- 600,000 Americans – Who Live In Families That Earn Less Than The Federal Poverty Level Of $24,600 Per Year – Will Be Subjected To The Individual Mandate Tax In Obamacare. (“Payments Of Penalties For Being Uninsured Under The Affordable Care Act,” Congressional Budget Office, 9/12)
- 1.2 Million Americans – Who Live In Families That Earn Between $24,600 And $49,200 Per Year – Will Be Subjected To The Individual Mandate Tax In Obamacare. (“Payments Of Penalties For Being Uninsured Under The Affordable Care Act,” Congressional Budget Office, 9/12)
- 1.2 Million Americans – Who Live In Families That Earn Between $49,200 And $73,800 Per Year – Will Be Subjected To The Individual Mandate Tax In Obamacare. (“Payments Of Penalties For Being Uninsured Under The Affordable Care Act,” Congressional Budget Office, 9/12)
- 1.1 Million Americans – Who Live In Families That Earn Between $73,800 And $98,400 Per Year – Will Be Subjected To The Individual Mandate Tax In Obamacare. (“Payments Of Penalties For Being Uninsured Under The Affordable Care Act,” Congressional Budget Office, 9/12)
- 600,000 Americans – Who Live In Families That Earn Between $98,400 And $123,000 Per Year – Will Be Subjected To The Individual Mandate Tax In Obamacare. (“Payments Of Penalties For Being Uninsured Under The Affordable Care Act,” Congressional Budget Office, 9/12)
- During Debates Over Obamacare, The Obama White House Emphasized That President Obama’s Middle-Class Tax Pledge “Didn’t Come With Caveats.” REPORTER: “The President’s opposition to tax increases for the middle income. Does that apply to the health care bill, and specifically to this idea about taxing health insurance premiums?” ROBERT GIBBS: “Taxing?” REPORTER: “Health insurance premiums.” GIBBS: “Well, I mean it’s — the statement didn’t come with caveats.” (Press Briefing By Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, Washington, D.C., 4/15/09)
Usually when I hear the folks over at the Obama campaign speaking, it takes a matter of minutes and a good internet connection to recognize that what is coming out of their mouths is a slew of lies. They lie so often, it’s commonplace.
While it may mean the freezing over of the seventh circle of hell is inevitable now, as is the aerial ability of swine, the Obama campaign finally had to tell the truth. How sad it is that the truth meant admitting they had been lying, and lying rather blatantly.
Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki acknowledged Thursday that the campaign was no longer pleading ignorance about the story of a man who has appeared in both a super PAC ad and a campaign ad.
“No one is denying he was in one of our campaign ads. He was on a conference call telling his story,” Psaki told reporters on Air Force One.
Missouri steelworker Joe Soptic starred in an Obama campaign ad and participated in a conference call with the campaign in May, as POLITICO reported Wednesday. He resurfaced this week in a Priorities USA Action super PAC ad, charging that his wife died of cancer after Mitt Romney’s former private equity firm laid him off.
Distancing themselves from the controversial ad, Obama campaign staffers initially denied knowledge of Soptic’s story — despite the fact that he was in an Obama campaign ad.
Adviser Robert Gibbs said he didn’t know “specifics,” while deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said on CNN: “I don’t know the facts about when Mr. Soptic’s wife got sick or the facts about his health insurance.”
And yesterday on Air Force One, Psaki said, “we don’t have any knowledge of the story of the family.”
As a reminder, this is an ad that Brent Budowsky of the Hill said:
“It is sickening. It is despicable. It is unworthy of a sitting president. It is unworthy of a candidate for president. It is unworthy even of the campaign from hell we are witnessing.”
It is all of these things and more. The question now is the same thing we would ask our kids in a similar situation – What is worse, the act itself, or the lies trying to cover it up?
Should we really be questioning and reprimanding the President of the United States as if he were a child?
As a reminder, here is the disgraceful ad in question, which itself has been debunked as a lie…
Call it a penalty, call it a tax. Call it a “penalty tax” as the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has.
Call it what you will, we’ll just call it ‘devastating’.
Beltway Confidential reports:
President Obama’s health care law raises taxes by $1 trillion, according to a new report from the Congressional Budget Office.
The individual mandate — which the CBO calls a “penalty tax,” in apparent deference to Chief Justice John Roberts — will produce $55 billion in “penalty payments by uninsured individuals,” the CBO told House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, in a Tuesday letter. Of course, the framers of the law didn’t design the mandate as a tax, and so it produces less revenue than any other provision in the bill.
The “additional hospital insurance tax” is the largest tax increase in Obamacare, projected to bring in $318 billion in new revenues. According to the 2010 report from the Journal of Accountancy, this tax hits “high-income tax payers” — individuals making over $125,000 a year or households making over $250,000 a year.
It may hit so-called high-income tax payers, but it will most certainly have an effect on lower-income families as well.
