If you recall, one of the most steadfast public positions of the Democrats and the Obama White House during the health care debate was that the legislation did not constitute a tax. President Barach Obama expressly denied that the legislation was a tax in pushing for its approval. Now, however, his administration is seeking to defend the law on the basis that it is . . . you guessed it . . . a tax.
The Obama Administration has been repeatedly criticized for saying things to the public and then saying different things in court. Civil libertarians have denounced the Administration for not only fighting to preserve Bush-era doctrines but actually expanding on those doctrines in court in the areas of surveillance, torture, and terrorism.
The Administration is defending the new law as part of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.” It is the strongest possible basis for defending the law (and was used to justify the social security law), but it happens to contradict what both Democratic leaders, including President Obama, told the public.
Just last September, George Stephanopoulos specifically challenged the President on his denial that the legislation was a tax on ABC News program “This Week.” Stephanopoulos observed that the legislation seemed to be clearly a tax by any definition. Obama replied strongly “I absolutely reject that notion.”
Here is the exchange:
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.
I remain a bit unclear why the President believes that looking up a term in a dictionary must mean “you’re stretching a little bit right now.” Now, of course, you can simply look it up in the Administration’s brief.
While once defined as a “penalty,” the cost of being uninsured is now embraced as a tax that is expected to raise $4 billion a year by 2017, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
I previously wrote this prior column on the serious federalism concerns raised by the new legislation.
Source: NY Times
Byron,
To answer your question for Slarti…
Look at that glowing box in front of you.
See that exchange of information going on between individuals on different parts of the country?
I’d say that’s a pretty big one.
Slarti,
“It looks to me like Jill pointed out a mighty slippery slope you’re standing on” . . .
I certainly hope so. Our bulldog-ish friend is about due for a good tail catching. 😀
Jill said:
“Once you’ve said there’s a role for govt. in any aspect of human society you’ve made a moral choice.”
Great point.
Bryon,
It looks to me like Jill pointed out a mighty slippery slope you’re standing on – in light of our off-blog conversation, might I suggest environmental protection as an example of another area where government should intervene for the common good.
Byron said:
“what was developed by universities that had practical applications?”
A system of investigating the universe unequaled in human history which has brought us to the age of technological marvels (and, yes, nightmares) in which we live today. If you would like a specific example – you’re using it right now! (That would be the internet.) Most scientific and technological breakthroughs weren’t profitable when they occurred (we knew about DNA for a long time before we were able to produce genetically engineered corn) – because they were discovered in a framework which promotes the free and open exchange of ideas, businesses had access to use the results of research to make money. You seem to want to treat the patient by cutting off his head in order to cure a hangnail he doesn’t have.
Byron snarked: 😉
I posted a few items created by the private sector one of which was Velcro. I understand you were pretty upset about that. 🙂
And as I said, my point is still valid since velcro became a commercial success as a direct result of its widespread use by NASA (hence the apocryphal story…). 😛
Slarti:
what was developed by universities that had practical applications?
I posted a few items created by the private sector one of which was Velcro. I understand you were pretty upset about that. 🙂
Byron,
What you’re missing is the scientific and technological explosion after WWII. (Which I happen to think is a pretty good thing…)
Buddha:
I was just using a 50 year period, you could just as easily look at it from the end of reconstruction to say 1920.
But I used 1915 because in my mind the creation of the income tax and the federal reserve are an important moment in history. A delineation if you will.
and yes I know the dates are a few years prior.
Elaine:
I think he wrote the book in 1991. The book is a look at the various types of businessmen from that era a comparison and contrast between those that became wealthy by individual effort and those that relied on government to aid them.
He is a Prof. at Hillsdale College in Michigan.
from wiki:
“Folsom is a former associate of the Free Enterprise Institute and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, both free market think tanks, and a frequent guest of the libertarian organization Foundation for Economic Education.”
Thank you Byron. I will read your link!
Jill:
I like seeing what other people are talking about, I don’t disagree with all that is written here and think you [pl] are correct about Sarah Palin, religion [for the most part], gay marriage, race, and other issues. I do believe that government is necessary and so I am not really a Libertarian, but that it needs to be very limited in scope and should only be used to defend individual rights from other individuals or from the mob.
I dont know much about libertarians so Puzzling might be a better person to ask.
here is a very good essay on the law that, in my mind, is well worth the read:
http://www.fee.org/pdf/books/The_Law.pdf
Byron,
1865 to 1915? The Reconstruction? Really?
You point to a period in American history where all our resources were being co-opted to rebuild from what was probably the most destructive war (relatively speaking) in US history. We were lagging behind both Great Britain and Germany in basic sciences because our educational institutions were either destroyed, devoid of students due to the war or geared toward military training. If Americans wanted a science education (or damn near any other education) they had to go to Europe. The only American scientist of note during the period was Josiah Willard Gibbs who did some groundbreaking work in chemical thermodynamics from 1876 to 1878.
