Liberty MavenObama argues with Merriam-Webster on definition of ‘tax’
September 23rd, 2009 2:20 pm | by Mike Miller | Published in Big Government, Health Care, Individual Responsibility, Liberty, Obama, Politics, government spending, law | 1
As part of the platform that got him elected almost a year ago, Barack Obama promised not to raise taxes on families making less than $250,000 annually. But now he’s seriously pushing the idea that all citizens be forced to carry health insurance or else the IRS will impose a penalty. And he claims this isn’t a tax.
In an interview on Sunday, George Stephanopoulos grilled President Obama by asking the rather obvious question, “Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money [to buy insurance], fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?”
Jeff Jacoby’s op-ed on Boston.com discusses the president’s response:
Obama replied that the individual mandate “is absolutely not a tax increase,’’ since, in his view, there is good reason to impose it. He stuck to that position even when confronted with Merriam-Webster’s definition of “tax’’ – “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.’’
But the only one “stretching’’ was the president, whose position was at odds with the legislation itself. “The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax,’’ notes the committee staff report on the Baucus bill. “The excise tax would be assessed through the tax code and applied as an additional amount of Federal tax owed.’’
“George,’’ chided Obama, “the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary . . . indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now.’’
Jacoby’s excellent piece goes on to explain how mandatory insurance is indeed nothing more than a tax. Read it here.
Follow LM on Twitter
September 24th, 2009 at 1:29 am (#)
On the bright side, at least tax is a 3 letter word. The last democratic president didn't know the meaning of a two letter word, "is"!