The DNC Endorses a New Tax on Toys They Deem Unsafe

Debbie Wasserman Schultz today endorsed taxing parents on toys that Democrats have deemed as unsafe.

At least that is what I assume she meant. Check out her interview with Wolf Blitzer, when she said the following:

The way we usually think of taxation, Wolf, is that taxation as the IRS administers is collected on broad swaths and large categories of individuals. This is a penalty that will be assessed on the tax return if you choose to roll the dice and make us all pay for your being irresponsible and increase all of our health care costs.

We’re not going to tolerate that any more in America. You have to be responsible and you have to pay a penalty if you choose not to be.

For those of you who think I am quoting her out of context, let me point you to her own website, where she talks about the fact that support for new toy safety laws.

What else can she mean when she threatens IRS enforcement on Americans who “have to be responsible and you have to pay a penalty if you choose not to be”?

The DNC Endorses a New Tax on Parents of Underage Drinkers

Debbie Wasserman Schultz today endorsed taxing parents just because their kids have engaged in underage drinking.

At least that is what I assume she meant. Check out her interview with Wolf Blitzer, when she said the following:

The way we usually think of taxation, Wolf, is that taxation as the IRS administers is collected on broad swaths and large categories of individuals. This is a penalty that will be assessed on the tax return if you choose to roll the dice and make us all pay for your being irresponsible and increase all of our health care costs.

We’re not going to tolerate that any more in America. You have to be responsible and you have to pay a penalty if you choose not to be.

For those of you who think I am quoting her out of context, let me point you to her own website, where she talks about the fact that underage drinking is unhealthy.

What else can she mean when she threatens IRS enforcement on Americans who “have to be responsible and you have to pay a penalty if you choose not to be”?

The DNC Endorses a New Tax on Parents with Unsafe Pools

Debbie Wasserman Schultz today endorsed taxing parents if their pool is not safe, according to new federal guidelines. 

At least that is what I assume she meant.  Check out her interview with Wolf Blitzer, when she said the following:

The way we usually think of taxation, Wolf, is that taxation as the IRS administers is collected on broad swaths and large categories of individuals. This is a penalty that will be assessed on the tax return if you choose to roll the dice and make us all pay for your being irresponsible and increase all of our health care costs.

We’re not going to tolerate that any more in America. You have to be responsible and you have to pay a penalty if you choose not to be.

For those of you who think I am quoting her out of context, let me point you to her own website, where she talks about pool safety.

What else can she mean when she threatens IRS enforcement on Americans who “have to be responsible and you have to pay a penalty if you choose not to be”?

Let’s All Go to The Fishin’ Hole

On of my personal quirks is that when I am in a particularly good mood, I whistle.  Usually the theme from the Andy Griffith Show, a song written for the show called The Fishin’ Hole.  I can’t help but smile when I hear that tune.  It is a part of my life, as it is for many Americans. 

Andy Griffith died today, and as sad as I am over his passing, I can’t help but whistle, and remember how much I enjoyed his work.  Thanks, Andy.

Rest in Peace, Andy

Does the Constitution Prohibit Obamacare Waivers?

As I was reading through all of the fallout discussions from Roberts’ decision on Obamacare, it suddenly occurred to me that most of the analysis to date has been done under the assumption that the Commerce Clause was the keystone of the legislation, not the power of Congress to tax.  What happens when you look at Obamacare from a perspective of Congress’ ability to tax?

Right off the bat, I thought of the Obamacare waivers being granted to all of his union buddies and assorted other Democratic allies. 

It is supposed to be unconstitutional for Congress to pass a tax law targeting an individual or organization.  See Bill of Attainder under Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 3.  This was highlighted in recent weeks by the obnoxious political posturing against Eduardo Saverin of Facebook fame, wherein Chuckie Schumer attempted to pass a tax law targeted solely at capturing some of Saverin’s Facebook IPO gains.

So, it is unconstitutional to target a tax penalty against an individual or organization. 

Isn’t it thusly unconstitutional to target a tax benefit in favor of a specific individual or organization?  Can Congress pass a law allowing an unelected group of bureaucrats to eliminate the tax penalties of specific people for whatever reason they deem appropriate?

How about we have a tax lottery?  Some committee  in DHS can hold a suggestion contest, “Who Can Come Up with the Least Offensive Way for Us to Play with Your Private Parts”, and the winner is awarded the right to no longer pay federal income tax. Exempt

Currently, we have a committee in HHS determining who has to pay certain taxes.  Can’t some other government committee decide to allow waivers on other taxes?  For whatever reason they see fit?  Of course not.

The controversy over the Obamacare waivers is not new.  Milton Wolf had a great column on this at the Washington Times last year.  My question is whether the Supreme Court decision that Obamacare is a tax now means that instead of merely tyrannical, the waivers are, in fact, unconstitutional.

Obama Loves Raising Taxes, But Hates the Word “Tax”

Ok, I think I have this figured out.  Obama loves raising taxes.  Just don’t call it a tax.

Typical politically correct liberal b.s.

Liberals use words to try and guide thought. Conservatives use thought to try and guide words.

Obama does not want to call it a tax.  Fine, call it a duck.  It still quacks, and it still costs money to feed.  It’s a Tax Duck. Don’t like the word “tax”?  Fine, duck.  Really, duck!  It’s coming whether you like it or not.  Duck!

Here is a good summary from Heritage on the Obamacare tax increases.  Americans who feel overtaxed already are in store for a shocker: Obamacare will add 17 new taxes or penalties for a whopping cost of $502 billion over its first 10 years.

Obamacare is a Huge Middle Class Tax Increase

From the ever popular Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit, here is more analysis on haw heavily Obamacare will increase taxes on the middle class. As Stephen Moore, the Chief Economist at WSJ, reminds us, “If it looks like a a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck”. 

Which means that by 2016 there will be an estimated 4 million people paying additional taxes under Obamacare, 75% of whom will be middle class, making less than $120,000 per year.  A family that decided it could not afford medical insurance would be taxed $2,085, a rate that goes up from there.

You can’t duck a tax

Here is some more analysis from Fox News, discussing White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew’s attempt to keep spinning this as anything but a huge tax increase.

[Lew] also argued the health care law will not result in a tax increase on the middle class, despite a Congressional Budget Office report that it would result in a roughly $27 million increase over the next 10 years.

Lew's remarks were met with strong opposition from GOP congressional leaders.

“He’s doing the best he can with a tough situation,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. “It’s a middle-class tax increase.”

Pages: Prev123Return Top
Minimize

Comments

BofA
Copyright 2012 by Chip Meyer Terms Of Use | Privacy Statement