Why go for the American dream of a better life and earning a substantial living when you can have the government running your life through handouts (paid for by those earning a living) and telling you how much money you really need? Philip Klein at the Washington Examiner:
President Obama's solicitor general, defending the national health care law on Wednesday, told a federal appeals court that Americans who didn't like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money.
Neal Kumar Katyal, the acting solicitor general, made the argument under questioning before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, which was considering an appeal by the Thomas More Law Center. (Listen to oral arguments here.) The three-judge panel, which was comprised of two Republican-appointed judges and a Democratic-appointed judge, expressed more skepticism about the government's defense of the health care law than the Fourth Circuit panel that heard the Virginia-based Obamacare challenge last month in Richmond. The Fourth Circuit panel was made up entirely of Democrats, and two of the judges were appointed by Obama himself.
During the Sixth Circuit arguments, Judge Jeffrey Sutton, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, asked Kaytal if he could name one Supreme Court case which considered the same question as the one posed by the mandate, in which Congress used the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution as a tool to compel action.
Kaytal conceded that the Supreme Court had “never been confronted directly” with the question, but cited the Heart of Atlanta Motel case as a relevant example. In that landmark 1964 civil rights case, the Court ruled that Congress could use its Commerce Clause power to bar discrimination by private businesses such as hotels and restaurants.
“They’re in the business,” Sutton pushed back. “They’re told if you’re going to be in the business, this is what you have to do. In response to that law, they could have said, ‘We now exit the business.’ Individuals don’t have that option.”
Kaytal responded by noting that the there's a provision in the health care law that allows people to avoid the mandate.
“If we’re going to play that game, I think that game can be played here as well, because after all, the minimum coverage provision only kicks in after people have earned a minimum amount of income,” Kaytal said. “So it’s a penalty on earning a certain amount of income and self insuring. It’s not just on self insuring on its own. So I guess one could say, just as the restaurant owner could depart the market in Heart of Atlanta Motel, someone doesn’t need to earn that much income. I think both are kind of fanciful and I think get at…”
Recommended
That's right folks! The Obama Administration and Mr. Kaytal want to punish you for earning an income. I thought Democrats were supposed to be the party of the working class? "Someone doesn't need to earn that much income," Kaytal said, which shows, once again, officials in the Obama Administration think it is their job to dictate to you exactly what you should and need to be earning, afterall, the government can't have everyday Americans turning into those "evil rich" job creators people. With the new 9.1 percent unemployment number out today, it seems that the Obama Administration isn't interested in getting out of the way so Americans earn a living at all.
Americans shouldn't be earning less, they should be earning more and they don't need to feel guilty about it either.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member