SCOTUS Enables Largest Middle Class Tax Increase in History (Updated)

Russ Steele

The Supreme Court has upheld the Obama Care Individual Mandate, not under the Commerce Clause, but under the ability of the government to levy regressive taxes until the citizens rebel.  While Obama is doing a victory lap, Tea Party Patriots across the nation are organizing to oppose all the liberals that voted for Obama Care. Since Obama said he would not raise Middle Class taxes, he is now vulnerable and should be sent packing.

If you choose not to pay this new regressive tax, the IRS will take your property and send you to the poor house to join the 49% who do not pay any taxes.  This new tax has given the Republican one of the strangest issues yet! The worlds largest tax increase in the history of the United States.

We must remove Obama Care and kill the largest unprecedented tax increase on the middle class in history.  Our only hope to save America from government rationing of health care and certain bankruptcy is to force Congress to repeal this horrific law, which steals our personal freedom.

See you all at the next Tea Party Patriot Meeting!   Come and march with us in the Forth of July Parade, details to be posted HERE.

Update (06-28-12, 10:1)  The Polipundit has some ponts to ponder:

  • Yes, we can repeal Obamacare legislatively. Bills that cut the deficit need just a simple majority in the Senate, thanks to the Byrd Rule. Since Obamacare is now scored as massively adding to the deficit, 50 Republican senators + Vice President Portman can repeal it, assuming the GOP-controlled House repeals it too.
  • It is better to repeal Obamacare legislatively than have it be repealed by unelected judges. That’ll ensure that the repeal is legitimate in every way, unlike, say Roe v. Wade’s judicial fiat that is still being fought over today.
  • Obamacare is now the issue of 2012, just like 2010.
  • Democrat Senate candidates will be forced to explain their votes for Obamacare. That includes candidates like Jon Tester (MT), Claire McCaskill (MO), Bill Nelson (FL), Sherrod Brown (OH), Shelley Berkley (NV), and Joe Donnelly (IN).
  • Those who couldn’t vote for it will have to explain whether they would repeal it. That includes Heidi Heitkamp (ND) and Tim Kaine (VA).
  • Obama himself will have to defend Obamacare for the next four months.
  • Meanwhile, conservative voters, volunteers, and donors are feeling a wave of righteous anger that has no outlet, other than the election in just four months. Most independent voters will feel the same way.

Update (o6-28-12, 10:20)  How much of a tax increase?  About  $1.7 trillion over the first decade, according to the CBO.

Obama’s tax pledge of 2008:

“I can make a firm pledge – under my plan, no family making less that $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase,” he said in a September 2008 campaign speech in New Hampshire.

Prior to Obamacare’s passage in 2010, Obama denied it was a tax. In September 2009, Obama told ABC News that the law “is absolutely not a tax increase.”

The court has converted Obama Care  into a huge tax increase which just may also boost the GOP’s ability to persuade voters to back GOP candidates in 2012. Romney raised over $100,000 in less than an hour after the SCOTUS decision. How much will it be by the end of the day? Stay tuned.


About Russ Steele
Freelance writer and climate change blogger. Russ spent twenty years in the Air Force as a navigator specializing in electronics warfare and digital systems. After his service he was employed for sixteen years as concept developer for TRW, an aerospace and automotive company, and then was CEO of a non-profit Internet provider for 18 months. Russ's articles have appeared in Comstock's Business, Capitol Journal, Trailer Life, Monitoring Times, and Idaho Magazine.

53 Responses to SCOTUS Enables Largest Middle Class Tax Increase in History (Updated)

  1. Michael Anderson says:

    Be careful what you wish for, Russ. I saw Romney’s consolation speech this morning and you could tell that his heart wasn’t in it. The pundits are saying that this ruling probably won’t have legs going into November, and I happen to agree with them. It might be that focusing on PPACA instead of jobs will be the Republican’s Achilles Heal.

    BTW, the “taxes” don’t go into effect until 2014, and from this small business person’s POV I am going to come out way ahead, at least in the next couple of years. Here’s why:

    * Single Payer will move forward in California and eventually I will stop having to pay for the health care benefits–via my ridiculously high individual premiums–of both gov’t workers and retirees, as well as the poor who use the ER as their primary health care facility.

    * My kids will be allowed to stay covered until the age of 26 under my plan.

    * The various health care institutions who no longer have this court ruling hanging over their heads will stabilize and will finally begin to knuckle down to the task of reducing costs which is also an integral part of PPACA.

