As the smoke is clearing, the fog is settling in. Chief
Justice John Roberts’ tricky opinion in the AFA case has both dems and
republicans scrambling to figure out what they actually believe.
“UPHELD!”
“Yes but as a tax”
“uhh, FUCK, but, uh, WHATEVER!”
Is the Supreme Court ruling a double edged sword, as many
are saying? A trap, a Trojan horse, we need more metaphors. Constitutional
scholars are uniformly of the mind that by upholding the Individual Mandate as
a tax, Roberts and the High Court have changed the meaning of the commerce
clause in a way that could have far reaching effects on current and future
legislation. Specifically, the Court ruled that the Federal Government has much
more limited power to fund certain initiatives on a state level while also
compelling the states to act in certain ways as a result. The interpretation of
the Commerce clause is seen as a classic example of big versus small
government, played out in the legislative arena. By upholding the AFA Mandate
as a tax and rejecting it under Commerce, all hell may have broken loose.
Is Roberts clever and cunning enough to uphold AFA in such a
way as to actually help the Conservative judicial cause? Of course he is, he’s
fucking brilliant. And it sounds conspiracy-ish, but like any conspiracy theory
it is at least somewhat plausible. The Dems reaction, undoubtedly, will be to
come up with bullshit ways to try and avoid the “NEW TAX” label sticking. They’ll
talk about “broad bipartisan support” and of course point out that Roberts, a
Bush appointee, cast the deciding vote. If this was a brilliant strike by the
Chief Justice, it even fooled conservative TV heroes like Glen Beck, who was
busy distributing t-shirts with Roberts’ image and the word “COWARD” loudly
stamped atop. It might be time for Dems to make a bold, creative pivot to
prevent November from turning into a tax referendum. It could fail miserably,
but then again we’re just a magazine, we can suggest whatever we dang well
please.
Everyone was surprised by this ruling and its far-reaching
implications, both explicit and implicit. Explicit was, of course, the AFA
completely upheld, which few believed would happen. Certainly not with Roberts
casting the deciding vote. Implicit is the notion that democrats are quite
literally afraid of the word ‘tax’. And I mean literally, literally, not
figuratively, as in the frequent use of the word to suggest heightened
importance: my heart was literally in my
throat. No, it was figuratively in your throat, which is why you picked a
common metaphor in the first place, without realizing it of course, and you
inserted the word literally because you thought it functioned like the Mrs.
Dash of shit you want people to pay attention to. Literally, like the Mrs.
Dash.
But dems are afraid of the word ‘tax’. So are Republicans,
for that matter. ‘Tax’ is the most loaded word in the (American) English
language. Our adolescent Nation was formed because people were significantly
pissed off about taxation to shoot and kill others. Literally. That’s
simplistic as hell, but in America ‘tax’ is a serious, ancient, and deadly
word. The Obama Administration did a very poor job of arguing for the
constitutionality of the Individual Mandate under the commerce clause, as has
been widely reported. The problem was not that the Administration does not have
good lawyers, the problem was that it was a flawed argument from the get go.
Both Obama and Mitt Romney, when he was Governor of Massachusetts, defended the
individual mandate as not being any sort of a tax. They both wanted,
understandably, to completely avoid using the T-word. Of course the Individual
Mandate is a tax, John Roberts says so. The Administration needs to accept this
and now work to undo the 300 year-old baggage that the T-word carries. They
need to reeducate the goddamn slavering idiot public. It’s probably impossible,
but then again not one human being on the planet, save the man himself,
predicted John Roberts would be the lone reason the Affordable Care Act was
upheld.
Taxes are not inherently bad. I feel somewhat crappy issuing
an 8th-grade Civics lesson, but taxes are necessary and useful. They
are often poorly administrated and misused, but the kind of blatant citizen
abuse that led to the Thirteen Colonies revolt way back in the day is another
story entirely. America was set up when we had just endured long-term tax rape.
There are some bad taxes yet today, no fucking doubt. But the idea that
requiring citizens to have health coverage, well that IS a tax, and it is a
goddamn necessary one. You want true freedom, move to the middle of nowhere. Oh
wait, nobody lives in the middle of nowhere because the services that government
provides through taxation are necessary for all of us. The outskirts of
nowhere, perhaps, but not the middle. Literally.
Many countries have higher rates of taxation than the United
States. Many countries provide universal health care in completely government
run systems and charge a substantial tax for doing so. This is what taxation is
for: to collect money that is used to serve the population. When you gas up
your car, you are paying taxes that include legislation from the 1960s that was
put in place to revamp the highway system. It was never repealed and is
considered untouchable by both democrats and republicans. Without that money
shit would go sideways real quick. Figuratively. But nobody clamors about that
tax because we don’t remember how it came to be in the first place. We bitch
about gas prices, but the gas people have managed to strategically avoid the
T-word. It’s all about the T-word.
The #2 loaded word in
all of this: socialism. You know, commies shooting at Patrick Swayze in Red
Dawn. People, get over it. If you are one of those folk who flip out when you
hear the word “socialism” you need to get a grip. The dictionary defines
socialism thusly: any of various economic
and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and
administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. Regardless
of the AFA, the above definition simply does not describe the U.S. economy.
However nor do we have pure capitalism: an
economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital
goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices,
production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition
in a free market. Notice there are elements here that folks also balk
at, particularly anything relating to “corporate ownership”. Plenty of
Tea-Party folks hate corporate anything with a passion. Yet anyone who uses the
word “socialism” is viewed as if they just brought a Ouija board to the Salem
town square in 1692. In 2012 we do not have socialism, regardless of the AFA,
and we certainly do not have pure capitalism.
Instead of resisting the definition of the Mandate as a tax
and coming up with finely-tuned, crafty arguments, the dems ought to say “FUCK
IT. The Mandate is a tax, yo. It’s a tax we need, the Supreme Court upheld it,
and we intend to deliver fantastic services with this tax and cover 50 million
uninsured”. If they accept the premise of necessary taxation, put forth a
massive effort to decriminalize the T-word, the soldiers in Robert’s Trojan
Horse might just hop out and mingle with the natives.

.jpg)
