[ExI] Warren Buffett is worried too and thinks Republicans are "asinine"

spike spike66 at att.net
Thu Oct 24 23:16:43 UTC 2013



>. On Behalf Of John Clark


>>>. If you buy something new that is very expensive and is not in the

>> .Then you scale it back, eliminate it 


>.It's too late for that, YOU ALREADY BOUGHT IT!



On the contrary John, for this is what the whole debate is all about.  The
house has never bought the ACA opt-out penalty as a tax.  Reasoning: the ACA
originated in the Senate and was passed into law on 30 March 2010, without a
single minority party vote.  Among the objections by the minority party was
that there is no authority in the constitution for requiring citizens to buy
health insurance, or anything else for that matter.  I have read it
carefully and I see not one word in there about the federal government
having the authority to require a purchase of any kind. The question started
working its way to the Supreme Court.  In November 2010, the minority party
became the majority of the legislature and gained control of the house of


In June 2012, the Supreme Court handed down a decision confirming what the
new majority party had said all along, that there is no constitutional
authority for the individual mandate.  (John have you found anything in
there which suggests to the contrary?  Where?)   However, they confirmed
that the individual mandate is legal if it is declared a tax, and the fed
can levy a tax under the 16th amendment.  So now all that remained was to
send an identical bill back to the house for ratification.  However, by that
time the house was controlled by the party which was in the minority party
when the bill originated in the Senate.  Under article 1 section 7 clause 1
of the constitution, all taxation and spending bills must originate in the


The bill was never sent back down to the house, for the house had already
voted to repeal or dismantle ObamaCare over twenty times between taking the
house and the SCOTUS decision.  They never bought it as a tax.  We haven't
already bought this John.  This is a tax bill which does not conform to the
requirements of article 1 section 7 clause 1.  We have never already bought
it and we are not already buying it now.


If you are now struggling with the temptation to write in all caps that the
US is obligated to pay for that which we already bought, keep repeating the
real truth: the ACA is a tax, a tax must originate in the house, the house
has never agreed to it as a tax.  We have not already bought the ACA.  We
still are not already buying it.  We are already rejecting it, repeatedly.


This constitutional clause is not merely a technicality for it has enormous
implications, besides the obvious one that collecting a tax penalty for
opting out is illegal.  Declaring the opt-out penalty a tax would place the
collection authority with the IRS.  Note that there is an opt-out tax,
however the IRS does not have the authority to collect it.  They can (and
will) withhold the penalty for opt-out if you have a refund coming, but it
is easy to adjust tax withholdings to make sure you do not have a tax
refund, or if so only a small one, single digit dollars.  Then one would owe
the IRS the opt-out penalty, if the IRS had the authority to bill you for
that.  But it does not.  Reason: tax bills must originate in the house.
This one did not, so they didn't legally authorize the IRS to collect that
which had not yet been declared a tax.


So.  There is a theoretical opt-out tax penalty, but it is actually a
voluntary contribution.  The IRS cannot punish a citizen for not paying a
tax which it lacks the authority to collect.


All this being said, all is not lost, for even Tea Party people would agree
there are socially redeeming qualities.  The next step would be to extend a
temporary exemption for everyone to O-care until the legislature passes a
constitutional amendment specifically granting the federal government the
authority to collect a penalty for opting out.  If we get that, then we can
stop calling the ACA opt-out a tax, and the whole scheme is not subject to
repeated rejection by the house.


Another suggestion is that we use the same constitutional authority granted
by the constitution to raise and provision an army, then give us hapless
draftees the option to not serve in the military if we buy health insurance.
Buying one's way out of the army was used during the civil war.  The draft
has been repeatedly challenged and found constitutional.  Then it wouldn't
be repeatedly pounded on by the house of representatives, under whose
purview is all taxation, and has voted to repeal the ACA 46 times in just
the past two years.  So draft all Americans, both genders, between the ages
of 18 and 65 inclusive, with the provision that we can buy our way out
yearly with a valid approved health insurance policy.  




>>.government spending must match revenue


>.No Spike,  government expenditures don't have to match revenue.

In the long run, it must.  Otherwise we end up where we are.

>.usually they don't.

Tragically so.

>. and very often they shouldn't.

On the contrary, they should very often, nearly always.  Times of war are
temporary exceptions.  But it must be a real war, not the phony stuff our
president tried to start in Syria a few weeks ago.

>. But to avoid disaster governments had better pay their bills. Always.
John K Clark

The ACA isn't our bill yet.  It isn't our bill until either a constitutional
amendment is passed allowing the government to require citizens to purchase
health insurance, or an opt-out tax is originated in the house in accordance
with constitutional requirements.


Now, isn't that simple John?




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20131024/7987369c/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list