The Supreme Court has long upheld spending clause programs that require states that accept federal program funds to comply with federal program requirements, and this law simply follows those precedents. The challenge to the individual insurance mandate is simply not legally credible. First, it is not clear whether the federal courts even have jurisdiction to hear the claim. Under Article III of the Constitution, courts may not decide hypothetical questions but rather only actual cases and controversies. The states are in no way injured by the mandate that individuals purchase health insurance, and thus should not be able to challenge it. But the mandate is clearly constitutional. The mandate requires people who have household incomes above the tax filing limit ($18,700 for joint filers) and who are not covered by their employer or a public program to buy health insurance
The states are financially harmed because they are the ones forced to set up the exchanges that the new law requires. And don’t try to say the “grants” provided by Washington are enough to establish the exchanges.
My God! No one has left the obligatory partisan political comment yet on this one?? O.K., let me be the first (all sides covered here):
All Republicans are bad!! All Democrats are evil!! You conservatives just want to see old people & children die in the streets! You liberals just want everyone to go on welfare! Obama is the Messiah! Obama is the Devil!
I think (hope?) that most people realize that there’s no sense in debating it at this point. The Supreme Court will decide, one way or the other soon enough.
I just don’t understand why the Right i sso oposed to the individual mandate when they themselves came up with the idea in response to Clinton’s early efforts at universal, government sponsored coverage. Yes, that’s right. It was a Republican idea that came out of the Heritage Foundation and pushed by Republican senators in the 1990’s. Why do you think Mitt Romney, as a Republican governor, took up the idea as his own?
It was only after Obama accepted their idea that Republicans decided they were against their own idea.
Tim that has to do with making the party responsible for the employees actions also responsible for their injuries. Whereas in health insurance no one is responsible for poor health except the reciptient of care.
There is no federal mandate, insurance is regulated by the states. All states do have workers comp but regulated by each state. The constitution was written to limit the powers of the federal government over the states. The founding fathers wanted the power to rest in self governing at the state level. The only real function the constitution gives the federal government is to defend and protect our liberty and promote the general welfare and allow for free commerce between states. These two clauses obviously donot provide for a mandate that anyone who is living must purchase a product. I would think that by nature is an over reach, i really do not think this is what our founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the document we call our US Constitution.
IF this joke of a healthcare mandate is upheld, what is next? Will the Federal Govt believe it is best for individuals to purchase GM cars? Certainly possible? Obamination re-wrote bankruptcy laws to fit Chicago methods by handing the unions majority ownership when the unions bankrupted the car companies, the airlines and any other industry they historically were prevalent within.
Today, unions represent 800,000 workers but decide federal elections by forcing members to pay dues and spending the way they like regardless.
When 10% does not have health insurance, BUT healthcare IS available for all of them, (mostly illegals), why does the other 90% have to change the way things are done?
Makes no sense.
Most of the alleged 30 million without health insurance, do not want it, do not work, do not care, go to the ER for everything, or are illegals.
I love all the thumbs down to the facts. It really shows where the political division is, which is not between democrat and republican but between those who deal with reality and those who want it all but have no clue on how to get it. I’m glad that the liberal socialist philosophy was shown to be ill-informed and impotent by this president. I just hope the creepy republican big business agenda doesn’t replace it.
What is it about being broke do liberals not understand. WE ARE BROKE!
2.1 trillion in revenue
3.8 trillion in annual expences and growing
14.6 trillion in debt
64 trillion in unfunded future liabilities
WE WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO PAY OUR DEBT JUST LIKE GREECE. FUNNY TO HEAR THE GERMAN FINANCE MINISTER TELL OBAMA TO GET HIS OWN HOUSE IN ORDER. HE IS RIGHT. INSTEAD OF TELLING THEM WHAT TO DO. ARROGANCE AGAIN.
Seems like when whenever those in power propose/enact something which is clearly unconstitutional the solution is to A) insinuate into the document wording which does not exist, for example: “freedom OF religion” becomes “freedom FROM religion” or B)rely on some part which grants a power while ignoring another part which limits that power (kind of like reading the insuring agreement of an insurance policy while ignoring the exclusions! Were we not taught that we must read the policy in its entirety in order to correctly interpret the coverage provided?) or C) simply declare by executive fiat the Constitution, or some thereof, unconstitutional. What?
Oops: I typed “when” followed by “whenever” in the opening sentence of my post. The “when” does not belong. Sorry for the confusion. I should have been a lawyer. A very old profession.
JB, The First Amendment doesn’t use the phrase “freedom of religion” or “freedom from religion.” It says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
See that? Government cannot establish religion (e.g., government sponsored religious activity), nor can goverment prohibit your right to exercise your religion.
