Is Chief Justice Roberts Souter Redux?
Commentary by Sanford D. HornJune 30, 2012
In an 11th hour twist seen by most so-called
experts and pundits as unexpected, the Affordable Health Care Act, a.k.a. Obama
Care, has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court. The individual mandate
has been declared constitutional in a five to four decision authored by none
other than Chief Justice John Roberts.
Roberts, a heretofore reliable conservative appointed by
former President George W. Bush, wrote in his majority opinion, that while the
individual mandate did not stand up to the constitutional smell test under
either the Commerce Clause or the necessary and Proper Clause, it did however,
pass muster as a tax.
Slice and dice it six ways from Sunday, this
irresponsible decision by a feckless majority of the high court’s jurists, has
given the federal government carte blanche to dictate medical decisions over
the states and over the American people. Siding with Roberts are the usual
liberal suspects: Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and
Sonia Sotomayor. The four dissenting justices were Samuel Alito, Anthony
Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
With Roberts, there is the eerily similar turn a la
former Justice David Souter, a 1990 appointment of President George H. W. Bush.
Souter seen as a conservative became a reliable liberal jurist on the high
court until his retirement in 2009. Will Roberts follow Souter as another Bush
appointment to disappoint? Or will this landmark decision simply prove to be an
aberration? Time will tell.
Regardless of how the individual mandate crossed the
finish line, this is largely seen as a victory for the Obama administration. This
has been his signature piece of legislation defining his term thus far. Largely
seen, because the administration must now defend the largest tax increase in
the history of the republic.
Yet, the so-called Affordable Health Care Act has been repeatedly
defended by Obama saying, “This is absolutely not a tax increase.” His campaign
mantra in 2008 had been that “taxes would not be raised by one thin dime.”
The federal government now has the constitutional
authority to levy a tax on those people who chose not to purchase a health
insurance policy. The American people can now be punished for opting not to buy
something.
For adults with no coverage this translates into one
percent of one’s income or $95 in 2014; two percent or $325 in 2015 and two and
a half percent or $695 in 2016. Notice how the taxing penalties don’t take
effect until after the 2012 presidential election? Wonder why? Wonder no more.
According to The
Indianapolis Star “The IRS can’t prosecute violators or place liens against
them; its only enforcement option may be withholding money from refunds.” (June
29, 2012; A-1)
Here’s a damn good suggestion folks: adjust your
withholding by amending the W-4 form filed with employers. Have less money
deducted from paychecks so there won’t be a refund coming to you the following
April. This will do two positive things: put more money in your pockets every
pay period and deny the federal government an interest free loan given them by
overpaying your taxes. Sure, you may have to write a check to the IRS in April,
but, better that than the possibility of the government stealing your refund
because you choose not to purchase a product the government is forcing you to
buy.
The Roberts’ Court decision on health care is precedent
setting in that the federal government can now potentially mandate that we the
people should be forced to buy a certain brand of vehicle that suits the
administrations’ green agenda. Or perhaps a future Republican administration
wishes to mandate that everyone must purchase a firearm to help keep police
costs at bay.
Another disturbing aspect of the government seizure of
health care is that it is about to hire an additional 16,000 IRS agents to
enforce this legislation, proving that it is in fact, a tax. After all, the IRS
is in the business of collecting taxes. This is more money spent, that we the people
are funding, when the government is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy.
Not only do a majority of the American people oppose
Obama Care – the tax, but the medical profession is widely against it, many
suggesting they will not be able to afford to keep their practices open. Costs
will surely rise and fewer qualified doctors will remain in the profession.
Obama will need to defend this largest tax increase in
American history in his campaign for reelection against former Massachusetts Governor
Mitt Romney. How will he juxtapose his campaign rhetoric of 2008 imploring
voters that anyone earning less than $250,000 would not see a tax increase with
an acknowledgement from the Supreme Court that Obama’s victory is a tax? That
figure then became $200,000.
In reality, Obama Care will institute more than a
trillion dollars in new taxes – 75 percent of which to be paid by those earning
less than $120,000 and 50 percent of that to be incurred by those brining home
between $25,000 and $75,000.
This must not be allowed to stand. In order to generate a
repeal of the Affordable Health Care Act, a simple majority in Congress is
required in what is known as a reconciliation vote. That would necessitate a
minimum of 218 votes to overturn a tax, a.k.a. a budget item. The Republicans
must gain a majority in the Senate in order to support their Congressional
brethren, should this come down to a partisan vote, which it almost guarantees
to do.
This is an attack on the liberty of a free people whose
freedoms are eroding partly due to the expediency of entitlements and partly
due to a lack of knowledge of American History and the Constitution. If we do
not save ourselves, who will?
Sanford D. Horn is
a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.
No comments:
Post a Comment