PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail

JCT Confirms Failure to Comply with Democrats’ Mandate Can Lead to 5 Years in Jail

Friday, November 06, 2009

Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail.  The JCT letter  makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

In response to the JCT letter, Camp said:  “This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail.  It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately.”

Key excerpts from the JCT letter appear below:

“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]

                                                         - – - – - – - – - -                                                   

“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]

                                                         - – - – - – - – - -    
                                                

“Criminal penalties

Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses.  Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:

• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]

When confronted with this same issue during its consideration of a similar individual mandate tax, the Senate Finance Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to include language in its bill that shielded Americans from civil and criminal penalties.  The Pelosi bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail.

“The Senate Finance Committee had the good sense to eliminate the extreme penalty of incarceration.  Speaker Pelosi’s decision to leave in the jail time provision is a threat to every family who cannot afford the $15,000 premium her plan creates.  Fortunately, Republicans have an alternative that will lower health insurance costs without raising taxes or cutting Medicare,” said Camp.

Can you say, ‘fascism?’

Rep Bachmann said the House bill will cut $500B from Medicare. On average, people will pay $4000 a year more for health insurance. If you are under 30, 8%-12% of your income will go to health insurance. Ameerican businesses would be made to pay at least 8% more in payroll tax. And 5.5 million jobs could be lost.

On Monday, the House will actually post the final version of the bill. Rep. Bachmann said the bill released today is incomplete and that other items will likely be added to this destructive measure at the last minute with the final version, again, coming out on Monday. Thereafter, the House will have 3 days of *debate* with a vote scheduled for next Friday.

Rep. Bachmann pointed out that if this passes the federal government will ‘own or control’ almost 50% of private sector wealth. Currently, in this bailpout era, 30% of the private sector is in the hands of the federal government. A takeover of the healthcare industry would bring us to an outrageous 48%.

The Congresswoman pleaded for all of us to start calling our Senators and Representatives and to join in the AFP ‘House Call’ scheduled for next Thursday. In fact, she went so far as to say to ‘get here [to Washington] next week,’ go to the offices of our legislators and put as much pressure on possible for them to stop. She believes that they have forgotten the town hall meetings and they think the rest of us have likewise forgotten.

Summing it up, Rep. Bachmann said, ‘This is it. There is no going back.’

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

Nancy Pelousy is on quite the roll the past few days. Yesterday she mustered up her best Orwellian newspeak to claim that letting the Bush tax cuts expire wasn’t a tax increase.

Ah, yes. It’s not a tax cut but ‘eliminating a tax decrease that was there.’ Mmmm….Okay!

Then, yesterday the Speakerette was asked by a CNS News reporter where in the constitution the Congress had the power to force people to by health insurance. Here’s how that went down according to CNS News (h/t Gateway Pundit):

CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”

Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter.

(Click here for the audio of this exchange)

Afterwards, Pelousy’s office justified the mandate by – what else – invoking the Interstate Commerce Clause; liberals’ favorite part of the constitution to pervert and abuse in their undying quest to expand the federal government.

Pelosi’s press secretary later responded to written follow-up questions from CNSNews.com by emailing CNSNews.com a press release on the “Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform,” that argues that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.

Not too long ago, I posted regarding the constitutionality of healthcare. Embedded in that post was this quote form The Heritage Foundation on this very issue:

Lastly, proponents might argue that national health insurance is part of Congress power “to regulate commerce…among the several states.”  While progressives have often used this clause to expand the federal government, it does not apply especially to the creation of a national health insurance, because to create and engage in commerce is not the same thing as regulating commerce among the several states.

Nobody during the framing generation expected the commerce clause to expand the federal government’s authority to anything relating to or resembling commerce.  James Madison wrote that it is a power “which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained.”  The clause was designed to prevent some states from taxing goods that passed through their boundaries as those goods proceeded to market.

In Mark Levin’s book, Men In Black (pp. 131), Mark also highlights how the commerce clause was undermined by the Supreme Court and, in turn, used to expand government.

Under the Articles of Confederation, each state had been free to issue its own currency and set its own tariffs. The purpose of the commerce clause was to promote commerce and trade by breaking down these barriers. But over the years, the Supreme Court has adopted an expansive definition of ‘commerce’ to justify virtually unfettered federal intrusion into the conduct of state and local governments, and to defend the establishment of massive bureaucracies and their imposition of seemingly endless regulations on private enterprise. As a result, the government has become increasingly centralized, and the economy is lurching toward socialism.

In this sense, Pelousy’s views are just symptomatic of years of abuse and wrong-headed decisions. This is the logical end when the clear intent of the constitution has been tossed aside, its limits on federal power ignored and the rights of the individual have been disregarded. And that end result is essentially tyranny.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

And someone needs to confront Nancy Pelousy with this one. I can’t wait to hear what she has to say.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

Mark Levin, in his essential book Liberty And Tyranny, explains:

It is said by the proponents of government-run health care that 47 million people go without health care in the United States. For example, during the so-called Cover the Uninsured Week event in 2008, Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi issued a statement declaring that this is the “time to reaffirm our commitment to access to quality, affordable health care for every American, including the 47 million who live in fear of even a minor illness because they lack health insurance…In the wealthiest nation on earth, it is scandalous that a single working American or a young child must face life without the economic security of health coverage.” This is more deceit.

