SHOULD work: Uninsured person appears at hospital, gets treated but can't pay. Check his ID. He's got No ID. Take his prints, I know he's got those. Better yet an eye scan. He then gets a payment plan which is also submitted to the IRS. Now THEY can collect the tax, penalty or whatever Roberts calls it.
Here's the hole in my plan: Obama/Holder will not track the deadbeat. They will treat the rest of us Americans the same way they treated the Americans in Arizona!
It's always easier to burden the honest among us.
Things should become a lot clearer 11/6/2012