This from the Tax Policy Blog:
Though Obama vowed not to raise taxes on low-to-middle income Americans, various provisions will most certainly fall on lower income groups. For example, new annual taxes on health insurance providers, drug manufacturers, and the medical device industry will be passed on to all consumers in the form of higher prices and premiums. More direct are new taxes on high-cost “Cadillac” health plans, the tax on tanning services that is already in effect, and the individual mandate tax/penalty.
Regarding the tax/penalty for not purchasing health insurance, my analysis indicates that many low and middle-income households will experience tax increases of substantial magnitude. For example, starting in 2016, an uninsured family of four with income of $50,000 will owe $2,085—or 4.17 percent of income. As shown in the table above, the individual mandate represents a $55 billion tax increase over 10 years, and this is before it is fully phased in.
With high- and low-income earners alike having to worry about massive tax increases, the Obamatax should do wonders for the economy, particularly in the areas of spending and consumer confidence.
Here is a video reminder of Obama saying, “You don’t raise taxes in a recession”.
Just another sobering reminder that the President’s healthcare plan is a burden on people at every income level. While the administration would like to play semantics on calling it a penalty, the rest of the nation, in light of the recent Supreme Court decision, recognizes the massive tax implications of Obamacare – and now we’re learning that the effects will be economically devastating on one class in particular that the President claims to be a champion for … the poor.
The Daily Caller reports:
The penalty imposed by the Affordable Care Act on citizens who elect not to purchase health insurance will be at least $1,000 for most people, and more than $12,000 for high-income earners, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.
“We can see that this is a big tax, particularly on the poor,” writes the Tax Foundation’s William McBride. “Higher income families generally pay a higher amount, but actually a smaller percent of their income, making this a regressive tax.”
For example, the penalty for a family of four earning $20,000 will be $2,085, more than 10 percent of its income, according to the Tax Foundation — whereas a family of four making $100,000 will only have two percent of its income taken away by the government.
A regressive tax for a regressive regime. Why the War on the Poor, Mr. President?
The report then goes on to say that implementation of the individual mandate would have a negative impact on the economy, with people trying to shield their income from the new tax by “working less”.
An unemployment rate at 8.2%, an underemployment rate at nearly 15%, and the implementation of the President’s healthcare plan is going to cause people to ‘work less’ to avoid paying more.
Aren’t people already working less because of the President’s economic policies?
Obama. Isn’t. Working.
In Response to Obamacare Sham, Congressman Introduces Constitutional Amendment to Stop Bait and Switch Practices
Rep. Ben Quayle (R-AZ) introduced a constitutional amendment late last week, that would require Congress to clearly label new taxes in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling that Obamacare could be upheld based on it’s nature as a tax – something the President vehemently denied during the sales pitch.
“Most Americans figured out long ago that President Obama had attempted to sell them a bill of goods with Obamacare. Yesterday, the Supreme Court confirmed it. The President stated clearly, and on multiple occasions that the individual mandate was not a tax as he sold it to Congress and the American people. However, he was more than happy to see the Supreme Court uphold the law on the basis that it is in fact a tax.
“My amendment requires that all taxes levied by Congress be labeled honestly and openly as taxes during the legislative process. The American people deserve to know the full implications and consequences of legislation passed by Congress. Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision illustrated plainly the dangers of deceptive labeling by our leaders.”
How the amendment would force governing bodies to actually tell the truth is unclear.
Since the Supreme Court ruling which clearly stated that Obamacare could only be upheld under Congress’s authority to tax, multiple members of the administration have continued to declare that it is still not a tax. Chief of Staff Jack Lew, Press Secretary Jay Carney, and Nancy Pelosi to name a few, have continued to lie to the public, essentially trying to convince Americans that the sky is not blue.
Bottom line – Obama argued that it is most definitely not a tax, then sent his lawyers in to argue that it was a tax, the Supreme Court agreed, calling it a tax, and now the President is back to insisting it is not a tax.
Followed that right? It’s not easy to keep a web of lies from getting tangled.
Unless you’re the President. Lying comes second-nature to this administration.
“I absolutely reject” the notion that the individual mandate is a tax.
“… for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.”
“That’s not a tax increase…”
“… you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase.”
And now, the latest from Mister Smith Media…
Though there are people far more qualified to debate the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare, we’d be remiss in not mentioning it all.
Via Doug Powers:
Yikes. Obamacare upheld almost in its entirety:
“The mandate is constitutional. Chief Justice Roberts joins the left of the Court.”
“The Medicaid provision is limited but not invalidated.”
“The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government’s power to terminate states’ Medicaid funds is narrowly read.”
The mandate survives “as a tax.” That should help the middle class dig out of the recession.
Here’s the thing – this is a defeat for conservatives in many ways. That said, any chance Obama had of seeing voters sit on the sideline because they can’t get behind Romney is gone.
