Choice No More

The funny thing about choices is that there are always intended and unintended consequences.  When we discriminate (choose) in favor of one thing, we do discriminate (choose) against others.  That doesn’t mean we necessarily don’t like the “other” thing.  It’s a simple act—choosing; we do it thousands of times a day.  The US Supreme court made a choice the other day that now eliminates yours.  What they said was, “America is no longer the land of the free.  The President said so and Congress can require it.”

Choice was once the heart and sinew of America.  America was once the land of liberty—the land of choices. But

with the passage of “Obamacare” choice has disappeared.  In one seemingly small step (choice), the Supreme Court (with help from Congress and the President) eliminated choice from the lexicon of the American dream.  Let me explain.

Previous to this date Americans were free to choose a lot of things.  There was no penalty for not choosing.  However there could be a tax if one did.  The government says you have to have insurance if you own a car.  Notice the “if.”  No one said you must own a car.  But if you do, then you also have to have car insurance.  How would you feel if you’re a city-dweller who doesn’t own a car but were told by the government you have to buy car insurance nonetheless, and if you don’t you’ll be taxed?

Likewise the government says it can tax your income.  But what if you don’t earn any?  No taxes.  How would you feel if the government imposed a tax for not making money.  Some seniors would probably say that the government already does that because it taxes Social Security income.

There are myriad taxes (local, state and federal) for buying stuff.  Except for food (in most states) we are all taxed on the purchases we make.  But what if we didn’t buy anything?  Imagine an IRS agent coming to your door then with a tax bill for not buying anything? Or not buying enough?  Or not buying the government-approved brand?

Well, that’s just what the President, Congress and the Supreme Court laid at your feet.  They just said it was okay to tax what you don’t do.  If you don’t buy health insurance or don’t take the government health insurance you will be taxed (or go to jail for the failure to pay taxes).

What about the people who truly believe in homeopathic remedies, or don’t believe in so-called modern medicine?  What about people who have come to see that many of the so-called “cures” of modern medicine and pharmaceuticals more dangerous than the disease they are supposed to cure?  According to “Obamacare” they don’t have a choice.  Because they will be taxed if they don’t—choose.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see where this can head.  We once had the bigoted notion and prejudiced mandate that all children must attend a government/union school.  Fortunately, the Pierce court (in a time when the Constitution was not rewritten or reinvented by every jurist around) unanimously prevailed and said, “The child is not the mere creature of the state.” Parents are the primary educators.  What if Congress says that all kids had to go to the state/government/union school because interstate commerce depends on the income from their attendance?

What if there was a tax for not frequenting the national parks? After all, these parks were set aside for all Americans.  All Americans should pay for them.  I suppose, in all honesty, we are already taxed for these parks by virtue of the general fund.  But what if you had to pay a non-user fee as well?

There are fees for a fishing license.  What if there was a fee/tax for not-fishing?  How would the people who don’t like fish feel about that?  Thank God there’s no tax for not catching fish. Otherwise I’d have to pay a tidy sum.

These few examples may seem absurd but the point is that they are now not only possible in the crazy universe just invented, they would be legal.

The issue in “Obamacare” is not health, it’s not insurance, it’s not about helping the poor: it’s about the raw exercise of power.  That power was just exercised. Congress can now tax you for naught.  Welcome to this brave new world.

This conclusion is both depressing and ominous. What’s next?  I believe our Founding Fathers recognized this possibility way back when.  That’s why, in their wisdom, they gave us elections and the 2^nd Amendment—that fourth leg in the balance of powers.

A Silver Lining?

­­Trying to rise above the disappointing display of our leadership in America, and pondering our future, I started to think about this Mandate v. Tax situation.  Obama is on record over a long period of time proclaiming to the heavens that this new healthcare law is NOT a tax.  What was really revealing was Obama’s treatment of an interviewer who had the temerity and gall to produce a dictionary and read the definition of “tax.” The interviewer was insulted, demeaned and otherwise attacked for schooling the fellow sitting in the Whitehouse.

Then I pondered the inventive language of the Supreme Court’s decision.  It seems that we have a pattern here. Whenever there is a controversial subject, the court ignores both the Constitution and most dictionaries in favor of a new language that only they can parse.  It happened in Dred Scott (1859) where citizenship in America was defined to exclude any slaves or former slaves.  It happened in Roe v. Wade (1973) when the court rewrote the Bill of Rights to include yet another right, the right to privacy.  And hidden behind the curtains of this privacy was the mandated practice of infanticide for which all Americans are taxed.  It happened in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) when the highest court of the land, acknowledging the abolition of slavery with the 13^th Amendment and that one’s status as a “citizen” was not a function of culture or color in the 14^th Amendment, they still found the language to accept those same distinctions as lawful at the (southern) state level.  Now we have The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (2012 and more commonly called “Obamcare”).  The high court not only invented language that wasn’t there, they took the liberty to insert it into the law.  Even though Congress never said it was a tax, the Supreme Court said, “That’s ok. Maybe they didn’t know what they were doing.  It is. So it’s okay.”

There are a whole bunch of questions that immediately come to mind.  Like… what does a 3.8% investment TAX have to do with health care and patient protection? That’s another new tax coming your way.   If I went into a store that advertised a certain product for sale at $4.99 and upon arrival found that same item listed at $9.99, I believe they would call that “bait and switch.” Oh, I must have missed the small print that said, “Subject to a prior sale.”  Well, the store (Whitehouse) advertized a mandate, lied about it and sold a tax. How can you have a representative government when the representatives lie about it so much?  Shouldn’t it be thrown out because it is bait and switch?

If the IRS is the collection agent on this one, how are they going to assess premiums from the 50% of Americans who don’t pay taxes?  The new law says, buy insurance or pay a penalty tax. If folks don’t pay taxes in the first place, how will this collection agency make sure that everyone is being treated fairly?  Is everyone buying insurance or paying their “tax?” I couldn’t find it in the bill, but I’m wondering if this applies to members of Congress. Oh, I forgot; they have their own separate but equal health program. Where’s Plessy when you need him?

But then I started to wonder.  Hmmm… taxes are deductible in America.  The real mandate in this law is either have insurance or pay a tax.  So, aren’t they being treated equally?  Insurance or tax, your choice.  There’s nothing in the bill about the relative value of insurance premiums and the penalty tax.  So, it seems they are equal with regard to the mandate.

This means that individuals and businesses can deduct all the costs for insurance premiums from their tax liability.  Now this might just spark up further interest.

A post scriptum about what is Constitutional.  While our jurists are bound by the letter of the law and case histories, they are also bound by the spirit with which it was written.  Now we’ve witnessed the court dodge the letter of the law on several occasions and rest their gerrymandering  and contortions on the so-called “spirit.”   Whenever they do this either-or, scorched-earth policy of one or the other, they fail miserably to exercise justice in America.   American citizens (the “unum” in e pluribus unum) look for justice in our courts, honesty from our leaders and right-thinking by our lawmakers.