Monthly Archives: April 2010

Income Tax: Why 70 Million Americans Don’t Pay Uncle Sam a Dime — Politics Daily

By midnight Thursday, about 150 million Americans will have buckled down and filed their annual federal income tax returns, and the IRS will begin collecting nearly $1 trillion in revenue from these individuals.

While you struggle to meet your deadline, consider that although the law requires you to file a tax return, more than 70 million of your fellow filers will not owe a single penny to Uncle Sam. As the latest news from the non-partisan Tax Policy Center shows, a record 47 percent of tax filers will have no federal income tax liability this year.

You may wonder, how is this possible? And, more importantly, how can I join this group?

There are many legal ways to reduce your income tax liability to zero. Of course, there are many illegal ways as well, but there’s no sense in breaking the law. Not filing a tax return can get you into big trouble. Two years ago, the actor Wesley Snipes was sentenced to three years in jail and required to pay up to $17 million in back taxes plus penalties and interest because he didn’t file his tax return for three years.

via Income Tax: Why 70 Million Americans Don’t Pay Uncle Sam a Dime — Politics Daily.

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Barack Obama, Big Government, Budget, Capitalism, Congress, Conservatives, DEFICIT, Dollar, Economics, Entitlements, Government Spending, Governmental Agencies, Ideology, IRS, Medicaid, Medicare, Progressives, Social Security, Stimulus, Taxation, United States of America

ObamaCare and the Constitution – WSJ.com

The constitutional challenges to ObamaCare have come quickly, and the media are portraying them mostly as hopeless gestures—the political equivalent of Civil War re-enactors. Discussion over: You lost, deal with it.

The press corps never dismissed the legal challenges to the war on terror so easily, but then liberals have long treated property rights and any limits on federal power to regulate commerce as 18th-century anachronisms. In fact, the legal challenges to ObamaCare are serious and carry enormous implications for the future of American liberty.

The most important legal challenge turns on the “individual mandate”—the new requirement that almost every U.S. citizen must buy government-approved health insurance. Failure to comply will be punished by an annual tax penalty that by 2016 will rise to $750 or 2% of income, whichever is higher. President Obama opposed this kind of coercion as a candidate but has become a convert. He even argued in a September interview that “I absolutely reject that notion” that this tax is a tax, because it is supposedly for your own good.

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum and 13 other state AGs—including Louisiana Democrat Buddy Caldwell—claim this is an unprecedented exercise of state power. Never before has Congress required people to buy a private product to qualify as a law-abiding citizen.

As the Congressional Budget Office noted in 1994, “Federal mandates typically apply to people as parties to economic transactions, rather than as members of society.” The only law in the same league is conscription, though in that case the Constitution gives Congress the explicit power to raise a standing army.

Democrats claim the mandate is justified under the Commerce Clause, because health care and health insurance are a form of interstate commerce. They also claim the mandate is constitutional because it is structured as a tax, which is legal under the 16th Amendment. And it is true that the Supreme Court has ruled as recently as 2005, in the homegrown marijuana case Gonzales v. Raich, that Congress can regulate essentially economic activities that “taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce.”

But even in Raich the High Court did not say that the Commerce Clause can justify any federal regulation, and in other modern cases the Court has rebuked Congress for overreaching. In U.S. v. Lopez(1995), the High Court ruled that carrying a gun near a school zone was not economically significant enough to qualify as interstate commerce, while in Morrison (2000) it overturned a law about violence against women on the same grounds.

All human activity arguably has some economic footprint. So if Congress can force Americans to buy a product, the question is what remains of the government of limited and enumerated powers, as provided in Article I. The only remaining restraint on federal power would be the Bill of Rights, though the Founders considered those 10 amendments to be an affirmation of the rights inherent in the rest of the Constitution, not the only restraint on government. If the insurance mandate stands, then why can’t Congress insist that Americans buy GM cars, or that obese Americans eat their vegetables or pay a fat tax penalty?

The mandate did not pose the same constitutional problems when Mitt Romney succeeded in passing one in Massachusetts, because state governments have police powers and often wider plenary authority under their constitutions than does the federal government. Florida’s constitution also has a privacy clause that underscores the strong state interest in opposing Congress’s health-care intrusion.

As for the assertion that the mandate is really a tax, this is an attempt at legal finesse. The mandate is the legal requirement to buy a certain product, while the tax is the means of enforcement. This is not a true income or even excise tax. Congress cannot, merely by invoking a tax, blow up the Framers’ attempt to restrain government under Article I.


READ THE REST HERE:  ObamaCare and the Constitution – WSJ.com.

1 Comment

Filed under 10th Amendment, Article 1 Section VII, Barack Obama, Capitalism, Congress, Conservatives, Constitution, Courts, Cronyism, DEFICIT, Economics, Entitlements, Government Spending, Healthcare Reform, IRS, Liberals, Medicaid, Medicare, National Debt, Organized Labor, Progressives, Redistribution of wealth, Social Security, Socialism, Sovereign Debt, Stimulus, Taxation, United States of America, USA

Obama: “I Can Go to My Right, but I Prefer My Left” – Political Hotsheet – CBS News

President Obama hit the basketball court and talked politics with CBS “Early Show” co-anchor Harry Smith this morning.Smith asked Mr. Obama, who is left-handed, if he can ever go to his right.”I can go to my right, but I prefer my left,” the president says.He doesnt always sink his famous jump shot.”You know, Ive got a few other things on my mind,” said Mr. Obama, who then makes the jump shot. “Its like health care, I always come from behind – I finish strong.” Watch the video at left.Watch for more of Smiths interview with Mr. Obama tonight on the “CBS Evening News with Katie Couric” and Friday morning on “The Early Show.”Smith also asked the president if he is aware of the extreme terms some use to describe him, such as “socialist” or “Nazi.”

Read the rest and watch the video here:  Obama: “I Can Go to My Right, but I Prefer My Left” – Political Hotsheet – CBS News.

1 Comment

Filed under Barack Obama, Big Government, Conservatives, Constitution, Cronyism, DEFICIT, Entitlements, EPA, Government Spending, Governmental Agencies, Healthcare Reform, Ideology, individual rights, Jobs, Liberals, National Debt, Organized Labor, Progressives, Redistribution of wealth, Socialism, Sovereign Debt, Stimulus, United States of America, Welfare