    Heck, I’m so giddy about my lowering costs that I feel like it’s time to start hiring again!

  2. Sean says:

    I think you have a point that most people are worried about the economy than they are about the ACA. But remember, how many companies have heald off hiring because they don’t know what it will cost to insure their employees? I have a business with half a dozen employes includinding my wife. Everyone has health care but one guy is covered through his wife’s company and my wife, who works here, is covered as my spouse instead of a separate policy. Will everything proceed as it has always done now that health care mandate is a tax? I think the best thing that could have happened for Barack Obama was a complete repeal. Employers would have the uncertainly of the ACA removed as a barrier and felt freer to hire again.

    Now its up to thousands of bureaucrats to figure this out and write rules. The Catholic Church has already found out that a liberal politicians view of birth control has precendence to their doctrine. The health care system is bleeding federal, state and local budgets dry. I suspect that those rules will be written to maximize the amount of money going toward the healthcare system because the government is desparate for the cash.

    • Michael Anderson says:

      Sean, I agree w/ you that the “health care system is bleeding federal, state and local budgets dry.” It’s also bleeding business. And PPACA is not the silver bullet to fix any of this.

      But it’s a start. Going back to zero (or center court as Mr. Rebane described it on his blog this morning) would have been a worse path, IMHO, because of the amount of time lost in the fixing.

      Due to the complexities of our political system, everything always takes a lot of time. Our politics moves in bursts of one-step-forward and two-steps-back. This is just another step, but at least we’re no longer stuck at center.

      I really like this analysis: (thanks to whoever first posted it, I can’t remember the attribution).

      • Sean says:

        An interesting article at Red State and worth the read. I have a different take on the “progress” of healthcare reform. There were a lot of liberals who were really dissappointed that ACA did not go far enough and Harry Reed pretty much told them so sush with a little wink. He did that because he new the ACA was telling fibs left and right about the cost. Think about the 30 million extra people on MediCaid. The Feds and State Governments only pay about 80% of the actual costs and let healthcare providers charge people on private healthcare plans more to make up for the loss. Currently this is an extra $200 Billion dollars a year before Obamacare kicks in and I suspect the new enrollies could raise that by 50%. Many small companies and their employess will likely do the math and decide that their being played for chumps and just switch to the public plans due to cost. Pretty soon, private healthcare insurance will be too expensive for anyone but the wealthy. At that point, it becomes a single payer system. Harry Reed knows the ACA is the first step down this path.

      • Michael Anderson says:

        Ummm…well, exactly. Decouple health care from employment (hardly anyone else on the planet does it that way) and go w/ the efficiencies of single payer. We are making progress.

      • sean2829 says:

        Mike, I guess if you believe that the government will do what’s best for the general public, it could be good. But Obama already cut a deal with big Pharma for its support. And local hospital administrators, health care unions and congressional reps lobby Medicare and Medicaid for increase prices and get them. (Sutter is very good at this.) A phenomenally expensive and wealthy health care system is going to protect itself with the best lobbyists money can buy. And our government will oblige them as it always has.

      • stevefrisch says:

        Perhaps then we should control the influence of lobbyists. If lobbying has led to a government and health care system that no longer acts in the best interest of the general public, do we discard the best interest of the general public or change the rules of the system? I guess I am not ready yet to just throw up my hands and say, “Hey we can’t make any progress because of lobbyists so lets minimize what we do.”

        Adopting single payer would eliminate the control of lobbyists.

  3. Dena says:

    What shocks me the most about this decision is that it was determined 100 years ago by the progressives. They weren’t getting enough money to expand the government the way they wanted so the pushed through the 16th amendment so they could tax the rich. They were able to do so because the promised the rates would remain very low for a long time. A long time turned out to be less than 4 years and the top rate was moved around 50%. Without the 16th amendment, this decision could not have been made because before it, taxation needed to be evenly applied and the progressive tax structure was unconstitutional. The 16th amendment was also what Roberts used in deciding a fine, oops a tax could be imposed on those who didn’t have health care. Never mind the fact nothing in the constitution states the governments domain includes health care. Just for giggles, click on the link and see what we were promised.
    Just think, being able to fill out your own taxes with a form that’s only 4 pages long including the instructions.

    • Sean says:

      Well, I guess you could try to control the influence of lobbyists but so long as there are politicians who need another dollar fix to finance the next election, I don’t see any rules slowing the gravy train coming soon. However if much less of the economy was funneled through Washington DC, I suspect a lot of companies would not feel the need to fund lobyists.

