The Tea Party-Birther-Republican Connection

This is merely a legal strategy to defeat constitutional challenges in court based on the commerce clause;

"The Times reports that the administration is now defending the mandate--perhaps the most controversial piece of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act--primarily as a tax, and not primarily as a regulation of commerce, in federal court cases seeking to overturn the Act as unconstitutional. According to the story, administration officials describe the tax argument as the "linchpin" of their case. The story suggests that the switch came in response to increasing criticism of the mandate as exceeding Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause--authority that allows Congress to regulate anything that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The article suggests that this "switch," then, is a new (and disingenuous) argument..." The administration has consistently defended the mandate in court first as an exercise of Congress's Commerce Clause power and only (far) second as an exercise of its taxing power under the General Welfare Clause...In short, the government's litigation position seems to have been consistent: The mandate is supported primarily by the Commerce Clause and only secondarily and alternatively by the taxation authority under the General Welfare Clause...But there's no requirement that Congress name the particular authority it uses in its legislation (although that might help the courts uphold it), and there's certainly no requirement that the government's (or any litigant's) public pronouncements about their positions line up with their litigation positions. And in the end, whether the mandate is "commerce" or a "tax" doesn't really matter to those affected--they still have to comply, or face the penalty."

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2010/07/health-insurance-mandate-commerce-or-tax.html

This issue is yet another red herring. The tax refers to the penalty for not getting insurance or providing it as an employer. This whole debate is about semantics not a real tax increase. The right wingers are running with this issue hoping that most people won't understand that this is merely an issue of legal language not of taxes. One legal opinion believes that the tax argument strategy is the only one available;

Jack M. Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School who supports the new law, said, “The tax argument is the strongest argument for upholding” the individual-coverage requirement. Mr. Obama “has not been honest with the American people about the nature of this bill,” Mr. Balkin said last month at a meeting of the American Constitution Society, a progressive legal organization. “This bill is a tax. Because it’s a tax, it’s completely constitutional.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/health/policy/18health.html

The mandate is the GOP's fault; they opposed the public option and Medicare buy in, either of which would have made the mandate unnecessary. The insurance lobby also wanted the mandate.

steve of IL 9:02PM July 19, 2010