DOWNLOADS: (213)

PLAYS: (1559)

Embed

The director of issues analysis at the anti-LGBT rights group American Family Association (AFA) is proposing that the government pass a law requiring that every American go to church or pay a tax penalty.

During his Thursday Focal Point radio program, Bryan Fischer backed a listener's proposal to have an "individual mandate from the government that everybody has to go to church."

"Because after all, Obamacare is all about improving the health of the American people," the radio host explained. "We know that going to church is good for you, it's good for your health. So we are going to mandate that you go to church for your own health and we are going to tax the atheists who don't go to church."

"Now we can't make you go to church, but we are going to penalize you if you don't," Fischer continued. "We are going to assess a tax on every atheist who doesn't go to church because those atheists are endangering their physical health."

"That is actually a brilliant, brilliant suggestion."

Earlier this week, Rep. Allen West (R-FL) used the Affordable Care Act's individual health care mandate as justification that every person be forced to buy a Glock 9mm handgun.

“Well, I got a great idea,” West said during a campaign rally in Florida on Sunday. “I believe for personal security, every American should have to go out and buy a Glock 9mm. And if you don’t do it, we’ll tax you. Now, I wonder how the liberals will feel about that one.”

(h/t: via Right Wing Watch)

DOWNLOADS: (249)

PLAYS: (2971)

Embed

From this Monday evening's The Rachel Maddow Show, guest host Ezra Klein does a recap of the column he wrote earlier that same day, debunking the right wing's latest talking point that the Affordable Care Act is “the largest tax increase in the history of the world.”

No, ‘Obamacare’ isn’t ‘the largest tax increase in the history of the world’ (in one chart):

Since the Supreme Court decision, Republicans have been calling the Affordable Care Act “the largest tax increase in the history of the world.” Politifact rates this false. Kevin Drum’s got a table of the 15 significant tax increases since 1950, and the Affordable Care Act, which amounts to a tax increase of 0.49 percent of GDP, comes in 10th. Austin Frakt took Drum’s table and made a chart: [...]

So no, the Affordable Care Act isn’t the “biggest tax hike in history.” It’s not even the biggest tax hike in the past 60 years. Or 50 years. Or 30 years. Or 20 years.

But it does include a number of tax hikes. The individual mandate, however, isn’t one of the big ones. It’s only expected to raise $27 billion during the next decade. The largest tax increase in the law is on high earners, who will see their Medicare payroll taxes increase by 0.9 percentage point and who will also pay a slightly higher rate on investment income. That raises more than $200 billion. There’s also the tax on unusually expensive health insurance plans, which raises $30 billion in the first decade, and much more in the second. There’s a $60 billion tax on insurance companies. You can find the whole list here.

And as Derek Thompson at The Atlantic rightfully pointed out: 2 of the Last 3 GOP Presidents Signed Larger Tax Increases Than Obamacare.

And as Klein noted in the clip above, President Obama has also cut taxes as he did in the stimulus, by extending the Bush tax cuts for two years and as he's promising to do with extending most of the Bush tax cuts for the lower and middle class permanently. None of those facts seem to matter to Republicans much, who are just desperate to paint Democrats as tax and spend liberals and make paying taxes of any sort a dirty word rather than all of our duty to make sure our government functions and that we protect the most vulnerable in our society and our society and democracy as a whole.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm really just exhausted from watching and listening to this Libertarian wing and bunch of extremists that have taken over the Republican Party and the media's unwillingness to call them out as the dangerous ideologues that they are. Klein did a good job of calling out their lies and the fact that they want to demagogue the issue of paying taxes here. Sadly segments like this one have been the exception when it comes to Republicans and their reaction to the Supreme Court's ruling on the Affordable Care Act. For the most part they've been aided and abetted by our corporate media, and not just Fox.

DOWNLOADS: (156)

PLAYS: (1342)

Embed

Rep. Allen West (R-FL) says that if the government is going to mandate that people purchase health care coverage then they should also require that everyone buy a Glock 9mm handgun.

During a campaign rally in Florida on Sunday, West told supporters that it was "unconscionable" that the Supreme Court upheld President Barack Obama's health insurance mandate as a tax.

"What will be next?" the congressman wondered. "If you don't buy a certain type of green card, they will tax you. If you don't buy a certain type of food, they will tax you."

"Well, I got a great idea," West continued. "I believe for personal security, every American should have to go out and buy a Glock 9mm. And if you don't do it, we'll tax you. Now, I wonder how the liberals will feel about that one."