      • Todd Juvinall says:

        I would like to see a doubling of the number of Congressman and the same in California. That would shrink down the number of people they represent and put them closer to the folks perhaps. The 435 number in the House is really arbitrary anyway. Same in California. On top of that, there should be no money charged for candidates in an election for entry fees and media and the election season should mirror England. I think it is five weeks long.

  4. Michael Anderson says:

    Seriously Dena? Are you calling for the repeal of the 16th Amendment?

    If so, it’s not gonna happen. We are living in a reality-based world now. I hope you can join us.

    • stevefrisch says:

      Yes, Dena is calling for a repeal of the 16th amendment, and a return to pre-Wilson American systems and jurisprudence. She has been pretty consistent in that position since beginning posting here. At least she is straight forward and consistent–I admire that.

    • Dena says:

      The 16th amendment allowed the government to grow into the monster it is today by providing almost unlimited money. If the government lacks a power by the constitution, it bribes the people or the state with money to acquire the power. Because taxes are not equal, only the rich minority feel the pain and the public who receives the benefits vote against the rights of the minority. Our constitution was set up to protect the rights of the minority, even if they are rich. Yes, I am against the 16th amendment because I don’t believe in socialism.
      I define an evil act as taking anything from a person without their permission. This includes their money, life, dignity and freedom. If you have a better definition of evil, let me know. Under this definition, socialism is evil and something I don’t wish to be associated with.

      • stevefrisch says:

        There you have it. Taxation is socialism.

      • Dena says:

        Unequal taxation is socialism. Equal taxation is a republic in our case.

      • Todd Juvinall says:

        The implementation of the “progressive” income tax system is the problem. Aswe see today 1/2 of the folks don’t pay federal income tax. We see the results in Califonia too with a small number paying most of the tax. So, perhaps the overhaul of the 16th is not out of the question since I thought “progressives” wre into “fairness”. Everyone needs to pay something and maybe all should pay the same percentage.

      • Dena says:

        If you really want to hear people scream, in early america, the vote was tied to land ownership. Land was easy to obtain so most people had the vote. Today I would suggest we tie it to taxes where you need to pay a certain percentage of your income before you can vote. Exceptions would be made for people over 65 years of age on social security.
        Not only would it provide a more conservative voter, but it would also eliminate voter fraud.

    • Todd Juvinall says:

      Ah, the person who feigns outrage at personal attacks attacks the lady.

      • Todd Juvinall says:

        That was for MA.

      • Dena says:

        No good deed goes unpunished. I spoke the truth and received my punishment.

      • Todd Juvinall says:

        Not to worry Dena, the liberal can’t take the truth.

      • stevefrisch says:

        Todd, what possible statement that I made could be construed as an “attack” on Dena. I even complimented her consistency in her belief system. I am really sick of you trying to stir st*# just to stir st*#. Why don’t you just focus on the issues being discussed?

      • Todd Juvinall says:

        MA not you.

      • Michael Anderson says:

        It wasn’t an attack. I was making the point the anyone (in this case “Dena”) who believes that the 16th Amendment will be repealed is not living in a reality-based world. It’s like believing in unicorns. I don’t think even Justice Scalia, the most partisan and political justice in 75 years, would favor the 16th Amendment’s repeal.

      • Dena says:

        Prohibition was repealed so it could happen however I grant you making the government cut it’s own throat will not be easy. The point of my post is to define the problem. If you incorrectly define the problem, any fixes will not solve the problem and most likely will make it worst. If you don’t understand the problem you are better off leaving it alone till you do understand it.
        Also note that the court has nothing to do with repealing an amendment. To repeal an amendment, you approve another one.

      • It was an attack and you can’t wiggle out of your misogynistic words MA. When the bill starts arriving for the vast middle class things will heat up. There is always a ying and yang and now it is time for the yang.

  5. Dixon Cruickshank says:

    maybe you missed the MA part, try to keep up k

  6. sean2829 says:

    It looks like the ACA comes with a side of IRS.
    The IRS is getting more than $300 million to assist with enforcement of the ACA. The will get to ask about everyone in your business, everyone in your household to see if you owe penalties for excessive coverage. They also get to share the info with other government agencies. You life will be an open book for the privilege of government provided healthcare.

  7. stevefrisch says:

    There is something very odd going on with the time stamps here—when I posted my response to Todd, his message re: MA was not up. I think the key point remains. We have a tendency to address the point; Todd has a tendency to address the person. This is how the deterioration of the dialogue starts.

