Here he is discussing the case on Cavuto last month:
Here he is discussing the case on Cavuto last month:
I have blogged about the Internal Revenue Service’s attempt to tax, borrow, and spend $800 billion contrary to the clear language of ObamaCare, and how both Oklahoma (in Pruitt v. Sebelius) and a group of individuals and small businesses (in Halbig v. Sebelius) have filed suit to block this raw power grab. The Congressional Research Service writes that these challenges “could be a major obstacle to the implementation of [ObamaCare].” George Mason University law professor Michael Greve writes:
This is huge: all of Obamacare hangs on the outcome…If successful…[either] case will bring Obamacare’s Exchange engine to a screeching halt…In short, this is for all the marbles.
Last week, the Halbig plaintiffs asked the U.S. district court for the District of Columbia to speed things up. Though the IRS doesn’t have to respond to the Halbig complaint until July, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment asking the court to rule on the case before the end of 2013. According to the plaintiffs:
Plaintiffs need a determination on the merits far enough in advance of January 1, 2014, to allow them to conform their behavior to the law. Because the validity of the regulation turns on a purely legal question and the administrative record is closed, Plaintiffs are moving for summary judgment now, and hope thereby to avoid the need to litigate a motion for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order at the eleventh hour.
The plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment cites my paper (with Jonathan Adler), “Taxation Without Representation: The Illegal IRS Rule to Expand Tax Credits Under the PPACA.”
On June 17, one week from today, Cato will host a policy forum on Halbig v. Sebelius featuring plaintiffs’ counsel Michael Carvin and other luminaries. Register here.
I have already blogged about Ron Fournier’s remarkable National Journal column on how President Obama’s many scandals make it hard to support big government. But there’s an item buried in that column that bears highlighting:
If investigators uncover even a single email or conversation between conservative-targeting IRS agents and either the White House or Obama’s campaign, incompetence will be the least of the president’s problems.
Team Obama has publicly denied any knowledge of (or involvement in) the targeting. Privately, top advisers admit that they don’t know if the denials are true, because a thorough investigation has yet to be conducted. No emails have been subpoenaed. No Obama aides put under oath.
It seems Fournier has multiple sources close to the president who have basically said, “Did someone in the administration tell the IRS to suppress our opponents? Ehh, maybe.”
National Journal’s Ron Fournier:
I like government. I don’t like what the fallout from these past few weeks might do to the public’s faith in it…
The core argument of President Obama’s rise to power, and a uniting belief of his coalition of young, minority and well-educated voters, is that government can do good things–and do them well.
Damn. Look at what cliches the past few weeks wrought.
Fournier then runs through how the various Obama scandals show:
Government is intrusive … Orwellian … incompetent … corrupt … complicated … heartless … secretive … [and] can’t be trusted.
And that’s when the good guys are running the show!
Maybe Fournier needs to brush up on his Common Sense:
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil… Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence… For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least.
Translation: there’s no such thing as “good government.”
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the sweeping health-care law that Obama signed in 2010, asks state governments to set up health exchanges, and authorizes the federal government to provide tax credits to people who use those exchanges to get insurance. But most states have refused to establish the online marketplaces, and both the tax credits and many of the law’s penalties can’t go into effect until the states act.
Obama’s IRS has decided it’s going to apply the tax credits and penalties in states that refuse, even without statutory authorization. During the recent scandal over the IRS’s harassment of conservative groups, many Republicans have warned that the IRS can’t be trusted with the new powers that the health law will give the agency. They are wrong about the verb tense: It has already abused those powers.
For more, read my article (with Jonathan Adler), “Taxation Without Representation: The Illegal IRS Rule to Expand Tax Credits Under the PPACA.”
Drawing from my article (with Jonathan Adler) on the illegal IRS rule meant to save Obamacare, Gerson concludes:
The IRS seized the authority to spend about $800 billion over 10 years on benefits that were not authorized by Congress. And the current IRS scandal puts this decision in a new light…
The whole enterprise [of Obamacare] is precariously perched atop a flimsy bureaucratic excuse. And the agency providing that excuse is a discredited mess.
When the IRS suppresses speech by the president’s political opponents, that’s nothing to sneeze at. Neither is it anything to sneeze at when the IRS tries to spend almost a trillion dollars against the express wishes of Congress.
As the IRS scandal thickens, targeted groups are coming out to describe their ordeals in dealing with that most-reviled of government agencies. The Ohio Liberty Coalition was one of the groups targeted by the IRS, and Tom Zawistowski of the OLC recently sat down with Cato’s Caleb Brown to discuss the experience.
Among the many lessons we can take from this scandal is to realize how bureaucrats enforcing vague government regulations can chill free speech. Campaign finance laws are filled with vague regulations–such as whether an ad is the “functional equivalent of direct advocacy”–and they are anything but harmless to political speech.
In assessing applications for (c)(4) status, the IRS looked for whether political campaigning was an applicant’s “primary activity.” Due to the vagueness of this term, “rogue” IRS agents were free to harass applicants for the “content of their prayers” and other uncouth requests.
Advocates for campaign finance restrictions often do not understand how political speech can be killed by a thousand cuts as much as it can by one fatal blow. Some FEC regulations clearly prohibit certain types of spending. Others tell would-be speakers to judge whether their ads “in context, can only be interpreted by a reasonable person as advocating a candidate’s election or defeat.” Complying with these regulations ultimately comes down to a silly “magic words” test–that is, a search for words such as “vote for,” “elect,” “support,” etc.
Some campaign finance advocates who understand what Citizens United was actually about–that is, a non-profit corporation prohibited from showing a movie critical of Hillary Clinton on Pay-Per-View–concede that Citizens United should have narrowly won the case. Rather than allowing all corporations to spend independently in elections, as the case turned out, they argue the Court should have carved out an exception for “genuine ideological organizations,” “voluntary media choices” (Pay-Per-View), or some other vague criterion that would ultimately have been enforced by bureaucrats at the FEC. We can now can see how such vague standards are applied and abused.
This work by Cato Institute is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.