The tea party darling went on to blast both Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Senate for voting 64-35 to pass a farm bill last week without more drastic cuts to the food stamp program.

"This is not about party, this is about principle," he explained. "This is about understanding what limited government really is and what fiscal responsibility is."

West also ripped Obama's tax proposals, claiming the "president has a sign up that says America is not open for business."

"Obviously he does not understand that small business owners operate from a personal income tax rate," he insisted. "So when you want to raise those personal income tax rates, the top brackets, from 33 percent up to 37 percent, from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, you're talking about affecting the very people that are the economic engine of this country."

"Why? It's very simple. He does not want you to have the self esteem of getting up and earning and having that title of American. He would rather you be his slave."

DOWNLOADS: (525)

PLAYS: (6950)

Embed

The Daily Show's Jon Stewart opened his show this Thursday night by giving CNN and Fox a hard time for jumping the gun in their coverage of the Supreme Court's ruling on the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act and the individual mandate in the health care law.

Stewart followed up by taking a few shots at Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who says he wants to repeal and replace the health care law -- apparently with everything that's already in the health care law -- except for the mandate -- which as Jon noted, is how you pay for it and how Romney paid for his health care law as governor of Massachusetts.

DOWNLOADS: (239)

PLAYS: (3362)

Embed

Republican strategist Karl Rove appeared devastated on Thursday as he was forced to declared that the Supreme Court had given President Barack Obama a "boost" when they refused to strike down his health care reform law.

"It would be an extraordinary step," Rove, appearing to be partially in denial, told Fox News anchor Bill Hemmer just after the court's decision was handed down. "I mean, the court tosses it out on the grounds that it was sold to the country on, that the government had the right to compel everybody to purchase insurance as a condition of being alive and instead upholds it on the basis that the administration was unwilling to make at the time, which is this is a tax."

"If this is actually the decision, it's a boost for the president," he added softly. "But it doesn't make the controversy go away. In fact, it probably enhances the controversy."

The Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision on Thursday ruled that the Affordable Care Act -- including the mandate that individuals be forced to buy insurance -- was constitutional.

DOWNLOADS: (392)

PLAYS: (2267)

Embed

As The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur pointed out in the segment above, if the Supreme Court ends up ruling that the Affordable Care Act, otherwise commonly referred to as "Obamacare" is not Constitutional or against the individual mandate, Republicans may very well find themselves in a very bad political position, since they do not have any program of their own ready to replace it with.

From Current's coverage of the video above: GOP quickly replaces Boehner-care back-up health care plan — to be used if Affordable Care Act gets repealed — with a ‘vision’:

Current correspondent Jacki Schechner joins Cenk to talk about the GOP’s backup plan in hope that the Supreme Court strikes down the Affordable Care Act. But “Boehner-care” was immediately considered too controversial, so Republicans back-tracked and said if the ACA is repealed, they’ll introduce their “vision” for health care reform.

“Not an actual plan, but a unicorn and fairy dust vision,” Schechner says. Cenk says, “Because what we needed was more Republican visions.”

As The Hill reported this week, Speaker John Boehner was still vowing to repeal the law entirely: Boehner: Keeping any parts of Obama health law ‘unacceptable’:

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) reiterated Thursday that he wants to repeal all of President Obama’s healthcare law if the Supreme Court doesn’t toss out the entire statute.

“We voted to fully repeal the president’s healthcare law as one of our first acts as a new House majority, and our plan remains to repeal the law in its entirety,” Boehner said to reporters. “Anything short of that is unacceptable.” [...]

If the court upholds the entire law or only throws out the mandate, Republicans will have to decide how to handle its politically popular provisions, including the policy that bars insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

Conservatives are lobbying their colleagues to avoid the temptation of leaving popular elements in place. Boehner made clear on Thursday that he’s committed to full repeal.

Contrary to that article by The Hill, as TPM reported, it appears Republicans might be trying to have it both ways on what provisions of the law to keep in place and what risks that brings for them politically: Why An Adverse Supreme Court ‘Obamacare’ Ruling Puts Republicans In A Tough Spot:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (401)

PLAYS: (2640)

Embed

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (D) on Sunday predicted that if the United States Supreme Court strikes down a key part of President Barack Obama's health care reform law, it could actually benefit him in the 2012 general election.

Dean told Fox News host Chris Wallace that the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate was "something that's not really necessary."