    I went on to merely clarify and point out what the real aim is, and Dena has stated it directly in the past; to return to a pre-Wilson definition of individual and state rights.

    Mr. Meckler, the Godfather of the local right, has stated the same purpose on several occasions; a return to pre-Wilsonian America is the aim.

    And I think Michael is precisely correct, there is no return to pre-Wilson America. There are no circumstances under which the federal government, or the SCOTUS, is going to rescind the power of the federal government to set and impose taxes. Especially since the same power already exists under Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, and; Article 1, Section 8, Clause I of the Constitution.

    The 16th Amendment did not create the right of the federal government to tax income, it always had that right; the Amendment merely rescinds the previous interpretation of the Constitution that income taxes must be apportioned to the States based on population or census data. It, in effect, opened the door, as Dena states, for progressive taxation, and apportionment based on income.

    I would ask all here: do you really support the idea of eliminating the progressive income tax system? I wonder if you have really thought through the consequences on that? Because the alternative would be to raise revenue with significantly higher taxation of real property, investment income, stocks and bonds, savings, etc. By placing the tax on income you encourage the use of the capital for other purposes before it is taxed—which is a much more beneficial state of affairs for our economy.

    • Dena says:

      Or smaller government. One other thing you forgot, business don’t pay taxes, they pass the taxes on to the customer. we pay all the taxes even though they are hidden in the price of goods. All this would do is make the taxes more visible so we understand how bad we have been dinged in the past.

      • stevefrisch says:

        Actually, businesses (whether as sole proprietors, LLC’s or Mutual Benefit Corporations) also pay taxes on income (profit made after sales and use taxes), after said sales and use taxes and other costs of doing business are passed on to the customer. To the extent that businesses create “new” wealth, which as a die hard Capitalist I believe they do, by adding value to products, we are taxing that new wealth creation. It is not as though “Capital” is a zero sum game. New wealth is created every day.

        Dena, I am wondering what portion of the rise in the cost of government you would attribute to government overspending or inefficiency, and what portion you would attribute to the change in the world itself, the rise of modernity, the US becoming a global power and taking on global responsibilities, the complexity of the issues we face, the or the need to create infrastructure, security, and stability in the world of modernity.

      • Dena says:

        Business may not create wealth but they do pull wealth into the country by selling exports. Currently much of our wealth is headed to China making China wealthy at our expense. Government on the other hand is not destroying or creating wealth but is spending wealth on things other than the people normally would.
        We all would be better off if the militaries of the world could be reduced to a token force as they spend wealth that would be better spend elsewhere. Because of human nature that will never happen. We were not a military world power till World War II and we got along fine before that. Post WWII the military has been nothing but a drain on our country (however some of it’s actions have been necessary) and the best proof is that Obama is cutting the military to the bones to support his spending. /sarc If the military created wealth, Obama would expand it. /sarc off

      • stevefrisch says:

        I am sorry, I must be a little confused. Do you believe that businesses create wealth? I believe that businesses create wealth. Wealth is created when resources and labor are combined to create products and services that have a greater aggregate value than the sum of their parts. That is what is being taxed when business income is taxed.

      • Dena says:

        Watch out, my mind has been polluted by reading Milton Friedman’s “Money Mischief”. The idea is if you own land with a proven gold reserve you have the same amount of wealth if the gold is under ground or in your hand. You add value to it by digging it out of the ground but you are not really creating wealth be digging it out of the ground. A small difference I know but in the book is a story about an island where they use carved stones for money. One very large stone went down in the middle of the ocean when they were moving it and even though they can’t recover it, all agree the owner still has it and it still has value.

      • stevefrisch says:

        How can you have the same amount of ‘wealth’ if there is a cost to mining, smelting, casting, transporting and selling the gold? Granted one still has some wealth, but not the same amount of wealth. Value is added when one adds labor to the equation. Value is also added when one adds the ability to enter into contracts, one secures the hoard of gold, and a market exists where one can trade gold, provide gold futures, and convert gold into other financial instruments. (All things provided by government for which we pay taxes.)

      • Dena says:

        It’s a complex subject, but your idea of wealth is money that only has our faith in the government giving it value. Our money is only worth the paper it’s printed on. The gold in the ground has the same value. Granted you can’t sell it for as much in the ground as in the hand but gold is gold and if I tell you how much is in the ground, you can calculate a value for it. When someone wants to open up a gold mine, they go through this same calculation to decide if it’s worth digging up.
        Also consider that you have the same wealth if your money is in hand, in the bank or invested in land or a house. You really need to read the book to see how twisted our idea of wealth is.