No one is telling you you can’t go to whatever church you choose. What they are telling you is to keep religious activities separated from government activities.
Sarah, we’re not broke and never will be so long as we have a printing press. What we lack is the will to raise taxes to increase that first number on your list – revenue.
OPV read the tenth amendment. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY OR TO THE PEOPLE.
Sorry OPV, you will need an activist judges to get past this one. This is why states can create insurance regulations and the federal government can not regulate state insurance laws, because the Constitution doe not grant any power to the United States to require you to purchase anything much less insrance regulation.
I am going to show you the financial condition of our country and you tell me if you still say we are not broke, ok? Here is a fictional family actually the US with eight zeros removed. Lets call them the Smiths.
Income. $21,000
annual bills $38,000.
Bill put on credit card annually $17,000.
the Smiths mortgage balance $142,000.
Mr Smiths unfunded future retiement and medical bills $620,000.
SO OPV, YOU CAN HONESTLY SAY WITH A STRAIGHT FACE WE ARE NOT BROKE. WELL THE GERMAN FINANCE MINISTER TOLD OBAMA THAT HE SHOULD PAY MORE ATTENTION TO HIS OWN FINANCIAL PROBLEMS THAN WORRY ABOUT EUROPES. HE WAS RIGHT.
OPV, that would be interesting if it were true. Clinton only had a 400 billion dollar surplus or $4,000. surplus for our fictional family in only one of his 8 years of office. Guess what that was the same year our presidential hopeful was speaker of the house. Newt Gingrich. HMMMMMM…. Congress spends the money.
Your figure of $50,000 would mean we had revenue of 5 trillion in revenue for 1994. Here is the real numbers, get your facts straight before you post.
Income Taxes $690 billion
Social Insurance Taxes + $504 billion
Ad-valorem Taxes + $440 billion
Fees and Charges + $211 billion
Business and Other Revenue + $80 billion
Balance + $3 billion
Total Direct Revenue $1,927 billion
201l expected revenue $2.100 billion, Obama collected more than Clinton. Hmmmm… and we are still collecting revenue based on the Bush tax cuts which Obama elected to continue when he had a super majority in the Senate and the House. Why did he do that?
The Other Point of View,
I’m happy you either have a copy of the U.S. Constitution or have memorized the document. I wish all U.S. citizens (and wannabe U.S. citizens, for that matter) had a copy and would read it. However, I was not, and did not claim to be, citing the exact text in my previous post. I was paraphrasing the intent, as you did in the last two paragraphs of your post. I was merely citing one common example of what I believe is misinterpreting or overlooking passages altogether. Just as surely as the phrase “separation of Church and State” has come into common usage, yet those words do not appear in the actual text.
And also just as surely as you’re interpretation of Amendment I in your final sentence is paraphrasing what you believe to be true also does not exist in the text. You did quote the text accurately, however you then seem to be implying that “…shall make no law…” is synonymous with “activities”. Huh? Is that to say that whenever Congress engages in any activity it is automatically and simultaneously enacting a law? No.
Back to the point of the article and the assertion by many that the oft-cited commerce clause (maybe change to “commerce claws”?) supports the health care mandate: “Powers Granted to Congress” Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution reads, in relavent part: “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;…” which begs the question of whether “regulating” commerce can possibly be interpreted to mean “mandating” commerce? Would it not then follow that no able bodied person could choose not to work? (assuming, of course, that you’re not subsisting on the taxpayer’s dime, in which case maybe you should be required to do something for your daily bread) Could the government, using this interpretation, “mandate” that you participate in some other form of commerce? Perhaps a labor camp? And, since the commerce clause includes regulating commerce with foreign nations, could Congress not “mandate” that foreign nations buy health care coverage or pay a fine? I have my doubts.
Finally, in response to your next post in which you stated that we (the Federal Government) will never be broke as long as we (the Federal Government) have a printing press to raise revenue…wow.
Yes, Section 8 does also grant to Congress the power “To coin money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures” and also “To borrow money on the CREDIT (emphasis added) of the United States”…if the government keeps printing money, what credit will we (the Federal Government) have? The answer is also contained in Section 8: “To establish…uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States”.
I’m happy that you’re familiar with the U.S. Constitution, TOPV, and I urge all readers to obtain a copy if you don’t already have one. Read it and re-read it. It’s truly a remarkable and wonderful document.
Thanks, TOPV! We may have some disagreement, but referring to the actual text and engaging in lively and friendly debate seems to be the best way toward resolving whatever problems we as a nation face.
