.jpg)
By Ben Sparks | Special to Wisconsin Reporter
Ben Sparks
In its legal brief to the United States Supreme Court—under a subsection entitled “The Minimum Coverage Provision Operates As A Tax Law”— the Obama administration argued:
The practical operation of the minimum coverage provision is as a tax law. It is fully integrated into the tax system, will raise substantial revenue, and triggers only tax consequences for non-compliance.
And yet, a week after the Supreme Court agreed with President Obama that the federal individual mandate was a tax, the President is now disavowing his own position. Watch Ben Labolt not only contend that the federal mandate is not a tax, but also claim that the Obama administration never argued to the Court that it was.
We’re entering the territory of the surreal at this point, but given President Obama’s track record, maybe we shouldn’t be surprised. Before Obamacare was passed, he also promised the American people that the federal mandate was “absolutely not a tax increase.” In court he argued the opposite. Should we be surprised that he’s returned to his original course?
But while playing hide-the-ball with the American people is bad enough, with the Supreme Court’s recent ruling the stakes have become even higher.
The president has a duty to defend the Constitution and to refuse to enforce those laws that violate it. Under the court’s decision, the individual mandate is only constitutional if it is indeed a tax. If the president is being honest with us that his bill is not a tax, then Obamacare is unconstitutional.
That makes this debate far more than academic, and every American should demand that the President take a position on this issue. Unconstitutional or tax increase. Those are the only options.
Ben Sparks is Wisconsin communications director at Romney for President.
- VA: Governor says ACA ruling will be ‘costly’ for Virginians
- FL: Court’s decision ‘vindication’ of Obama?
- WI: Walker says he won’t implement ACA in Badger State
- KS: Gov. says law infringes on civil liberties
- PA: Business professionals speak out against ACA
- PA: The ACA decision could affect Pennsylvanians young and old
- VA: Friend of my enemy is? Protesters from both sides decry Obamacare
- Experts: Health care ruling may fundamentally alter federal powers
- IL: No matter SCOTUS ruling, health care cost going up
- WI: Do Obamacare drug savings come at a cost for seniors?
- PA: Keystone State lawmaker says ruling is ‘unfortunate’
- IA: Branstad calls decision disastorous; urges Iowans to continue fight
- SKYLES: Counting conservative victories in a liberal health care decision
- MT: ‘Like Heroin’: Lawmakers worry about cost of Medicaid expansion after ‘free money’ goes away
- PA: ACA trickle-down could hamper economic growth
- SPARKS: The president’s theater of the surreal
- OK: Fallin, legislative leaders decry ‘ObamaCare’ ruling
- PA: Corbett says ‘respect for law’ is part of democracy
- MO: State’s health-care providers, lawmakers grapple with SCOTUS decision
- GREENHUT: ObamaCare decision helps a muddled GOP
- CO: AG finds ‘silver lining’ in Supreme Court’s ruling on Medicaid
- OK: History says earth is round, medical costs will rise under Obamacare
