Archive | June 2012

It’s a Tax – Well, 21 actually

The details of the largest tax increase in history



We are a Republic, for now

Dr. Milton Wolf writes:

This struggle for our liberty, this struggle to abide by the principles of our founding begins anew. We can no longer trust that Washington will save the great experiment of self-governance that is the United States of America. Just as it has always been, the fate of our republic rests in the hands of the voters.

It’s now down to this: If Barack Obama holds the White House, and if Democrats win control of either house of Congress, then Obamacare will be unstoppable, and America will become the United States of Europe. We will have sacrificed our freedom and our exceptionalism for the false promises of the government-centered society. The 2012 election just became infinitely more important.

As the adage goes, Americans get the leaders we deserve. That our generation even allowed America’s fate to rest in the hands of nine men and women who upheld a law antithetical to the concept of limited government and individual freedom is a testament of our lost way. It’s time we stop hoping for better leaders and start becoming better citizens. It’s time we deserve better leaders.

A Call to Arms

The sun did not shine.  It was too wet to play.  So we sat in the house All that cold, cold, wet day.
I sat there with Sally.  We sat there, we two.  And I said, “How I wish We had something to do!”
Too wet to go out  And too cold to play ball.  So we sat in the house.We did nothing at all.  So all we could do was to
Sit! Sit! Sit! Sit! And we did not like it. Not one little bit.  And then Something went BUMP!
How that bump made us jump!


Something went Bump yesterday.  The challenge to you; was it enough to make you jump and join the fight?   We can sit here today  in bewilderment that the Chief Justice rewrote a piece of legislation to save it.  Or we can be thankful he didn’t rewrite the Constitution as the liberal wing would have.   We should be alarmed at the new, unlimited power to tax granted to the Federal Government, but we should also be very aware of the limitations placed on the Commerce Clause and the strength that was returned to States Rights.  We can be paralyzed with the fear of the new taxes and debt this law will heap upon us and our children.  Or, we can put every Democrat on record as having passed the single largest tax increase in the history of this country.

In short, we have a choice.  This election is shaping up to be a fight for our republic.  Not Republican vs Democrat, but Citizen vs the Government.  Will we continue to allow those we elected to serve us to consolidate power to be used against us?  Or will we say enough, and return our Government to the people.   It is really that serious.

It is no longer enough just to vote.  All of us need to do more.  Everyone off the sidelines and onto the field.  Get the vote out.  Call that friend or relative in a swing state.  Donate to a campaign.  Start a blog.  Volunteer.  The Supreme Court made it perfectly clear yesterday – ONLY YOU have the power to change the course of fate.  What will you do with that power?

Reagan said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free

I donated to the RNC today

Tthis is so clear, so obvious i simply can’t see how Roberts rewrote the law.  And it disgusts me the lack of integrity liberal justices have.  More from the dissenting opinion:

And the nail in the coffin is that the mandate and penalty are located in Title I of the Act, its operative core, rather than where a tax would be found—in Title IX, containing the Act’s “Revenue Provisions.” In sum, “the terms of [the] act rende[r] it unavoidable,” Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448 (1830), that Congress imposed a regulatory penalty, not a tax.

For all these reasons, to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling. Taxes have never been popular, see, e.g., Stamp Act of 1765, and in part for that reason, the Constitution requires tax increases to originate in the House of Representatives. See Art. I, §7, cl. 1. That is to say, they must originate in the legislative body most accountable to the people, where legislators must weigh the need for the tax against the terrible price they might pay at their next election, which is never more than two years off. The Federalist No. 58 “defend[ed] the decision to give the origination power to the House on the ground that the Chamber that is more accountable to the people should have the primary role in raising revenue.” United States v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U. S. 385, 395 (1990). We have no doubt that Congress knew precisely what it was doing when it rejected an earlier version of this legislation that imposed a tax instead of a requirement-with-penalty. See Affordable Health Care for America Act, H. R. 3962, 111th Cong., 1st Sess., §501 (2009); America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009, S. 1796, 111th Cong., 1st Sess., §1301. Imposing a tax through judicial legislation inverts the constitutional scheme, and places the power to tax in the branch of government least accountable to the citizenry.

What should have been

Justice Antonin Scalia was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito in filing a dissent, saying the court used activist reasoning to defend a constitutionally indefensible law.

The Court today decides to save a statute Congress did not write,” Scalia said. “… The Court regards its strained statutory interpretation as judicial modesty, it is not. It amounts instead to a vast judicial overreaching. It creates a debilitated, inoperable version of health care regulation that Congress did not enact and the public does not expect.”

Thomas also wrote separately to voice disagreement with the court’s use at all of the Commerce Clause as a test in the case, saying the clause was overused to far expand the powers of Congress.

“The government’s unprecedented claim in this suit that it may regulate not only economic activity but also inactivity that substantially affects interstate commerce is a case in point,” he wrote.


Unlimited Power to Tax, courtesy of the Supreme Court

From American Thinker..

This interpretation is a splash of acid in the face for limited government libertarians. If any activity mandated by Congress accompanied by a money transaction can be construed as a tax, despite its commerce clause proscriptions, there is no limit to the power of the federal government over our lives.

…permanent damage has been inflicted on this nation. Any future Congress with enough votes to override vetoes or with a like-minded president can now force US citizens to purchase anything at any time, under the guise of a tax.   Congress has an unlimited power to confiscate resources-any and all– from us by simply calling it a tax.

Which is why conservatives can never compromise on their political exhortations for limited taxation. There are now no restraints on how Congress may hook up vacuum hoses to our wallets, our assets, our future earnings, and prospects for life and liberty.

Indeed liberty collapsed today under the weight of the power to tax and destroy.
Read more:

From the Dissent – It should have been the majority

Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clausewould give Congress the same license to regulate what people do notdo. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited andenumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.