Politico: The BaucusCare Mandate Tax Is A, Um, Tax

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Mon Sep 21, 2009 at 12:03:53 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The Beltway bloggers and pundits advocating for BaucusCare are having a hard time with this one:

In the most contentious exchange of President Barack Obama’s marathon of five Sunday shows, he said it is “not true” that a requirement for individuals to get health insurance under a key reform plan now being debated amounts to a tax increase. But he could look it up — in the bill. Page 29, sentence one of the bill introduced by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont) says: “The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax.”

In contortions that would make a Bush apologist proud, the Beltway bloggers and pundits have tried to turn reality into well, their own myth. It won't work. And it is embarrassing. When Politico can make you look silly, you may want to reconsider your tactics.

Speaking for me only

< FixingThe Mandate Tax: Autoenrollment Into Public Insurance | Monday Afternoon Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Politico: The BaucusCare Mandate Tax Is A, Um, Tax | 12 comments (12 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Awkward moment on This Week (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by oldpro on Mon Sep 21, 2009 at 12:19:03 PM EST

when George challenged the President by reading out the definition of 'tax' from his Merriam Webster's.

Frankly I don't know (none / 0) (#1)
by Slado on Mon Sep 21, 2009 at 12:16:20 PM EST

why the media isn't hammering Obama on this. Maybe it will by tomorrow but quite frankly he told a national audience that he didn't know what a tax was and it was obvious the plan he's pushing is a plan he doesn't really understand.

Well, just what plan is he (none / 0) (#3)
by KeysDan on Mon Sep 21, 2009 at 12:19:48 PM EST

"pushing?"

[ Parent ]

: Good point (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by Slado on Mon Sep 21, 2009 at 12:21:01 PM EST

but he was defending specifically the idea that mandate isn't a tax and the Baucus plan clearly states that it is.
Oops

[ Parent ]

I would challenge (none / 0) (#5)
by SGITR on Mon Sep 21, 2009 at 01:07:25 PM EST

Politico to come up with an concrete example of of something else that is an excise tax that is charged for not participating in something.

It seems to me by all definitions Baucus' bill is using the wrong language. It's not like this would be the first time that a bill's language was incorrect and needed to be changed.

What I find funny is that progressives here are actually defending Baucus' incorrect language. They hate his bill but love his incorrect language!

Last I looked it was Republicans that went around loving to use the word "tax" and it was progressives that tried to avoid or at least soften the word for political purposes. Now that has been turned on it's head. Puzzling.

Reverse the challenge (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 21, 2009 at 01:19:42 PM EST

You identify something that is charged by the government for non-participation that is not called a tax.

[ Parent ]

Somehow I don't think that people on this (none / 0) (#7)
by MO Blue on Mon Sep 21, 2009 at 01:28:34 PM EST

blog or at Politico chose the wording in Baucus' bill. If Baucus chose an incorrect term, then I think that it would be his responsibility to change the wording and explain why he was mistaken in his terminology.

Baucus chose to open the door. If he did so in error, then it is a further example of how poorly he drafted the mark up.

[ Parent ]

Site violator (none / 0) (#8)
by scribe on Mon Sep 21, 2009 at 01:41:50 PM EST

I doubt that anyone here is defending Baucus - in any regard.

But the semantic pinhead dancing angels we're getting from the upthread commentator, here and on the preceding thread, are really wasting time and electrons. That commenter is about to become the Orly Taitz of this site, trying to argue A is Not A.

The fact - f-a-c-t - is that the bill, as marked by Baucus, defines the fee to be paid by those persons who do not purchase health insurance as an "excise tax". All that matters is that that bill defines that fee as an "excise tax". Making up definitions, reading from Webster's, deciding you don't like the term for whatever reason, none of those changes what the plain language of the bill states.

Refusing to accept that is mulish obstinacy, and entitled to as little respect.

[ Parent ]

: Yes, those who want to (none / 0) (#9)
by KeysDan on Mon Sep 21, 2009 at 02:37:15 PM EST

truck with the terminology of the Finance Chairman's Mark, ought to take it up directly with Senator Baucus. He may be reached at 1-800-EXT-AXES.

[ Parent ]

Well (none / 0) (#11)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 21, 2009 at 07:14:22 PM EST

I pay a medicare tax and I can't participate right now.

[ Parent ]

AP Headline: Fact Check (none / 0) (#10)
by MO Blue on Mon Sep 21, 2009 at 05:31:15 PM EST

Coverage requirement enforced with tax

WASHINGTON - Memo to President Barack Obama: It's a tax. Obama insisted this weekend on national television that requiring people to carry health insurance - and fining them if they don't - isn't the same thing as a tax increase. But the language of Democratic bills to revamp the nation's health care system doesn't quibble. Both the House bill and the Senate Finance Committee proposal clearly state that the fines would be a tax.

The emperor has no clothes (none / 0) (#12)
by diogenes on Mon Sep 21, 2009 at 07:15:06 PM EST

Basically this plan forces healthy people who want to self-insure with a $10000 deductible catastrophic plan (what every other insurance such as auto and homeowners wants--large deductibles) to pay for a more expensive plan to subsidize the cost. Sure looks like a selective tax to me.