In 2006, the Census Bureau reported that there were 46.6 million people without health insurance. About 9.5 million were not United States citizens. Another 17 million lived in households with incomes exceeding $50,000 a year and could, presumably, purchase their own health care coverage. Eighteen million of the 46.6 million uninsured were between the ages of eighteen and thirty-four, most of whom were in good health and not necessarily in need of health-care coverage or chose not to purchase it. Moreover, only 30 percent of the nonelderly population who became uninsured in a given year remained uninsured for more than twelve months. Almost 50 percent regained their health coverage within four months. The 47 million “uninsured” figure used by Pelosi and others is widely inaccurate.

Having 10-15 million or so uninsured Americans may well be cause for concern (assuming, of course, they are truly needy), but it is hardly sufficient enough cause to dismantle a system that most Americans are satisfied with and by measure is one of the best (if not the best) in the entire world.

Moreover, the statistics cited by Mr. Levin are hardly inaccessible. Surely, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al, must know these truths. As such, it is hard not to question their real motivation vis-a-vis healthcare.

If they truly wanted to reform our system they would focus their energy on helping those without insurance to obtain it, as well as finding ways to enable Americans to insure against catastrophic illness or injury.

Instead, what they are doing is using the issue to scare Americans and take advantage of their benevolent nature in order to grow government, obtain the utmost control our lives, and amass as much power for themselves as possible.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

You must remember this. Last summer, Nancy Pelosi (aka Pelousy) made this insane statement regarding the Catholic Church and abortion.

I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition … St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose.

Pelosi immediately came under fire and didn’t even back off of her statement.

But on Wednesday, Pelosi met with Pope Benedict while on her little junket in Rome and, dare I say, she was (ahem) bitch-slapped.

ROME —Pope Benedict XVI on Wednesday told Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Roman Catholic who supports abortion rights, that Catholic politicians must protect “human life at all stages of its development.”

Pelosi is the highest-ranking Democrat to meet with the pope since the election of President Obama, whose administration’s support of abortion rights worries many in the Vatican.

In a statement, the Vatican said Benedict “briefly greeted” Ms. Pelosi and her entourage after his weekly public audience and “took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death.”

The pope added that all Catholics, “especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society,” should “work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development.”

Considering her outrageous statement, this little talking-to was much deserved. Pelosi can support abortion all she wants, but her comments about the Church were completely out of line. Honestly, I’m surprised she didn’t publicly apologize for, at the least, misleading people about what the Catholic Church stands for. Alas, that would take class, something the Speakerette doesn’t appear to have much of.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

According to the Wall Street Journal, the bill will spend nearly twice as much on schools than we did in 2007. Some $88.6M will go to the Milwaukee Public School system even though the city currently has 15 VACANT chools and enrollment is actually dropping.

To understand the problem with the stimulus bill, it helps to focus on specific parts. Take the $142 billion for schools, which is nearly double the total outlays of the Department of Education in 2007. Now consider that much of this cash would go to public-school systems that don’t even need the money for its earmarked purposes.

The Milwaukee Public School system, for example, would receive $88.6 million over two years for new construction projects under the House version of the stimulus — even though the district currently has 15 vacant school buildings and declining enrollment. Between 1990 and 2008, inflation-adjusted MPS spending rose by 35%, per-pupil spending increased by 36% and state aid grew by 58%. Over the same period, enrollment fell by a percentage point and is projected to continue falling, leaving the system with enough excess capacity for some 22,000 students.

“In general, MPS facilities have been described by school officials as being in good to better-than-good condition,” reports the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “The kind of situations that create urgent needs for renovation or new construction in some cities have not been on the priority list for MPS officials in recent years.”

What’s worse, though, is the bill prohibits dollars from going to students to attend private schools. It just so happens that Milwaukee has one of the better voucher programs in the nation which is helping to educate otherwise disadvantaged students.

The Milwaukee situation is instructive for another reason. The city is home to the country’s oldest and largest school voucher program, which provides public funds for children to attend private schools. Families who participate in the means-tested voucher program receive $6,700 per pupil, while the city spends more than $13,000 per student. In addition to saving the taxpayers money, voucher students graduate at higher rates and outscore their counterparts on reading and math exams, which is one reason waiting lists for the program are common.

Yet language in the stimulus bill expressly prohibits any dollars from going toward financial assistance to students attending private schools. In other words, Milwaukee can use the money to build schools it doesn’t need, but not to expand education programs that are producing better outcomes for disadvantaged kids. The Senate version excludes provisions in the House bill for teacher merit pay and charter schools now serving more than a million students, two more education reforms that are gaining popularity nationwide despite opposition from teachers unions and local school boards.

So, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelousy, Barack Obama & Company - the ones who claim the high ground when it comes to education - are doing nothing more than throwing disadvantaged kids under the bus subjecting them to worse educations and ultimately worse futures.

Change!

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

Talk about a proposal that ought not to be rubber stamped.

In an unbelievable exchange yesterday on ABC’s This Week, the Speakerette made the, ahem, arousing comment that condoms – yes, condoms – are an imperative component of the Democrat’s proposed stimulus package. In a real stretch, the Speakerette contended that less babies means less costs for states. I guess if we just had more condoms and more abortions we’d be out of the recession in no time.

Honestly, I can’t believe this woman is one of the leaders of our country.

Link: With the economy in shambles, Congress gets a raise