GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Supreme Court: Obama raises taxes on middle class

by

The U.S. Supreme Court today upheld the mandate to purchase health insurance as a tax.

“As an exercise of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause,” writes the Washington Examiner’s David Freddoso, “the individual mandate does not hold water. But under Congress’s taxing power, it is a legitimate provision.”

My quick analysis. Pyrrhic victory for Obama. He’ll have a few good days. Vote holding Eric Holder in contempt won’t get much media coverage.  But, decision could prove to be political headache for the president.  The court may have found the law constitutional, but it remains unpopular.  Mitt Romney will be able to use this against him:  the only way to repeal this law is to replace Obama.

So, if Obama celebrates the decision, he’ll be acknowledging that he broke this campaign promise:

UPDATE: Walter Olson offers a roundup of his tweets here.  Glenn has a great roundup here; seems others bloggers/blogresses have offered titles similar to my own.

Ann Althouse is more sanguine than are most conservatives, having “said repeatedly that Obama would be worse off if Obamacare were upheld, but what I’m really seeing is how bad it is for him with the mandate declared a tax.”

UP-UPDATE:  From Ira Stoll, linked by Glenn above:

By calling the mandate a tax, the court made an official ruling that President Obama had violated his 2008 campaign promise not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 a year. And the ruling also keeps ObamaCare alive as a political issue. A ruling that struck down the law might have energized Obama supporters. This ruling may make the law’s opponents even more determined to elect a Republican president and Congress so that they can repeal the law or, failing that, defund it.

UP–UP-UPDATE: “The Supreme Court,” quips Jim Geraghty, “just gave Mitt Romney a very, very useful line: ‘As President, I will repeal President Obama’s health care tax.’”

FROM THE COMMENTS:  boatseller forecasts that “in about 4 weeks, liberal bloggers are going to start chattering about a conspiracy between Justice Roberts and the Romney campaign to uphold the law in order to hurt the President.”  Heh.

Comments

  1. Obama was super emphatic, that the mandate “absolutely” was not a tax: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mqjmCX5b6VI (h/t Patterico)

    That Obama should be a giant liar, is no surprise. But there’s the fact.

    What I find disturbing, on present information, about the SCOTUS decision is:

    1) Their activism in justifying a law on grounds that its framers had rejected so emphatically.

    2) Where’s the limitation on government power? Can’t any federal government mandate, that has a financial penalty built in, now be justified under the government’s taxing power?

    I haven’t read the SCOTUS decision yet. If my worst fears on point (2) prove to be correct, SCOTUS would have just destroyed the Constitution by giving the government unlimited power to mandate private activities.

  2. As to political effects: I think it’s bad for Obama in the end, because it means that (under Obamacare) the economy will continue to stagnate. In addition to Althouse’s tart observation:

    Remember the Democrats got the statute passed by insisting it was not a tax. Now, we learn it is only constitutional because it is a tax.

  4. The court may have found the law constitutional, but it remains unpopular. Mitt Romney will be able to use this against him: the only way to repeal this law is to replace Obama

    I expect the poll numbers will reverse a bit with this decision. And ILC, Mit is very compromised on this because of his own health care initiative, which, as luck would have, was used as the model for Obamacare. With this court decision today, that contradiction is going to be even harder to weasel out of.

  5. Sonic, I disagree totally. Given the conservative reaction to the decision, all Romney need do is what he has done–say he’ll repeal the law. Won’t hurt him a bit.

    You may be right about poll numbers ticking up, but with the decision making clear that the law imposes a tax, Americans might be even less likely to support it.

  6. I knew when SCOTUS delayed the Obamacare decision until the end of the week, they were probably going to stab the American people in the back. I was right! Now we know that five Justices are pawns for Obama and the corporate lobbyists. Neither Democrats nor Republicans can be trusted to keep corporations out of our pockets! I’m voting for Governor Gary Johnson.

  7. Actually, calling Obama a liar regarding this aspect is a bit inaccurate. He didn’t say it was a tax, the SCOTUS (specifically, John Roberts?) said it was.

    Which is really a whole other ball of wax in my estimation; as justices, I am unsure how they can decide ‘what’ something is that’s being presented to them. The mandate wasn’t being presented as a tax, so it shouldn’t have been judged on that premise.

    It’s not unlike a defending attorney admitting that their client had a knife. The attorney then presents the knife as evidence, and then the judge arbitrarily decides that it’s not a knife, it’s a toothpick, so the defendant wasn’t carrying a weapon.

    Does that make the defending attorney a liar; or the judge an ignoramus?

  8. Sonic, I disagree totally. Given the conservative reaction to the decision, all Romney need do is what he has done–say he’ll repeal the law. Won’t hurt him a bit.

    Given his past history of working with Democrats while he was governor, does that sound realistic, credible? It reminds me too much of GW’s promise to reform base-line budgeting. To my ear, Romneys pledge to repeal Obamacare sounds like just another talking point to get elected.

