In response to:

Exactly What Is Max Baucus Saying Here?

MikeS1952 Wrote: Oct 22, 2012 3:24 PM
What Baucus was saying: "We're going to do it my way, if I decide I don't want the subject discussed (because it would then be in the open) it won't be discussed, and even if we don't have jurisdiction on the matter but we need to do it here so the committee that does have jurisdiction might change it, then we will have jurisdiction here. Now shut up and do it my way even if it is wrong cause this is going down your throat whether you like it or not!!!!!" Pretty simple.
Blair31 Wrote: Oct 22, 2012 4:38 PM
What Baucus is saying is: "We have no jurisdiction over taxes. That's the House's jurisdiction. Screw the
House. We're going to make taxes our jurisdiction."

At a packed Cato Institute briefing on Capitol Hill yesterday, Jonathan Adler and I debated ObamaCare expert Timothy Jost over an admittedly wonky issue that nevertheless could determine the fate of ObamaCare: whether Congress authorized the IRS to subsidize health insurers, and to tax employers and certain individuals, in states that refuse to establish one of ObamaCare’s health insurance “exchanges.”

I want you, dear Cato@Liberty readers, to help us get to the bottom of it.

Adler and I claim that Congress specifically, repeatedly, and unambiguously precluded the IRS from imposing those taxes or issuing those subsidies through federal “fallback”...