OPV, LMAO, “we will never be broke as long as we have a printing press” WOW! What a rediculous statement, do you understand the basic principal of supply and demand economics. If you print money, which we have been at an crazy rate. That delutes the value of the current dollars in circulation. QE1, QE2 and now the twisting of treasuries has devalued the dollar to practically worthless and i will prove it to you.
Recently the Bank Of New York has installed a fee for those that make large deposits in the bank without any interest at all as a matter of fact you have to pay the bank to take your money.when asked why the president of the bank was doing this he said, why should I pay you for your money when I can get as much as i want for free from the federal reserve. The last treasurie offering the federal reserve bought its own bonds. THE DOLLAR BUBBLE IS ABOUT TO BUST. THE DOLLAR IS ACTUALLY WORTHLESS RIGHT NOW. YOU CAN GET A, FIXED LOAN FOR 3% BECAUSE THE BANK PAYS NOTHING FOR MONEY. WE ARE CURRENTLY USING FIAT CURRENCY AS SOON AS EVERYONE FIGURES THIS OUT HYPER INFLATION WILL TAKE HOLD. WE ARE BROKE!
The “we(the government)are broke” vs. “we (the government)have/had a surplus” discussion is really a discussion about a symptom and not the disease. If we are broke, the question is: has the government overspent OR under-taxed? If we have a surplus, the question is: has the government over-taxed OR failed to spend our money on that which we wanted? (and which they are legally authorized to fund)
My opinion is they have over-spent and violated their fiduciary responsibility. Government should not be profit-seeking, nor should it be in the business of picking winners or losers. Cronyism is facilitated through spending and tax policy, whereby some get rewarded and some get punished. Politicians do not need to directly receive kickbacks or payoffs: their “profit” is in the form of votes and making “friends” through this warped “punishment/reward” tax and spend system. Republicans are accused of favoring the “rich”, while Democrats are accused of favoring the “poor” (don’t think either is entirely correct, but that’s the perception) Either way, it’s favoritism. No good can come of this. The Constitution REQUIRES taxation to be uniform, and if this simple principle were adhered to, cronyism and conflict of interest would be greatly diminished, even if not totally eliminated.
I like the family analogy, but mine is not hypothetical: I am far from wealthy (at least in monetary terms) and need to borrow money (willingly, I might add) to help my daughters through college. They are full-time students and work at low-paying not-the-best jobs to make ends meet. When they get their paychecks taxes are withheld (of course) some of which is Social Security. The question of morality was raised recently by Senator Charlie Rangel, in an attempt to justify higher taxes and/or more spending.
So, my question to the likes of Mr. Rangel is: Is a system in which money is taken from the wallet of a nineteen year old low paid college girl and put into the wallet of a well-off retiree moral? (social security being an entitlement and all – which it was never designed to be, it was designed to be an insurance program – see “reward” comments above…) Can anyone say with a straight face that such an arrangement is moral?
I say it is immoral and reprehensible. Certainly tax revenues need to spent on private individuals and businesses, as the government may occasionally need, as well as provide, services. And, there are many in genuine need for whom taxpayer assistance is morally justified and fiscally sustainable, if only politicians would stop using the public treasury for personal gain and pet projects.
Let the public spending be transparent, well thought out, and devoid of favoritism/cronyism. Let those undeserving currently feeding at the trough of the public treasury, and the politicians who assist in this scam, go feed somewhere else.
And finally, ponder this: Let’s say the federal/state/social security income tax rate averages 33%. Then add in real estate taxes, sales taxes, sales and hidden taxes on your purchases, motor vehicle taxes, etc. and end up at oh, say 50% when all is said and done. Then walk down any and every street U.S.A. and observe that every second (or at least every third if you want to low-ball)home/dwelling/apartment 100% of that households’s income is turned over to the government and ask yourself “does the government over-tax and overspend?” Just a question, and just curious what your answer would be…
I agree with your bottomline idea regarding SSI, but I disagree with your logic on how you got to that point.
1. SSI to this day is not an entitlement if the person recieving it has paid into it.
2. I think you are missing the main point behind what is wrong with SSI. It is resonable to assume that if SSI was left alone, it would have a surplus? Think about how many people pay into it and die before they can cash in. Or think about how much someone pays into it in their lifetime and doesn’t recevie all of the money they paid into it back. Or people using false SS numbers so they can get a job, but will not be able to receive SSI when they retire from all the income tax they paid into that SS number. I believe that the government saw all the money that SSI was holding onto and it was just burning a hole in its pocket. They wanted to get re-elected again, so they made more and more promises and funded those promises with SSI money.