It also gives Republicans running in 2012 a new talking point – not only is this a massive expansion of government power, but it is being implemented via a massive tax.
Doubt that this will be a rallying cry? Team Romneycare has already raised $200k since the decision mere minutes ago.
In the meantime, here’s a friendly reminder that the President himself insisted that the individual mandate is not a tax.
Transcript via ABC News:
STEPHANOPOULOS: …during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?
OBAMA: Well, hold on a second, George. Here — here’s what’s happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average — our families — in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I’ve said is that if you can’t afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn’t be punished for that. That’s just piling on. If, on the other hand, we’re giving tax credits, we’ve set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we’ve driven down the costs, we’ve done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you’ve just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that’s…
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. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy…
OBAMA: No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase. Any…
STEPHANOPOULOS: Here’s the…
OBAMA: What — what — if I — if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that’s not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don’t want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then…
STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”
OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what…
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but…
OBAMA: …what you’re saying is…
STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.
OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?
OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.
Well Mr. President, you now have no choice but to accept that notion. You’ve just implemented one of the biggest tax burdens in American history. Own it.
Meanwhile, expect the Tea Party to be back in business in the coming months.
We’ll see you in November.
It started this morning with a lawsuit announced by the University of Notre Dame…
Via the AP through Weasel Zippers:
The University of Notre Dame is suing Obama administration officials over the mandate requiring most employers to cover birth control.
The school said Monday that the mandate violates religious freedom by requiring many religiously affiliated hospitals, schools and charities to comply. President Barack Obama offered to soften the mandate to accommodate religious groups, but U.S. Roman Catholic bishops say the change doesn’t go far enough.
Other religious colleges are already suing the Health and Human Service agency and administration officials over the mandate. Still, observers had been closely watching for Notre Dame’s next step.
The university is the most prominent Roman Catholic school in the country. Notre Dame came under then unprecedented criticism from U.S. bishops and others in 2009 for inviting Obama as commencement speaker. Obama supports abortion rights.
Then we learned that dozens of other Catholic organizations were joining the fight. There was an announcement that Cardinal Dolan of New York, and Cardinal Wuerl of D.C., had joined 40 other dioceses in a lawsuit against the Obama administration.
Via CNS News:
The Archdiocese of New York, headed by Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., headed by Cardinal Donald Wuerl, the University of Notre Dame, and 40 other Catholic dioceses and organizations around the country announced on Monday that they are suing the Obama administration for violating their freedom of religion, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
The dioceses and organizations, in different combinations, are filing 12 different lawsuits filed in federal courts around the country.
The Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. has established a special website–preservereligiousfreedom.org–to explain its lawsuit and present news and developments concerning it.
“This lawsuit is about an unprecedented attack by the federal government on one of America’s most cherished freedoms: the freedom to practice one’s religion without government interference,” the archdiocese says on the website. “It is not about whether people have access to certain services; it is about whether the government may force religious institutions and individuals to facilitate and fund services which violate their religious beliefs.”
The suits filed by the Catholic organizations focus on the regulation that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced last August and finalized in January that requires virtually all health-care plans in the United States to cover sterilizations and all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives, including those that can cause abortions.
Mitt Romney has to be thrilled that President Obama is helping to galvanize Catholic voters behind the Republican.
But, but, if you like your insurance you can keep it! Wait, no?
Via Fox News:
A Catholic university in Ohio said Tuesday it is being forced to end a student health insurance program over the Obama administration’s contraception mandate and costs associated with other provisions of the health care overhaul.
Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio, said it has so far excluded contraceptive services and products from its health insurance policy for students and will not participate in a plan that “requires us to violate the consistent teachings of the Catholic Church on the sacredness of human life.”
In its decision to drop coverage, the school cited the contraception mandate, but also a requirement that the maximum coverage amount be increased to $100,000 for policyholders — claiming that would have made premiums skyrocket. A university official told Fox News Radio the students’ basic $600 policy was going to double in cost in the fall and triple next year and that the school’s insurance provider said the increases were the result of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Say, isn’t the word ‘affordable’ in the name of the bill? We had to pass it to find out what was in it, and it turns out the title wasn’t even accurate?
Todd Starnes has the following quotes from a university representative:
“This is putting people in a position where they are having to choose between their faith and their morality — and now an unjust cost,” said Mike Hernon, vice president of advancement.
“These sorts of regulations from the government are forcing our hand in a way that’s really wrong.” Hernon said students must have insurance – either through their parent’s policy or through the university’s basic plan. The plan currently costs approximately $600 per year. However, Hernon said their health care provider informed them that under Obamacare, the policy would double in price to $1,200 and the following year it would triple.
“We couldn’t believe the price (increase),” he told Fox News. “We had them go back and reconfirm it. They said it was dictated by coverage limits that were released by the Obama administration.”
“At the end of the day, it’s the students who are hurt by this,” he said.
Now the argument becomes literal – repeal Obamacare, do it for the children.