Friday, April 9, 2010

Is This How They Are Selling It?

Are people buying this explanation? Debbie Wasserman-Schultz(D-FL), who I think gets her mail sent to MSNBC since she is on Maddow/Olbermann about every night, is a well spoken liberal robot but seems to be missing the point in this clip below. Or she is lying,which in either case means we're screwed.

Now what is wrong with her answer you say. She is basically saying that buying health care, or not, will afford you different tax status and that's why it is Constitutional. Well I do not argue with the first clause of that statement, it is how she got to her conclusion that has me shaking my head. According to her logic, it would stand that you would get penalized for not buying a home. Not true, while yes you receive a tax credit on the interest you pay for a mortgage, you do not pay extra (meaning outside of what you are already paying) for not purchasing a home. With health insurance, if you do not buy insurance you will be penalized. Meaning you will pay extra taxes. You do not get a line item on your taxes that penalizes you for renting an apartment, do you? Also if your home is paid for, it no longer reaps those benefits. It will have others but that is not the scope of her argument.

According to her logic, being married affords you a favorable tax status and therefore consistent with her Constitutionality argument, if marriage is allowed so is injecting health insurance to the tax code. Well it does afford some benefits, but filing single does not come with a penalty of extra taxes. I see where she is going but the long to short is that no where in history have we required anyone to purchase a product at risk of being PENALIZED by the FEDERAL government. Because nowhere in our Constitution does it allow for such behavior. If anything, that document provides a pretty strong idea of what the Government CANNOT do. And don't give me the car insurance couldn't give me anything more totally irrelevant. Auto insurance mandates are provided by the states according to their own laws, if anything it bolsters the argument that the Feds should NOT be involved and it is a decision best left to the citizens of that specific state.

The argument i sometimes hear from lefties is the fall back :" Well Ocho in the Preamble it says 'promote the general welfare'...". Two things wrong with that, first off lefties usually have no idea that it came from the Preamble and secondly they aren't familiar with the guy who wrote that, James Madison. He wrote after the fact:

With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.

President Madison there makes it quite clear what is meant by that clause. That he assumed that the general welfare would be qualified by the enumerated powers NOT to be taken in an unlimited sense. As he states that would morph the Constitution into something it is not. Sounds like the modern Democratic Party has never read or cared about our forefathers.


Post a Comment