I do think there should be an “opt out” option for SSI thou. Let the people decide what they want to do with the money that they worked for, not have the government tell them how they should spend it.
Some Insurance Guy,
Social Security was designed from the start to be “pay as you go” INSURANCE program. In theory there should never be either a shortfall or a surplus: in any given year the SS taxes paid in should equal the SSI payments made.
And to prove the point: there is no correlation between what someone paid in and what they may ultimately receive. Some who’ve paid in may never receive a dime, while others may receive SSI payments many times more than they ever paid in. That’s insurance.
Under the misguided and erroneous conclusion that “since I paid in I’m entitled” is like saying that since you paid your auto or homeowners premiums you’re entitled to make a claim…..even though no accident or loss has yet occurred!
Unless your income and net worth falls below a certain level you should not receive SSI. This may be considered unfair under the “I paid in, therefore I should get SSI” entitlement theory, but entirely misses the point: SSI taxes are PREMIUMS and SSI payments are CLAIMS.
Your first paragraph contradicts itself. “There should never be either a shortfall or surplus [in SSI]”. then you go on to say “Some who’ve paid in may never receive a dime, while others may receive SSI payments many times more than they ever paid in. That’s insurance.” If you have people reciving more then what they paid into, and more then what is being paid into the overall program, you bet there will be a defict. Hence, why insurers have rate changes. But, I don’t have any data to believe that if SSI was left on its own, that there would be a deficit.
To address the second part of your post, I will pose a question to you. Would you pay for insurance that you know that you could never file a claim on? The “loss” with SSI is that you reach age 65. If you never reach age 65, then you don’t “have a loss”. Since the government is forcing its citizens to pay into SSI, then people are more likely to file for SSI. If you are forced to keep all your money in a bank. You can not withdrawl it or move it, and the bank is charging you fees, whenever you have the chance to have that bank pay you back some of your losses, wouldn’t you take it? Its your money that you worked hard for.
Also, I noticed you still failed to address my concern that the government is FORCING everyone who pays an income tax to pay into SSI. There is no opt out option available to anyone. I am only changed a sales tax on stuff I buy, I don’t have to pay property tax (directly) if I don’t own a home, ect ect.
No contradiction. Some receiving more than they paid in is, in fact, the nature of insurance. Some paying in who may never receive anything is also the nature of insurance. In theory there should never be either a deficit nor a shortfall if the “premiums” paid (SS taxes)are always equal to the “claims” being paid (SSI checks going out)in any given year. And yes, the “rates” might naturally need to be changed periodically to reflect actuarial changes. But no insurance system can possibly be sustainable, or at least affordable, when the claim rate is virtually 100%
Nobody could possibly know in advance that they will NEVER need to “claim” SSI (which would probably be very few anyway, considering most people do live to 65 and beyond) Being in the insurance business for many years, I can cite many cases where the insured laments paying the premium because they are NEVER going to have an accident, and then…BOOM…accident! Any one of us could keel over tomorrow or live to be 110 years old. And, if I’m wealthy at age 61 I could very easily be flat broke at age 65.
My problem is that SS was designed to be an insurance program to provide a “safety net” so that the elderly would always have some minimal income on which to live, but has been transformed into an entitlement program, regardless of whether you need to make a “claim” (your elderly and you’re destitute constitutes a claim). It should be an entitlement only in the sense that if you’ve paid in you’re entitled to make a claim. Much the same way that paying an auto insurance premium entitles you to make a claim IF YOU’VE SUFFERED A LOSS (of course, the level of net worth below which you are deemed to be in need can be debated)
Being allowed to opt out of paying SS taxes perhaps should be allowed, however anyone who elects to do so should then be prohibited from ever collecting SSI. Don’t really know what would happen if you’ve opted out but become entirely destitute in old age…would you, or anyone else, suddenly expect the taxpayers to give you some kind of income? I hope not, but then again, I know human nature…
And I guess we could address the issue of adverse selection, wherein someone decides to opt back in right before retirement age, by invoking a much lower SSI check than they would have otherwise have received…but then again, I know human nature…
The forcing part of taxation I don’t have too much problem with, as the Constitution grants the power of taxation to Congress: as long as it’s uniform for everyone, and should certainly be kept to a minimum. Social Security should be actuarily sound, and steps taken to prevent paying claims to those who are not suffering any loss.
The Supreme Court has long upheld spending clause programs that require states that accept federal program funds to comply with federal program requirements, and this law simply follows those precedents. The challenge to the individual insurance mandate is simply not legally credible. First, it is not clear whether the federal courts even have jurisdiction to hear the claim. Under Article III of the Constitution, courts may not decide hypothetical questions but rather only actual cases and controversies. The states are in no way injured by the mandate that individuals purchase health insurance, and thus should not be able to challenge it. But the mandate is clearly constitutional. The mandate requires people who have household incomes above the tax filing limit ($18,700 for joint filers) and who are not covered by their employer or a public program to buy health insurance
The states are financially harmed because they are the ones forced to set up the exchanges that the new law requires. And don’t try to say the “grants” provided by Washington are enough to establish the exchanges.
My God! No one has left the obligatory partisan political comment yet on this one?? O.K., let me be the first (all sides covered here):
All Republicans are bad!! All Democrats are evil!! You conservatives just want to see old people & children die in the streets! You liberals just want everyone to go on welfare! Obama is the Messiah! Obama is the Devil!
I think (hope?) that most people realize that there’s no sense in debating it at this point. The Supreme Court will decide, one way or the other soon enough.
I just don’t understand why the Right i sso oposed to the individual mandate when they themselves came up with the idea in response to Clinton’s early efforts at universal, government sponsored coverage. Yes, that’s right. It was a Republican idea that came out of the Heritage Foundation and pushed by Republican senators in the 1990’s. Why do you think Mitt Romney, as a Republican governor, took up the idea as his own?
It was only after Obama accepted their idea that Republicans decided they were against their own idea.
…what about the federal mandate for Workers Compensation? Constitutional?
Tim that has to do with making the party responsible for the employees actions also responsible for their injuries. Whereas in health insurance no one is responsible for poor health except the reciptient of care.
There is no federal mandate, insurance is regulated by the states. All states do have workers comp but regulated by each state. The constitution was written to limit the powers of the federal government over the states. The founding fathers wanted the power to rest in self governing at the state level. The only real function the constitution gives the federal government is to defend and protect our liberty and promote the general welfare and allow for free commerce between states. These two clauses obviously donot provide for a mandate that anyone who is living must purchase a product. I would think that by nature is an over reach, i really do not think this is what our founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the document we call our US Constitution.
IF this joke of a healthcare mandate is upheld, what is next? Will the Federal Govt believe it is best for individuals to purchase GM cars? Certainly possible? Obamination re-wrote bankruptcy laws to fit Chicago methods by handing the unions majority ownership when the unions bankrupted the car companies, the airlines and any other industry they historically were prevalent within.
Today, unions represent 800,000 workers but decide federal elections by forcing members to pay dues and spending the way they like regardless.
When 10% does not have health insurance, BUT healthcare IS available for all of them, (mostly illegals), why does the other 90% have to change the way things are done?
Makes no sense.
Most of the alleged 30 million without health insurance, do not want it, do not work, do not care, go to the ER for everything, or are illegals.
Lets not lie to each other. Those ARE the facts.
I love all the thumbs down to the facts. It really shows where the political division is, which is not between democrat and republican but between those who deal with reality and those who want it all but have no clue on how to get it. I’m glad that the liberal socialist philosophy was shown to be ill-informed and impotent by this president. I just hope the creepy republican big business agenda doesn’t replace it.
What is it about being broke do liberals not understand. WE ARE BROKE!
2.1 trillion in revenue
3.8 trillion in annual expences and growing
14.6 trillion in debt
64 trillion in unfunded future liabilities
WE WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO PAY OUR DEBT JUST LIKE GREECE. FUNNY TO HEAR THE GERMAN FINANCE MINISTER TELL OBAMA TO GET HIS OWN HOUSE IN ORDER. HE IS RIGHT. INSTEAD OF TELLING THEM WHAT TO DO. ARROGANCE AGAIN.
Seems like when whenever those in power propose/enact something which is clearly unconstitutional the solution is to A) insinuate into the document wording which does not exist, for example: “freedom OF religion” becomes “freedom FROM religion” or B)rely on some part which grants a power while ignoring another part which limits that power (kind of like reading the insuring agreement of an insurance policy while ignoring the exclusions! Were we not taught that we must read the policy in its entirety in order to correctly interpret the coverage provided?) or C) simply declare by executive fiat the Constitution, or some thereof, unconstitutional. What?
Oops: I typed “when” followed by “whenever” in the opening sentence of my post. The “when” does not belong. Sorry for the confusion. I should have been a lawyer. A very old profession.
JB, The First Amendment doesn’t use the phrase “freedom of religion” or “freedom from religion.” It says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
See that? Government cannot establish religion (e.g., government sponsored religious activity), nor can goverment prohibit your right to exercise your religion.
No one is telling you you can’t go to whatever church you choose. What they are telling you is to keep religious activities separated from government activities.
Sarah, we’re not broke and never will be so long as we have a printing press. What we lack is the will to raise taxes to increase that first number on your list – revenue.
OPV read the tenth amendment. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY OR TO THE PEOPLE.
Sorry OPV, you will need an activist judges to get past this one. This is why states can create insurance regulations and the federal government can not regulate state insurance laws, because the Constitution doe not grant any power to the United States to require you to purchase anything much less insrance regulation.
I am going to show you the financial condition of our country and you tell me if you still say we are not broke, ok? Here is a fictional family actually the US with eight zeros removed. Lets call them the Smiths.
Income. $21,000
annual bills $38,000.
Bill put on credit card annually $17,000.
the Smiths mortgage balance $142,000.
Mr Smiths unfunded future retiement and medical bills $620,000.
SO OPV, YOU CAN HONESTLY SAY WITH A STRAIGHT FACE WE ARE NOT BROKE. WELL THE GERMAN FINANCE MINISTER TOLD OBAMA THAT HE SHOULD PAY MORE ATTENTION TO HIS OWN FINANCIAL PROBLEMS THAN WORRY ABOUT EUROPES. HE WAS RIGHT.
I like your example of the family.
Here’s what happened in under Clinton:
Income $50,000
Annual bills $38,000
Enter Bush:
“Hey, we have a surplus! That money belongs to the American people, not to the government! Let’s cut taxes!”
New income $21,000
Bills $38,000
Hey, guess what? If you reduce your income…you will have less income.
OPV, that would be interesting if it were true. Clinton only had a 400 billion dollar surplus or $4,000. surplus for our fictional family in only one of his 8 years of office. Guess what that was the same year our presidential hopeful was speaker of the house. Newt Gingrich. HMMMMMM…. Congress spends the money.
Your figure of $50,000 would mean we had revenue of 5 trillion in revenue for 1994. Here is the real numbers, get your facts straight before you post.
Income Taxes $690 billion
Social Insurance Taxes + $504 billion
Ad-valorem Taxes + $440 billion
Fees and Charges + $211 billion
Business and Other Revenue + $80 billion
Balance + $3 billion
Total Direct Revenue $1,927 billion
201l expected revenue $2.100 billion, Obama collected more than Clinton. Hmmmm… and we are still collecting revenue based on the Bush tax cuts which Obama elected to continue when he had a super majority in the Senate and the House. Why did he do that?
YOU LIE! I couldnt resist, OPV, Your figures are made up!
You lie!
The Other Point of View,
I’m happy you either have a copy of the U.S. Constitution or have memorized the document. I wish all U.S. citizens (and wannabe U.S. citizens, for that matter) had a copy and would read it. However, I was not, and did not claim to be, citing the exact text in my previous post. I was paraphrasing the intent, as you did in the last two paragraphs of your post. I was merely citing one common example of what I believe is misinterpreting or overlooking passages altogether. Just as surely as the phrase “separation of Church and State” has come into common usage, yet those words do not appear in the actual text.
And also just as surely as you’re interpretation of Amendment I in your final sentence is paraphrasing what you believe to be true also does not exist in the text. You did quote the text accurately, however you then seem to be implying that “…shall make no law…” is synonymous with “activities”. Huh? Is that to say that whenever Congress engages in any activity it is automatically and simultaneously enacting a law? No.
Back to the point of the article and the assertion by many that the oft-cited commerce clause (maybe change to “commerce claws”?) supports the health care mandate: “Powers Granted to Congress” Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution reads, in relavent part: “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;…” which begs the question of whether “regulating” commerce can possibly be interpreted to mean “mandating” commerce? Would it not then follow that no able bodied person could choose not to work? (assuming, of course, that you’re not subsisting on the taxpayer’s dime, in which case maybe you should be required to do something for your daily bread) Could the government, using this interpretation, “mandate” that you participate in some other form of commerce? Perhaps a labor camp? And, since the commerce clause includes regulating commerce with foreign nations, could Congress not “mandate” that foreign nations buy health care coverage or pay a fine? I have my doubts.
Finally, in response to your next post in which you stated that we (the Federal Government) will never be broke as long as we (the Federal Government) have a printing press to raise revenue…wow.
Yes, Section 8 does also grant to Congress the power “To coin money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures” and also “To borrow money on the CREDIT (emphasis added) of the United States”…if the government keeps printing money, what credit will we (the Federal Government) have? The answer is also contained in Section 8: “To establish…uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States”.
I’m happy that you’re familiar with the U.S. Constitution, TOPV, and I urge all readers to obtain a copy if you don’t already have one. Read it and re-read it. It’s truly a remarkable and wonderful document.
