As you are probably aware of by now, the health care monstrosity (AHCAA.PDF) passed the House with a vote of 220-215. Of course an elated and possibly extraterrestrial Nancy Pelosi celebrated the passage of a bill that will, for the first time in U.S. history, mandate the citizens of this country to purchase a government product under penalty of law. So unless you’re too poor to file taxes, you are indebted to the federal government for the remainder of your working life. That says nothing of how many democrats just hung themselves with this bill. I know one Republican who did.
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.
And right on cue MediaMatters For America (more like MediaMatters for our version of America) completely misses the point.
Willful failure to pay taxes of any sort can result in civil or criminal penalties. Drudge links to and Unruh quotes from a press release by Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) that in turn relies on a letter from the Joint Committee on Taxation. That section of the letter dealing with “civil and criminal penalties for noncompliance specifies that Camp asked the committee to “discuss the situation in which the taxpayer has chosen not to comply with individual mandate and not to pay the additional tax.” Thus, the letter is not discussing the penalties for failure to buy insurance, but the penalties for both failing to buy insurance and failing to pay the tax.
So the fact that the government is forcing you to pay is different from when the government is forcing you to pay the second time. And nothing in that means you’ll be arrested…except where it says you’ll be arrested. Right, that makes it so much better. Nothing to see here folks. Carry on.
Then the liberal site goes on to try to ease the fears of its indignant base.
Fewer than 100 people convicted for “willful failure to file or pay taxes” in fiscal year 2008. From the Joint Committee on Taxation letter: “Of the 666 convictions reported above for fiscal year 2008, fewer than 100 were convictions for willful failure to file or pay taxes under section 7203.” [Joint Committee on Taxation letter, 11/5/09]
Again they miss (willfully ignorant of) the bigger picture. They even undermine their own argument.
Most delinquent taxes and penalties “collected through the civil process.” The Joint Committee on Taxation letter states:
The majority of delinquent taxes and penalties are collected through the civil process. In determining whether a penalty applies along with an adjustment to a tax return, the examining agent is constrained not only by the applicable statutory provision, but also by the written policy of the IRS not to treat penalties as bargaining points but instead to develop the facts sufficiently to support the decision to assert or not to assert a penalty. [Joint Committee on Taxation letter, 11/5/09]
Exactly, since most people pay their taxes through their paychecks and failure to pay other taxes (e.g. property tax) results in loss of property (relieving you of future tax liability on said property) comparatively few people are actually brought up on tax evasion charges and convicted. Except this instance is one that you will be charged and imprisoned for failure to comply. Expect those conviction figures to increase exponentially. Not to mention unusually high tax penalties.
All that may be moot, as the Senate proposes a particularly tough challenge for Democrats to ram through their ill-advised legislation. Even if the Senate does pass their version, which isn’t likely, it will have to go to committee to merge the bills and then the Stupak amendment (Labeled as selling out womens health and even sexism.) will play a role. Considering how much the left whined for the right to force you to pay for abortions with your tax dollars, there will be a strong effort to remove the pro-life language from the final bill. Then it will be sent back to the House where 39 Democrats already voted against it. I fail to see how this bill will ever make it to the president’s desk.
Enjoy it now, morons. You’ve just butchered your careers.
Partisan hack Ruy Teixeira, unleashed this horrendous denial of reality upon an unsuspecting public.
TO hear Republicans tell it, Tuesday’s elections, in which their candidates captured the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey, were a repudiation of President Obama and indicated a voter shift toward their party. They should calm themselves down. The results don’t show this and, in fact, suggest some rather daunting challenges for the Republicans.
And what might those challenges be? I don’t see any of those listed in this comical delusion. Maybe you forgot to add that list?
Well maybe Mr.Teixeira meant that Republicans might have a bit of an ideology problem. He did somewhat allude to this:
If any repudiation is going on, perhaps it is of the conservative wing of the Republican Party. Democrats captured New York’s 23rd Congressional District for the first time since 1872, as Bill Owens defeated Doug Hoffman, the hard-line conservative who forced a moderate Republican out of the race. Mr. Hoffman’s narrow defeat is now likely to embolden conservatives — who far outnumber moderates in the party — to challenge Republican incumbents they find ideologically impure.
That will be a problem for those in the party seeking to emulate the electoral strategies of Bob McDonnell in Virginia and Chris Christie in New Jersey. Those men sought to cover up the conservatism of their views in many areas. That was relatively easy to do in governors’ races in an off-year election. It will be harder for candidates to do in national elections in 2010 and especially 2012.
If you had no clue about ideological demographics this might actually make some sense. Here on Earth, however, reality isn’t quite so linear.
First, if there is a conservative uprising (and I agree there is) it won’t be limited to Republican conservatives. No sir, Ruy. Even Democrat conservatives aren’t safe. Half of all conservatives are registered independents and there are alot of us. According to exit polls we independents aren’t too happy with the Democrats. So if there were some “conservative repudiation” as he suggests, then what makes you think the Democrat party is immune to it’s effects? It’s liberal elitist arrogance. That’s what makes him so obstinate.
Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, he seems to be suffering from the same disease other out-of-touch personalities have. Scozzafava was no moderate. She was a flaming liberal. She was more to the left than the Democrat was and to be honest, most of us conservatives are just fine with a moderate like Owens. Because we “uneducated rednecks” understand principles are more important than party affiliation. We understand that to be a moderate, you actually have to act like one. What we have a problem with is the lack of representation we have received the last 2 decades. I know it’s hard for you to understand, being a foot soldier for George Soros and all, but the center of the American political spectrum is far closer to conservatism than moonbat ass-hattery liberalism.
So now we know there are no actual “daunting challenges” presented in your controversion of fact and logic, let’s continue:
Start with the predictive value of the Virginia and New Jersey victories: there is none. Sometimes the party that wins both those governorships gains seats in the next Congressional election; sometimes that party loses seats. Far more consequential is the historical pattern that the new president’s party tends to lose seats in the first midterm election. Once that is taken into account, as the political scientist Alan Abramowitz of Emory University has shown, victories in Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races tell you nothing about who will gain seats in 2010 or how large that gain will be.
Excellent. So he mentions Mr.Abramowitz and now we have one liberal “erudite” attempting validate his nonsensical gibberish by citing incongruous jargon, written by another alleged expert. Maybe afterwards they can give each other a Nobel Prize in self-affirmation. What I find most interesting about this particular excerpt, is the complete spin he put on what Abramowitz actually said.
We already know that 2010 will be a midterm election year. That means that there is a very high probability that Democrats will lose seats in the House of Representatives and a better than even chance that they will lose seats in the Senate as well. The tendency of the president’s party to lose seats in Congress, especially in the House of Representatives, is one of the best known regularities in American politics.
Somehow, that’s not the same message I got from Mr.Teixeira’s op-ed. Since I respect Mr.Abramowitz’s opinion far more than a jack boot Soros minion, I’ll defer to his judgement. I could go on, but I think that says it all.
Knowing there is no reasonable explanation for posting this prattle of yours, Mr.Teixeira, normally I would question your motives. Except I just don’t think you needed a motive. You had your marching orders…
Visibly upset when an alleged conservative mentioned a certain sensation of an appendage, Chris Matthews tries to cover-up his disdain by acting dumb to the situation.
Moonbats at CNN claim conservative Republicans are driving out moderates. This obviously caught my attention as it’s complete nonsense. There is, however, a pattern of this at CNN. Roland Martin, the biggest partisan hack to ever waste oxygen on my planet, couldn’t help himself and neither could Anderson “My hair is petrified” Cooper. I noticed it a few days ago, but here is an excerpt of a program that aired on November 2, 2009:
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: “First up, does the Republican Party have a room for moderates? State and local elections tomorrow may have profound national effects and President Obama and Sarah Palin are a big part of it. Two governors’ races may test the president’s ability to get others elected or turn into a referendum on his presidency with angry voters expressing local rage at national problems, namely the economy.
As for Sarah Palin, she, tea party protesters and other voices are front and center driving moderates out of the GOP. “Raw Politics” tonight with Tom Foreman.”
ROLAND MARTIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: “There is no doubt you are seeing the beginnings of a civil war play out in terms of folks who are saying that we do not want moderates in terms of being involved in this party. What is very interesting is that you have these national Republican leaders who are backing an individual who knows nothing even about the local issues in that race.”
Driving out moderates? You know I could have swore Scozzafava is a tax-n-spend liberal? She’s a union-backing, pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion, ACORN-loving liberal. There is not, and never has been, anything moderate about her. You have to hold a fair amount of conservative values to be considered a moderate, idiots.
Maybe I’m too harsh. Perhaps Roland can help us out here:
MARTIN:”We also see this, Anderson. You have conservative Democrats. You have a Democratic Party has no problem having liberal Democrats, moderate Democrats and conservative Democrats. What the Republicans are saying is we don’t want any liberal or moderate Republicans. We only want conservative Republicans.”
Really!? John McCain, Lindsay Graham, John Boehner, Michael Steele aren’t moderates? These are the de-facto leaders of the Republican party, and you are saying we don’t want them? I smell something and it’s not roses.
Let’s be fair and look at the “mainstream” Democrats. You have Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Barrack Obama, etc. This is the face of the DNC — all unrepentent, unmitigated modern “liberals”.
It’s not that we have a problem with liberalism. It’s that we have a problem with what liberalism has become. The sooner you rid your party of collectivists and socialists (of all kinds) the better.
The demonization of conservatism continued on CNN tonight. During the election coverage the CNN boot-lickers continued to insinuate that Scozzafava was a moderate and conservative Republicans want them out. Some excerpts from the election coverage:
ANDERSON COOPER: “It’s also a battle for the future of the Republican Party. Are moderates still welcome? And what impact are Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and others on the right having on the voting today?”
GERGEN: “The general proposition is — there’s now an effort — Dick Armey and these other folks are watching — to go up against 12 leading moderates in the race. And the conservatives want to knock them off.”
COOPER: “OK. But to that point, if they’re driving out moderates, how come, then, independents are voting overwhelmingly for Republicans this time around?”
I shouldn’t be surprised. Every time Reagan sided with a moderate, the jack-booted marxists swore it was a “liberal” he agreed with. Now anytime a conservative voices his/her displeasure with the extreme left, we’re alienating “moderates”.