Next time someone tells you that nothing is new, that any idea, book or movie title, marketing approach, etc. is simply a rehash of previous thought, point them to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. For the first time in American history, you can be taxed for NOT doing something. Take a break from your partisan thoughts about health care and let that proposition roll around in your brain for a moment.
In upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare, Roberts argued what the administration did not - that the mandate is really a tax, and that govt has the power to tax people. Usually, taxation is done in conjunction with an activity: income tax is paid on what you earn while working, sales tax is tacked onto purchases you make, property taxes come from having bought real estate. With this tax, however, money will be confiscated from you because of what you do not do. If you opt out of health insurance, govt will forcibly take some of your money. If your employer decides against offering health coverage as a benefit, govt will forcibly take some of the company's money. If you already thought that taxation was a de facto form of theft, this ruling puts that theft on steroids.
A host of self-appointed deep thinkers is working overtime to think deep thoughts about Roberts' decision: He did not want the Court to appear political; He did not want to be perceived as activist; He has helped Romney with his ruling. I am calling BS on each of those pronouncements. The Court already is deemed as political by whichever side loses on a particular vote. The Court would have been perceived as activist regardless of the outcome. And, if the Chief Justice fancies himself a political kingmaker, then he should resign his post and run for the post of RNC Chairman.
Where Roberts' decision strains credulity is that, all along, the President and his Congressional allies had done rhetorical back-flips and pirouettes insisting that the mandate was NOT a tax, mostly because they knew the bill would have never passed had the word "tax" actually been in the text. It barely passed as it was, owing its passage largely to last-minute bribes to a handful of Senators. Had the Court simply upheld the mandate as constitutional, there would still be heartburn and hand-wringing, but the measure would have passed on its own merit. Instead, Roberts chose to re-write it, to recast the proposition as some warped version of Solomon saying "this is what I think you meant to put in the bill."
Taxation for inactivity is truly a plumbing of new depths and like all SCOTUS rulings, it sets a precedent. What else can govt now tax you for NOT doing? How about a non-exercise tax - unless you can show a receipt for a gym membership or large piece of home equipment, you may be taxed; and no, simply being a jogger will not do. For politicians who love to use the tax code for social engineering, this opens up a new avenue of approach. NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg was easy to laugh at when he tried to ban the sale of large-size soft drinks; how silly will you think him when he takes a different tack, say taxing you if you order water in a restaurant since it's free and if you have a soda or tea, at least the state gets some sales tax revenue.
There is no end to how stupid such an application can become. Meanwhile, never let it be said again that there are no new ideas, that everything is a rehash of something previously thought up by someone else. No, the Chief Justice has cemented his status in the deep thinking brigade forever. That he has made himself look utterly foolish in the process apparently does not matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment