Crime And Thought Punishment

Shikha Dalmia of Forbes and Reason contemplates a vast campaign of civil disobedience in defiance of the health care mandate:

Any strategy of nonviolent civil resistance has to first make a good faith effort to achieve its end through the available political and legal means. But there comes a time when changing the law requires acts of conscience.

For opponents of ObamaCare that time is Dec. 31, 2013. That's when the individual mandate will go into effect. If ObamaCare hasn't been repealed by Congress or nullified in court by then, its opponents would be justified in urging Americans to refuse to buy coverage or pay fines and dare authorities to come after them.

By some estimates, Uncle Sam will need to hire an additional 17,000 IRS agents or so just to enforce the coverage mandate. But even if a few million Americans simultaneously refuse to abide by it, they could easily overwhelm the system.

Well, it depends on the meaning of "overwhelm" - the legislation includes a pre-emptive retreat in the clause related to enforcement of the mandate.  This is from page 131 of the 906 page .pdf Senate bill:

‘‘(g) ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURE.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The penalty provided by this section shall be paid upon notice and demand by the Secretary, and except as provided in paragraph (2), shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68 [link to Tax Code].

‘‘(2) SPECIAL RULES.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law—

‘‘(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.

‘‘(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.—The Secretary shall not—
‘(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or ‘‘(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.’’.

And from Subchapter B of Chapter 68 of the Tax Code we glean this:

Sec. 6671. Rules for application of assessable penalties

(a) Penalty assessed as tax

The penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter shall be paid upon notice and demand by the Secretary, and shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes.

Now, I am not smart enough to be a Democrat and I am surely not smart enough to be a Democratic Congressperson, but I am having a hard time reading Section 2, where criminal penalties and liens are waived, as a commitment to tough enforcement. [I am a day late on this - apparently, Dems are delighted that no actual enforcement can take place:

A September letter from a top tax official had said failure to pay the fines could ultimately lead to the most severe penalty under federal law for tax evasion, a $100,000 fine and five years in jail.

Now Democrats are touting protections they have added to limit the reach of the tax man. “The bill specifically prohibits the IRS from confiscating taxpayer assets, from using liens or levies, or imposing criminal penalties of any kind — including jail time — because of a lack of health care coverage,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office said in a statement.]

Which is understandable - we know lots of Democrats, such as Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle and Charles Rangel, who are confused by the concept of taxes and won't be troubling themselves with this latest wrinkle in the tax code.  And no one really expects Eric Holder to be arresting a bunch of confused Dems who have more important things to do than comply with a new boatload of Federal paperwork requirements.  So it was nice of Congress to make a nod toward equal treatment and admit that they won't be coming hard after anyone else who ignores this law, either.

Presumably a new Congress could amend the enforcement provisions if non-compliance becomes a problem.  Of course, if non-compliance is a problem Congress might want to reflect on the disease, rather than the symptoms.

BONUS PUZZLE FOR THE ACCOUNTANTS AND TAX LAWYERS:  Imagine some poor chump owes $6,000 in regular Federal income taxes and a $750 penalty for non-compliance with the mandate.  He mails in a return with a check for $6,000 marked as "Full payment for taxes owed/No penalty".

Can the Feds deem his payment to be $750 for the mandate penalty and $5,250 for his taxes, leaving him short (and subject to liens) on $750 for his taxes?

Obviously, this would let them sidestep the "No Enforcement" clause cited above.  The result would be non-enforcement for people who don't owe other taxes; I will guess there are more Dems than Reps in that group.

THE OLDIES ARE STILL THE GOODIES:  Bill O'Reilly and Congressman Anthony Weiner reprise the immortal "Who's On First" routine.  The gist:

Weiner: The IRS does not collect the fine.

O'Reilly:  So who collects the fine?

Weiner: That's right.

What's scary is that Weiner claims O'Reilly is making stuff up; Weiner himself is either misinformed or lying.

HMM:  Wage garnishment is also known as a wage levy, but I have the notion that it might well be different from a levy on property (such as a bank account), which means that a levy on wages would be allowed under ObamaCare.

Comments

[Jane]

No one should miss Charlie's latest at PJM - it is fantabulist!

[Pofarmer]

Also do we know what provisions will sunset, if any?

Hahahaha, hhahahah. Hahahahah.

Arrrgggghhhhhh.

Yeah, right.

[Jane]

Don't you mean "free viagra"?

I do - and yesterday I tweeted the name of every democrat who voted for this. And I posted them all on You Too. NOthing gets the left angrier because it is just too hard to explain.

[Extraneus]

There is a REASON we didn't become Europe, and that reason is still true: We have a solid core of "don't tread on me" folks, people who value their independence & adulthood, people who don't take handouts, people who do not submit to their "betters."

I don't know if I agree with this. Sure, there are a large number of freedom lovers, but I think it's just taken this long to whittle away at the Constitution to the point that it's no longer a major impediment. The strategy has been obvious, relentless and effective. And there are a hell of a lot fewer of those "solid core" people left, besides.

[Pofarmer]

There is a REASON we didn't become Europe, and that reason is still true: We have a solid core of "don't tread on me" folks, people who value their independence & adulthood, people who don't take handouts, people who do not submit to their "betters."

Unfortunately, we also tend to be nice, which isn't particularly helpful in this case. A lot of folks just want to be left alone to raise their families.

I don't think people realize how this legislation fundamentally reorganizes the citizens relationship with Government in America.

[narciso]

They've effectively hollowed out the constitution with promiscuous use of the Commerce Clause, bypassed the amending function through the Courts, and watered
down the idea of moral and civic education.

[Captain Hate]

I kind of agree with Ext but would love to be proven wrong. We've endured a steady stream of opinion makers castigating us for not being more like Europe; hell, the first time I went to France I felt like I was in paradise but none of the underlying reasons had anything to do with their system of governing. Much more pernicious will have been the undermining of the Constitution in the education system imo.

[Janet]

Libs hate children.

Captain and narciso, I really agree. LUN is a copy of a letter sent by Ron Weddington (co-council in Roe v Wade) to Clinton. He is advocating for the abortion pill RU486. What is eyeopening is his thoughts on humans.
It is chilling to "hear" leftists talk when they think they are among friends.

Children are a responsibility...leftists don't like responsibility. No one and nothing is more important than themselves.

[Barbara]

testing avatar

[Janet]

"intergenerational intimacy"

...and this maybe explains why the left is BFF with Islam. The pedophilia is a big thing within Islam too.

[Porchlight]

Thanks scott for the update! Interesting that the insurance companies take the hit for covering pre-existing conditions, but the government collects the penalties for non-compliance. I think the insurers will lose out in the long (medium?) run as employers and individuals decide the penalty is a better bet than the escalating costs of keeping the health plans.

[MayBee]

Welcome to the periwinkle club, hit!!

[Captain Hate]

Janet, I'm not sure what's more shocking: The content of Weddington's letter (btw, I'm kind of surprised that anybody with a sense of reality would actually send that or allow it to see the light of day) or some of the idiots that commented on it. And yes, you get it on what underlies the left's attitudes on children; although I'd add self-loathing based upon an ineradicable feeling that what they're doing is wrong.

[Pofarmer]

Children are a responsibility...leftists don't like responsibility. No one and nothing is more important than themselves.

Does anyone NOT think they aren't going to actively push abortion with these "boards". Well, Mr. and Mrs. X, you're tissue mass has abnormality XXXXXX so we are going to just have to terminate this gestation. Better luck next time.

[Porchlight]

Not that overtly perhaps, Po, but maybe they will raise out-of-pocket costs for prenatal care, delivery and all future child health care if parents decide to go ahead with the pregnancy. "Sure you can have that kid, but it's gonna cost ya."

[Porchlight]

Re: the above, I'm talking about the price the exchanges will set for the cost of a health plan for a disabled child - not what the insurance companies will do, if they're still in business by then that is.

[Pofarmer]

Oh, now, C'mon,they wouldn't deny coverage would they?

[Janet]

That letter came to light from a Judicial Watch FOI request. It is in a big PDF file on their site. And this - although I'd add self-loathing based upon an ineradicable feeling that what they're doing is wrong.
I totally agree.
They try to normalize their behavior in the public realm so they don't feel bad/guilty.

Great comments at Ace. Love the no frills truth.

[scott]

No problem porch and God bless. See ya on the flip side!

[Janet]

If this monstrosity isn't stopped, and you know anyone with disabled/special needs children or infants that are having a hard time, call my church. We have a big ministry for special needs kids. All kinds of help - that it is a privilege to give.
It is McLean Bible Church in Virginia.

If the libs don't want these kids...well, we do.

[Pofarmer]

Porch, I'm looking at the worst case scenario here(I hope) and it ain't good. The insurers aren't going to be able to cover anything the Fed's don't want them to cover. What do you think the 150 "Health care boards" are all about?

[narciso]

With Zeke Emmanuel, John Holdren and the rest of this clique of mad scientist, nothing is too ludicrous, frankly

[Sue]

If that Weddington letter is not satire, then there are some very creepy, not to mention, highly uneducated, lawyers out there. Surely it is a hoax.

[Janet]

No Sue...it is no hoax. Judicial Watch FOI request for RU486. It is at the end of a long PDF file (I found it reprinted at the sntjohnny.com site just to do a LUN).
I printed it off years ago and have it tucked in my book The Party of Death.

[narciso]

No, it's too close to what they actually think, Von Hoffman making the case for abortion on crime prevention grounds, same
for the Freakanomics guys, Holdren's real
views as well as Obama's gaffe; as Kinsley defined as inadvertently telling the truth

[Sue]

It appears it is not a hoax. Sweet, merciful heavens.