Thanks, TOPV! We may have some disagreement, but referring to the actual text and engaging in lively and friendly debate seems to be the best way toward resolving whatever problems we as a nation face.
OPV, LMAO, “we will never be broke as long as we have a printing press” WOW! What a rediculous statement, do you understand the basic principal of supply and demand economics. If you print money, which we have been at an crazy rate. That delutes the value of the current dollars in circulation. QE1, QE2 and now the twisting of treasuries has devalued the dollar to practically worthless and i will prove it to you.
Recently the Bank Of New York has installed a fee for those that make large deposits in the bank without any interest at all as a matter of fact you have to pay the bank to take your money.when asked why the president of the bank was doing this he said, why should I pay you for your money when I can get as much as i want for free from the federal reserve. The last treasurie offering the federal reserve bought its own bonds. THE DOLLAR BUBBLE IS ABOUT TO BUST. THE DOLLAR IS ACTUALLY WORTHLESS RIGHT NOW. YOU CAN GET A, FIXED LOAN FOR 3% BECAUSE THE BANK PAYS NOTHING FOR MONEY. WE ARE CURRENTLY USING FIAT CURRENCY AS SOON AS EVERYONE FIGURES THIS OUT HYPER INFLATION WILL TAKE HOLD. WE ARE BROKE!
The “we(the government)are broke” vs. “we (the government)have/had a surplus” discussion is really a discussion about a symptom and not the disease. If we are broke, the question is: has the government overspent OR under-taxed? If we have a surplus, the question is: has the government over-taxed OR failed to spend our money on that which we wanted? (and which they are legally authorized to fund)
My opinion is they have over-spent and violated their fiduciary responsibility. Government should not be profit-seeking, nor should it be in the business of picking winners or losers. Cronyism is facilitated through spending and tax policy, whereby some get rewarded and some get punished. Politicians do not need to directly receive kickbacks or payoffs: their “profit” is in the form of votes and making “friends” through this warped “punishment/reward” tax and spend system. Republicans are accused of favoring the “rich”, while Democrats are accused of favoring the “poor” (don’t think either is entirely correct, but that’s the perception) Either way, it’s favoritism. No good can come of this. The Constitution REQUIRES taxation to be uniform, and if this simple principle were adhered to, cronyism and conflict of interest would be greatly diminished, even if not totally eliminated.
I like the family analogy, but mine is not hypothetical: I am far from wealthy (at least in monetary terms) and need to borrow money (willingly, I might add) to help my daughters through college. They are full-time students and work at low-paying not-the-best jobs to make ends meet. When they get their paychecks taxes are withheld (of course) some of which is Social Security. The question of morality was raised recently by Senator Charlie Rangel, in an attempt to justify higher taxes and/or more spending.
So, my question to the likes of Mr. Rangel is: Is a system in which money is taken from the wallet of a nineteen year old low paid college girl and put into the wallet of a well-off retiree moral? (social security being an entitlement and all – which it was never designed to be, it was designed to be an insurance program – see “reward” comments above…) Can anyone say with a straight face that such an arrangement is moral?
I say it is immoral and reprehensible. Certainly tax revenues need to spent on private individuals and businesses, as the government may occasionally need, as well as provide, services. And, there are many in genuine need for whom taxpayer assistance is morally justified and fiscally sustainable, if only politicians would stop using the public treasury for personal gain and pet projects.
Let the public spending be transparent, well thought out, and devoid of favoritism/cronyism. Let those undeserving currently feeding at the trough of the public treasury, and the politicians who assist in this scam, go feed somewhere else.
And finally, ponder this: Let’s say the federal/state/social security income tax rate averages 33%. Then add in real estate taxes, sales taxes, sales and hidden taxes on your purchases, motor vehicle taxes, etc. and end up at oh, say 50% when all is said and done. Then walk down any and every street U.S.A. and observe that every second (or at least every third if you want to low-ball)home/dwelling/apartment 100% of that households’s income is turned over to the government and ask yourself “does the government over-tax and overspend?” Just a question, and just curious what your answer would be…
Herman Cains 999 plan would fix this.
9% Corporate tax
9% Sales tax
9% Income tax
No deductions, No corporate credits. Everyone has to pay regardless of income and actual revenue would go up!
I agree with your bottomline idea regarding SSI, but I disagree with your logic on how you got to that point.
1. SSI to this day is not an entitlement if the person recieving it has paid into it.
2. I think you are missing the main point behind what is wrong with SSI. It is resonable to assume that if SSI was left alone, it would have a surplus? Think about how many people pay into it and die before they can cash in. Or think about how much someone pays into it in their lifetime and doesn’t recevie all of the money they paid into it back. Or people using false SS numbers so they can get a job, but will not be able to receive SSI when they retire from all the income tax they paid into that SS number. I believe that the government saw all the money that SSI was holding onto and it was just burning a hole in its pocket. They wanted to get re-elected again, so they made more and more promises and funded those promises with SSI money.
