Posts Tagged Baucus
Stephanopoulos Doesn’t Need a Dictionary
Posted by The Marginalist in Politics on September 21st, 2009
From Bonnie Kristian at Young Americans for Liberty:
There is one point on which the president may not be criticized: he is a skilled verbal gymnast and there is no denying it. Most recently, he has denied that the government taking more of our money as a penalty for not living up to our supposed “responsibility to get health insurance” would be a tax increase, despite the dictionary’s assertion to the contrary:
“I don’t think I’m making it up,” Mr. Stephanopoulos said. He then had the temerity to challenge the Philologist in Chief, with an assist from Merriam-Webster. He cited that dictionary’s definition of “tax”—”a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”
Mr. 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. . . .”
Riiight…because checking with the dictionary is always indicative of stretching the truth.
Very nice post, Bonnie. I wanna talk a little bit more about the individual mandate and taxes. Let’s take a look back at what Obama said during his campaign about tax increases at 1:20:
Now, let’s take a look at two different bills. The first one is the House bill, H.R. 3200. This is what the bill says about individuals who chose not to, or couldn’t afford to purchase health insurance:
Subpart A–Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage
`Sec. 59B. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.
`SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
`(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of–
`(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
`(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
I’m not lying to you, I’m quoting the actual text of the bill. This part of the bill is found in a section that modifies the Internal Revenue Code. Stephanopoulos doesn’t even have to go to the dictionary to check whether or not this plan involves a tax, the word tax is literally written all over it. The tax is charged to any individual who does not purchase health insurance — regardless of his or her income.
Now, let’s look at the Baucus Bill. The text of the Baucus Bill is here (go to Page 32) and here (scroll down). What do you see?
Excise Tax. The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax.
Not only is it written there, it’s italicized and bolded in the PDF.
Clearly the individual mandate is a tax. And what does our President say…?
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?
OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.
You’re effing kidding me, #1
Posted by The Marginalist in You're effing kidding me on June 10th, 2009
I’m starting a new series called… “You’re effing kidding me.”
From the Washington Post:
Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and a key figure in the health debate, has publicly lectured Elmendorf, saying he has a moral duty to be “creative” and deliver the favorable budget estimates “we have to have” to win broad support.
Creative? Elmendorf is the director fo the Congressional Budget Office. He’s responsible for researching how much the health care plan is going to cost us, and Baucus wants him to get “creative”?
Seriously, You’re effing kidding me. You’re not supposed to get “creative with numbers.” I’m sure Baucus wouldn’t support me being “creative” with my taxes. I’d like to get “creative” with my SAT scores. Reality doesn’t care how “creative” the CBO is with its numbers, the cost will remain the same.
And what’s this about a “moral duty to… deliver the favorable budget estimates.” There’s nothing moral or immoral about how much the health care plan will cost. It’ll cost what it costs, regardless of how “immoral” Baucus thinks it is.
Elmendorf’s work is supposed to be pure, cold fact. What if we went to scientists and said, “you have a moral duty to create this outcome from your experiment”?
Oh, but we “have to win broad support” — that’s where it is. Senator Baucus doesn’t care about the facts, he cares about winning popular support for his agenda. Is anyone else at least slightly disturbed by the fact that Sen. Baucus feels the need to bend the facts to get his way?
– The Marginalist