"If the justices strike it down, it might actually help the president because people don't like the mandate," he explained. "But if the rest of the bill stays intact, I think it will ultimately seen as a victory for the president. He'll do fine."

Former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) indicated that his party was already planning the best way to spin the Supreme Court's decision against the president.

"I think it will be pretty interesting if former constitutional law professor President Obama's signature law gets kicked out because it's unconstitutional," the former Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman quipped. "The fact of the matter is that the law is very unpopular. Unlike most entitlements, it has continued to stay unpopular after it was enacted."

For his part, Dean agreed that the law was unpopular, but Americans "actually do like what is in it."

"I think the president is in great shape in health care unless they strike down the whole bill," he added. "This is the most political Supreme Court we've ever had. Seventy-three percent of the American people believe that politics motivates the Supreme Court, and I am one of those 73 percent. So, I think a lot of this is going to be seen as politics."

Barbour suggested that the president would not be able to run against the ruling because voters "are going to favor the Supreme Court's opinion if the Supreme Court does, in fact, strike down the law."

"President Obama's policies on health care, on energy are his problem," he opined. "They're the wrong policies. They are bad for the country."

DOWNLOADS: (386)

PLAYS: (2752)

Embed

James Carville seems to think that it will be "the best thing to ever happen to the Democratic Party" if the Supreme Court overturns the Affordable Care Act. I'm not so sure I agree with him on the politics and who takes the blame, but it is true that if something doesn't happen to get health care costs under control, we're going to see increasing anger from the electorate in response.

He's also correct on the public perception that this Supreme Court has become way too politicized and the fact that we can't afford to have any more conservatives appointed to the court after the enormous damage they've already done to America over the last decade or so with some of their rulings and as Carville noted, overturning an election in the case of Bush v. Gore.

Transcript of Carville and Erick Erickson's exchange below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (148)

PLAYS: (770)

Embed

No, really. Bill O'Reilly tried to pass himself off as a Constitutional Law expert in this segment, insisting that the Supreme Court will overturn the individual mandate along purely partisan lines, 5-4. Here is the gist of his argument, loaded with unwarranted certitude:

It is as simple as that. The Federal government has no right to tell individual states that their citizens have to buy anything. That is a state decision to be applied mostly in public safety situations.

See? Simple as that. Billo has decreed that it must be so, therefore it must be, right? Well, he did bring on a guest, Caroline Fredrickson, president of -- wait for it -- the American Constitution Society.

Not that Billo let Ms. Fredrickson get a word in edgewise, but still, she managed to get the gist of her argument out there about why he was oh, so wrong. The wonkish among you can read the entire position paper here, but here are the toplines:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (115)

PLAYS: (599)

Embed

Newt Gingrich attempted some verbal acrobatics during the Iowa GOP Presidential debate hosted by ABC and decided to tell the tall tale that the only reason he previously supported the individual mandate for health care insurance and opposes it now is that at the time Clinton was pushing for reforms to our insurance system, and while that was going on, it was the lesser of two evils to support the mandate.

Since then, Newt has apparently seen the error of his ways on how horrible it is for anyone to actually have listened to what he said before when he loved the mandate and before he blamed his flip flop on Clinton as he did here.

This man is supposed to be the big "brain" and the smart guy with his attraction to conservatives with his rise in the polls which amazes me, since he seems to have a very hard time telling the truth about the simplest of issues or the most complicated, every time he opens his mouth. This one tonight being no exception and his flip flopping on the individual mandate.

He was for it before he was against it and that evil Hillary Clinton made him hate it after he got a good look at it... or something. Sadly we didn't see any push back on Gingrich's hackery from either the moderators or the other candidates during the debate this Saturday night.

Here he is with some "historical" perspective on his flip flopping or in other words, Gingrich talking out of both sides of his rear end:

GINGRICH: I just want to make one point that's historical. In fighting Hillary-Care, virtually every conservative saw the mandate as a less dangerous future than what Hillary was trying to do. The Heritage Foundation was a major advocate of it. But after Hillary-Care disappeared it became more and more obvious that the mandates have all sorts of problems built into them. People gradually tried to find other techniques.

I frankly responded in trying to find a way to make sure that people who could afford it were paying their hospital bills, while still leaving an out for Libertarians who did not buy insurance and what's what we were wrestling with.

It's now clear that the mandate, I think is clearly unconstitutional, but it started as a conservative effort to stop Hillary-Care in the 1990's.