I do think there should be an “opt out” option for SSI thou. Let the people decide what they want to do with the money that they worked for, not have the government tell them how they should spend it.
Some Insurance Guy,
Social Security was designed from the start to be “pay as you go” INSURANCE program. In theory there should never be either a shortfall or a surplus: in any given year the SS taxes paid in should equal the SSI payments made.
And to prove the point: there is no correlation between what someone paid in and what they may ultimately receive. Some who’ve paid in may never receive a dime, while others may receive SSI payments many times more than they ever paid in. That’s insurance.
Under the misguided and erroneous conclusion that “since I paid in I’m entitled” is like saying that since you paid your auto or homeowners premiums you’re entitled to make a claim…..even though no accident or loss has yet occurred!
Unless your income and net worth falls below a certain level you should not receive SSI. This may be considered unfair under the “I paid in, therefore I should get SSI” entitlement theory, but entirely misses the point: SSI taxes are PREMIUMS and SSI payments are CLAIMS.
Your first paragraph contradicts itself. “There should never be either a shortfall or surplus [in SSI]”. then you go on to say “Some who’ve paid in may never receive a dime, while others may receive SSI payments many times more than they ever paid in. That’s insurance.” If you have people reciving more then what they paid into, and more then what is being paid into the overall program, you bet there will be a defict. Hence, why insurers have rate changes. But, I don’t have any data to believe that if SSI was left on its own, that there would be a deficit.
To address the second part of your post, I will pose a question to you. Would you pay for insurance that you know that you could never file a claim on? The “loss” with SSI is that you reach age 65. If you never reach age 65, then you don’t “have a loss”. Since the government is forcing its citizens to pay into SSI, then people are more likely to file for SSI. If you are forced to keep all your money in a bank. You can not withdrawl it or move it, and the bank is charging you fees, whenever you have the chance to have that bank pay you back some of your losses, wouldn’t you take it? Its your money that you worked hard for.
Also, I noticed you still failed to address my concern that the government is FORCING everyone who pays an income tax to pay into SSI. There is no opt out option available to anyone. I am only changed a sales tax on stuff I buy, I don’t have to pay property tax (directly) if I don’t own a home, ect ect.
No contradiction. Some receiving more than they paid in is, in fact, the nature of insurance. Some paying in who may never receive anything is also the nature of insurance. In theory there should never be either a deficit nor a shortfall if the “premiums” paid (SS taxes)are always equal to the “claims” being paid (SSI checks going out)in any given year. And yes, the “rates” might naturally need to be changed periodically to reflect actuarial changes. But no insurance system can possibly be sustainable, or at least affordable, when the claim rate is virtually 100%
Nobody could possibly know in advance that they will NEVER need to “claim” SSI (which would probably be very few anyway, considering most people do live to 65 and beyond) Being in the insurance business for many years, I can cite many cases where the insured laments paying the premium because they are NEVER going to have an accident, and then…BOOM…accident! Any one of us could keel over tomorrow or live to be 110 years old. And, if I’m wealthy at age 61 I could very easily be flat broke at age 65.
My problem is that SS was designed to be an insurance program to provide a “safety net” so that the elderly would always have some minimal income on which to live, but has been transformed into an entitlement program, regardless of whether you need to make a “claim” (your elderly and you’re destitute constitutes a claim). It should be an entitlement only in the sense that if you’ve paid in you’re entitled to make a claim. Much the same way that paying an auto insurance premium entitles you to make a claim IF YOU’VE SUFFERED A LOSS (of course, the level of net worth below which you are deemed to be in need can be debated)
Being allowed to opt out of paying SS taxes perhaps should be allowed, however anyone who elects to do so should then be prohibited from ever collecting SSI. Don’t really know what would happen if you’ve opted out but become entirely destitute in old age…would you, or anyone else, suddenly expect the taxpayers to give you some kind of income? I hope not, but then again, I know human nature…
And I guess we could address the issue of adverse selection, wherein someone decides to opt back in right before retirement age, by invoking a much lower SSI check than they would have otherwise have received…but then again, I know human nature…
The forcing part of taxation I don’t have too much problem with, as the Constitution grants the power of taxation to Congress: as long as it’s uniform for everyone, and should certainly be kept to a minimum. Social Security should be actuarily sound, and steps taken to prevent paying claims to those who are not suffering any loss.