  9. Sonic, given his campaign rhetoric, Romney has no choice but to repeal it.

    Not just that, if he wins, he’ll have GOP majorities in both houses. They will pass the bill.

    And he won’t need 60 Republican votes in the Senate: do you think vulnerable Democratic Senators in “red” states will filibuster repeal?

  11. One more thing – The hatred of a law the court has ruled Constitutional has only so much power.

    Look at how much liberals revile Citizens United. They HATE it, with a passion! But, even though the President went as far as to scold the justices in his first SOTUA, and has railed against it for the last 3 plus years, it’s never been much of a pull for the Dems to unite around him. Because it was a loss. As a rule losing these kinds of decisions tends not to bolster those who are on the fence. Sure, it will unify the base of the opposition, but it’s going to unify his base even more. This decision, because he can say he was right and Conservatives were wrong, provides him that opportunity.

    Look for the Dems to start opening their wallets and finally start donating, because, to them, this President may be a winner after all.

  12. The problem for Obamacare supporters is that the law has never been loved. It’s sort of been less of a political issue since it became a court issue, but as of this morning, it is once again front and center as a political issue, and I’m not sure that Obamacare supporters have given much more thought as to how to win over hearts and minds to support it.

    While this is going to be a huge issue in the presidential race, I think it will be an even bigger issue in senatorial races, where candidates are judged almost entirely on how they will vote on laws and not so much on personal charisma, ability to conduct sound foreign policy, and other aspects that may help Obama to beat Romney. (To be sure, I think Romney will win easily, but I don’t think a Romney win is at all certain.) If Obamacare had died today, a decent number of senate races would be an established, nominally popular Democratic incumbent against a relatively unknown Republican, but now these races will in many ways become proxy votes for or against Obamacare. Now, Democrats won’t only have to defend their Obamacare vote but also state that they will vote for its continued existence come 2013. A vote against Democrats now isn’t simply an expression of disapproval of a past vote for Obamacare but is a vote against someone who may refuse to dismantle Obamacare in the future. Of course, there may be some Democrats that run from Obamacare and make some sort of promise to vote for significant changes in Obamacare. Not that I think such promises should be trusted, but it will be interesting to watch who among Democrats stands behind Obamacare and who jumps ship.

  13. The problem for Obamacare supporters is that the law has never been loved.

    Chad, very well put. The roll-out of the thing was maybe to worst I’ve ever seen in my lifetime… “We have to pass the bill so you can see what is init”????? Jeez!!!! It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few weeks.

  15. Sandhorse :
    “Actually, calling Obama a liar regarding this aspect is a bit inaccurate. He didn’t say it was a tax, the SCOTUS (specifically, John Roberts?) said it was.”

    So, the most brilliant constitutional scholar the world has ever known can’t tell the difference between a tax and a penalty? Is that the position you want to go with? That position doesn’t say much for your credibility.

  16. [Obama] didn’t say it was a tax

    That’s the point. SCOTUS has just ruled: sorry, dude, it was and is a tax. So, Obama spoke falsely. Was his falsehood intentional (i.e., he knew all along it was a tax), making it a lie? Or was Obama just stupid? Those are the choices.

  17. Chill out Tnns,

    What Obama says it is and what Justice Roberts says it is has nothing to do with what I believe it to be. I didn’t express an opinion either way.

    My credibility was not up for debate, and the ‘liar’ point was really the MINOR point in my comment.

    If the mandate portion of this bill was passed under the premise that it wasn’t a tax, then it should have been deemed unconstitutional. Because unless it is a tax, (something Obama adamantly denied) then it could not be imposed upon us as citizens.

    Justice Roberts took what was presented as not a tax and, in order to allow it to meet constitutional strictures, called it a tax and allowed it to pass.

    It might very well be a tax, (I would say it is), but that isn’t what it was presented as and that was not what I believe Justice Roberts was intended to address. He was to consider whether the populous could be made to pay something (even if it’s, ‘not a tax’).

    Put another way, he wasn’t being asked if this WAS a tax or WASN’T, he was being asked if Congress could force people to buy something.

  18. I about 4 weeks, liberal bloggers are going to start chattering about a conspiracy between Justice Roberts and the Romney campaign to uphold the law in order to hurt the President.

  19. ILC,

    I would go with option number B, (Obama just stupid), but in your original post @ 1 you didn’t give that option.

    Having reread that post, I would say we are in agreement in regards to your first point.

    “…justifying a law on grounds that its framers had rejected so emphatically.”

    This was not tax legislation; it was healthcare legislation (as per the proponents of the bill). It should have been weighed within that outline only.

    I try to use the term ‘judicial activism’ sparingly, but in this case I don’t see how it can be denied.

  23. Haven’t we heard a lot in the past about the lapses in quality at various VA hospitals? The Romney team should start running ads highlighting that and explaining that this is the future of everyone’s healthcare.