Other than that? America was a bloody, backwoods mess.
Byron,
Is Burton W. Folsom, author of “The Myth of the Robbers Barons,”
affiliated with the Foundation for Economic Education, a free-market organization, and the Claremont Institute–a conservative think tank that, earlier this year, gave “their coveted Statesmanship Award” to former VP Dick Cheney?
Check this out:
The Claremont Institute Honors Vice President Dick Cheney At Its 30th Anniversary Gala
http://www.flashreport.org/commentary0b.php?postID=2010032902083203
“I’ll bet a dollar . . .”
Being a dollar is a whole other proposition.
Slarti,
I’ve been holding off on using that Manhattan card, but in the world of trump cards, that one is a biggie.
Byron,
Oh yeah. You’re going to get the best ideas when everyone is competing versus the academic (as Slarti pointed out) where open exchange is the normal mode of operation. Not. Seriously, there is bias showing in this conversation, but it isn’t coming from me.
Jill,
One really must give Byron credit. He’s a scrapper. A confused scrapper at times, but a scrapper none the less. Good luck with your question. I’ll be a dollar this ends with him arguing something along the semantic line of “general welfare not meaning what people today thinks it means”. (We had a similar run during your absence. 😉 But like a dog chasing his tail, every so often he catches it. :D)
Slarti:
It worked pretty well up into World War II did it not? From 1865 to around 1915 we had an explosion of wealth, of inventions, of ideas without any government funding [I am pretty sure of that statement] it was also one of the freest times in America.
Please don’t go Robber Baron on me, there is a book called the Myth of the Robber Barons which you may want to read before you pull that argument out of your hat.
Byron,
Government funded research has certainly been the norm since at least WWII (Manhattan project, anyone?), the Nile Perch were deliberately placed in Lake Victoria with catastrophic results, and you can never go back to the way it was. Any system works perfectly in a utopia, but in the real world your idealized solutions are far from the best.
Byron,
First let me say you have my respect and admiration for sticking with this blog. If you have the time, there has been a question I’ve never gotten an answer for from libertarians. Earlier you wrote the only business of govt. was defense (something like that, these aren’t your exact words). This strikes at the heart of a flaw with libertarianism or maybe I should call it freemarketism. Once you’ve said there’s a role for govt. in any aspect of human society you’ve made a moral choice. In libertariaism “Defense” (I would call it war crimes dept, but that’s me 🙂 is a moral reason for govt. to intervene on our behalf. But why is it only O.K. for the govt. to intervene for defense? Why can’t govt. intervene in other aspects of society for the greater common good, just as it does for “defense”? What’s the moral difference? This is a serious question and I’m not trying to pick a fight with you.
Buddha:
“Federal funding for research comes from government funds collected via taxes, etc. Private funds fund private research. It’s private companies that benefit when the universities turn over the fruits of that labor. So in effect you are arguing against basic science research that benefits not just society as a whole, but industry.”
This is what I said:
“Where does the money come from? It doesn’t come from government it comes from individuals. Government merely redirects funds the private sector then doesn’t have available to it. How do you know the funds are even being used efficiently? And I don’t know they would be used efficiently in the private sector but there is substantial evidence to suggest that money used by the private sector tends to have a more salutary effect on the economy than does money controlled by government.”
Quite a bit of difference if you ask me. It is the lost opportunity of private research not done because it is in competition with it’s own money. Funny how a private company pays taxes to fund competitors, only in present day America is that considered fair and logical.
Slarti:
the Nile perch is already in Lake Victoria. Government funded research was not the norm decades ago, I want to restore the original ecosystem so to speak. 🙂
I want people to be able to act in their own best interest without the coercion caused by taxes and regulations, the system works better that way.
here is an article I read which is interesting:
http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/pity-the-postmodern-cultural-elite/
Gyges said:
“Just as a fun exercise, and since we’re talking about the benefit of competition… Anyone care to guess what industry with an exemption from anti-monopoly laws I’m thinking of? Extra credit if you can give the reasoning behind that exemption.”
I’m going to go with Major League Baseball.
Byron,
One of the keys to the academic research system is the free exchange of ideas – something which is demonstrably chilled in private sector research. You’re talking about doing something to a system that you don’t understand that would cause enormous deleterious effects. Here’s a good rule that I learned in my first mathematical biology class: Don’t mess around with complex systems unless you know what you are doing and it is absolutely necessary. Check out the effects of introducing the Nile Perch into Lake Victoria. You are implicitly making a suggestion here that is every bit as bad – and you don’t realize it because you don’t understand the system that you want to give a major overhaul to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Victoria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nile_perch