    • MA said this which prompted me to respond to him

      “If so, it’s not gonna happen. We are living in a reality-based world now. I hope you can join us.”

      This is apparently mnot a personal attack on Dena according to SteveF. Now we see why he is from Uranus and we are from earth.

    • stevefrisch says:

      How can you have the same amount of ‘wealth’ if there is a cost to mining, smelting, casting, transporting and selling the gold? Granted one still has some wealth, but not the same amount of wealth. Value is added when one adds labor to the equation. Value is also added when one adds the ability to enter into contracts, one secures the hoard of gold, and a market exists where one can trade gold, provide gold futures, and convert gold into other financial instruments. (All things provided by government for which we pay taxes.)

  8. Oh SteveF. I almost forgot, you did not address MA’s comment. How come you only attack conservatives? That is why you have no credibility here.

  9. stevefrisch says:

    Pot (or should I use some other substance) meet kettle. Michael’s reference to getting “real” is mild compared to the norm here. But it is indeed true, if there were standards here for not addressing individuals directly all of the dialogue would be more constructive.

    • You must be dense SteveF. If you can’t bring yourself to hold yourself and MA to the standards you want us to be held to, then you see why you have no credibility.

  10. stevefrisch says:

    My daddy taught me that unilateral disarmament was unwise. I do not host this site. If I did I would eliminate all posts that directly address individual posters in order to encourage a real, civil dialogue on the issues. Until then… rules!

    • There are rules and you choose not to follow them. The SBC blog has as far as I can see, no one posting there. Or maybe you changed it to Facebook? No SteveF, you zip around to the other blogs and trash Russ and the rest then come over here and whine about whatever is in your craw today. If you complained about your pal MA then you might have some credibility but you don’t so you don’t. We conservatives here are very courteous among ourselves then you libs come over and start crying about namecalling while you call us all names. What a hoot!

  11. Barry Pruett says:

    Okay…Roberts opinies that the PPACA is valid under the taxing power. I agree. Because it is a tax, repeal does not require 60 votes to overcome a filibuister in the Senate. Ninety percent of the law can be repealed in the reconciliation process (the same way the PPACA was passed in the first place. If Romney is elected, virtually all of the PPACA will be gone.

    • stevefrisch says:

      Good luck with that. By the time a new law can be drafted and passed using reconciliation health care consumers will see their young adult children covered, pre-existing conditions covered, medicaid for the uninsured implemented, and health insurance exchanges set up in more than half the states in the country. Republicans will be removing health care coverage and rights that already exist. Deconstructing that using reconciliation will be the kiss of death for the Republican party, and they know it. Fighting this out between the moderate and the tea party wings of the party will be devastating to the Republican party.

      • HaHaHa! What a hoot!

      • sean2829 says:

        All these benefits aren’t just gifts from the government. It’s coming out of every working person’s pockets through their health insurance premiums. These premiums are billed without concern for income, just a flat charge for being on a healthcare plan. It works out to around $20k/yr per household, if you count employer contributions as part of earnings. That’s a third of the median household income. The ACA adds more folks to a highly bloated and flawed healthcare system. People are smart enough to know whose paying the tab.

      • stevefrisch says:

        Sean, its already coming out of their pockets every day when someone walks into an emergency room and seeks care. At least this way there will a mechanism to pay for it.

      • sean2829 says:

        Uninsured in emergency rooms is $30 billion. Under compensation for government funded care is almost 20% of $1.2 trillion of government funded healthcare. That’s more than $200 billion and this has been going on for years but as the government covers a greater proportion of the population, it gets more painful. So when Medicaid expands with the ACA to insure an extra 30 million people, the 20% underfunding will be added to the insurance costs of every person on a private healthcare plan.
        It costs an average of $8000 per person for healthcare in this country but the government has relative a relatively small penalty fo non-coverage and a heck of a deal for those who sign up with the exchanges. Who do you think will be making up the difference? (I’ve got a hint, it’s not millionaires.)

  12. Barry Pruett says:

    Two out of three people favor repeal. A Democrat filibuster would be the kiss of death for the liberals. Shoot, the Democrats in the Senate are already running for the hills as far away from Obama as they can.

    “Fighting this out between the moderate and the tea party wings of the party will be devastating to the Republican party.” That is what the liberals said in 2010…BTW…how did that work out for you?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: