# Did Obama lie then or now? Or is there another explanation?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-obama-lie-then-or-now-or-is-there-another-explanation/547544
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [July 22, 2010, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-obama-lie-then-or-now-or-is-there-another-explanation/547544 "2010-07-22T01:38:10Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)
#### Post date: [July 22, 2010, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-obama-lie-then-or-now-or-is-there-another-explanation/547544/21 "2010-07-22T05:22:15Z")
> [@kingbighair](#):
>
> This just seems like smart lawyering to me, but I could be wrong.
You’re aware that lawyers are not permitted, by our ethical canons, to “bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.” ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.1.
So, it seems now that, far from “absolutely reject[ing]” the idea that the mandate is economically equivalent to taxation, they are embracing it quite openly, and if in obedience to the Rules, because they believe the argument has factual and legal merit.
---
### Author:  [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)
#### Post date: [July 22, 2010, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-obama-lie-then-or-now-or-is-there-another-explanation/547544/22 "2010-07-22T05:24:25Z")
> [@magellan01](#):
>
> During all the debate about the healthcare bill, there’s was much push-back because the healthcare mandate was viewed by Republicans as a tax. But Obama swore up and down that it was NOT a tax. (Since he would not be imposing any tax increases on 95% of Americans.) He argued that it was like buying car insurance. Leaving the efficacy of that argument aside and granting that Obama was right, how can he now defend the healthcare bill against attacks that the mandate is unconstitutional by claiming that the government has the power to levy—you guessed it—taxes!???
>
> [From The NY Times:](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/health/policy/18health.html?_r=1&ref=politics)
I think they are probably lying now. There is a difference between a tax and a penalty.
---
### Author:  [@kingbighair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kingbighair)
#### Post date: [July 22, 2010, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-obama-lie-then-or-now-or-is-there-another-explanation/547544/23 "2010-07-22T05:29:58Z")
The DOJ lawyers never absolutely rejected that the mandate is equivalent to taxation. That was Obama on a tv show.
I am not sure what you are getting at. The tax argument seems to be in good faith and a good one, at that. Care to explain what you mean?
---
### Author:  [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)
#### Post date: [July 22, 2010, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-obama-lie-then-or-now-or-is-there-another-explanation/547544/24 "2010-07-22T05:31:28Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#):
>
> I think they are probably lying now. There is a difference between a tax and a penalty.
But the tax charge was not aimed solely at the penalty. It went to the idea that people would have to spend money on healthcare. This mandate is the problem. The penalty just ensures that the people pay something. It’s primarily an outflow problem, not an intake one. Other than taxes there is no instance that an American MUST spend money on something simply for breathing. Obama’s defense along these lines citing car insurance is wanting, because if I want to avoid that expense, I can simply not own a car, like millions of Americans do. (Or is it "don’t do?)
---
### Author:  [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)
#### Post date: [July 22, 2010, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-obama-lie-then-or-now-or-is-there-another-explanation/547544/25 "2010-07-22T05:36:38Z")
> [@kingbighair](#):
>
> The DOJ lawyers never absolutely rejected that the mandate is equivalent to taxation. That was Obama on a tv show.
>
> I am not sure what you are getting at. The tax argument seems to be in good faith and a good one, at that. Care to explain what you mean?
I do think that the mandate can be justified, with minor changes, as a tax. But if it is a tax, then there needs to be some fair way to apply the tax. It will be easy enough to come up with a formula for those who do not have insurance through an employer, but that group poses a problem. We’ll have a tax that some people are paying to the government (for insurance or a penalty), and others do not have to pay to the government, but whose “contributions” go to private insurance companies. I don’t see how that can fly.
---
### Author:  [@kingbighair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kingbighair)
#### Post date: [July 22, 2010, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-obama-lie-then-or-now-or-is-there-another-explanation/547544/26 "2010-07-22T05:41:07Z")
> [@magellan01](#):
>
> Either it is a tax or the government is forcing you to buy a product. The latter is without precedent and is probably illegal (which the WH seemingly agrees with, as they are not trying to justify it on those grounds). The former, if true, makes Obama a bold face liar.
Again, I am not familiar with the actual legal arguments the DOJ is making, but it appears they _are_ trying to justify forcing you to buy a product under the Commerce Clause. If that is unsuccessful, they are claiming the law is still valid because it is a tax.
---
### Author:  [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)
#### Post date: [July 22, 2010, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-obama-lie-then-or-now-or-is-there-another-explanation/547544/27 "2010-07-22T05:49:07Z")
> [@kingbighair](#):
>
> The DOJ lawyers never absolutely rejected that the mandate is equivalent to taxation. That was Obama on a tv show.
>
> I am not sure what you are getting at. The tax argument seems to be in good faith and a good one, at that. Care to explain what you mean?
President Obama is also a very good lawyer too. And I get the sense he put quite a lot of thought into the legislation well in advance of the teevee appearance. So, it’s a little _weird_, wouldn’t you agree, that he “absolutely rejected” the very notion his DOJ attorneys now advance.
---
### Author:  [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)
#### Post date: [July 22, 2010, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-obama-lie-then-or-now-or-is-there-another-explanation/547544/28 "2010-07-22T05:54:20Z")
> [@kingbighair](#):
>
> Again, I am not familiar with the actual legal arguments the DOJ is making, but it appears they _are_ trying to justify forcing you to buy a product under the Commerce Clause. If that is unsuccessful, they are claiming the law is still valid because it is a tax.
Actually, they are _defending_ themselves against charges that it is unconstitutional due to the commerce clause. Not optimistic about there chances there, they are seeking to render the commerce clause argument moot by arguing that it is a tax. That’s how I understand it anyway.
---
### Author:  [@kingbighair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kingbighair)
#### Post date: [July 22, 2010, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-obama-lie-then-or-now-or-is-there-another-explanation/547544/29 "2010-07-22T05:57:44Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#):
>
> President Obama is also a very good lawyer too. And I get the sense he put quite a lot of thought into the legislation well in advance of the teevee appearance. So, it’s a little _weird_, wouldn’t you agree, that he “absolutely rejected” the very notion his DOJ attorneys now advance.
Completely agree with you here. I’m just not sure how this fits into the MRPC.
The tax argument appears to be a secondary argument to their Commerce Clause position. If he thought the law was completely valid under the Commerce Clause, and therefore there is no need to even approach the tax issue (except in a legal brief where you include everything), he is still in good faith, right?
---
### Author:  [@kingbighair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kingbighair)
#### Post date: [July 22, 2010, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-obama-lie-then-or-now-or-is-there-another-explanation/547544/30 "2010-07-22T06:14:44Z")
> [@magellan01](#):
>
> Actually, they are _defending_ themselves against charges that it is unconstitutional due to the commerce clause. Not optimistic about there chances there, they are seeking to render the commerce clause argument moot by arguing that it is a tax. That’s how I understand it anyway.
Yes, they are defending the constitutionality of the law. To do that, they must give an argument why it is constitutional. Since they are citing Wickard, it appears they are advancing the argument that the health care mandate and penalty are constitutionally valid exercises of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause. If the Court disagrees with this (and it would not be surprising if it does), the DOJ will then claim that it is a tax. So they are not really rendering the Commerce Clause argument moot, but instead advancing it and using the tax argument as a backup.
I think I am done speculating on arguments I am not familiar with because this might get pretty embarrassing. I hope someone finds a link for the brief.
---
### Author:  [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)
#### Post date: [July 22, 2010, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-obama-lie-then-or-now-or-is-there-another-explanation/547544/31 "2010-07-22T06:20:24Z")
> [@kingbighair](#):
>
> Completely agree with you here. I’m just not sure how this fits into the MRPC.
My point was to scotch the claim that “Oh, they don’t really believe it’s a tax, that’s just savvy lawyering.” But perhaps that’s not what you were claiming, but then I don’t understand why people kept talking about “smart lawyering.”
I’m also pretty sure they considered the law’s constitutionality under a variety of theories early on. Most Harvard-trained, Sidley-Austin-employed attorneys wouldn’t stop their analysis once they found one argument that worked (such as a Commerce Clause analysis for HCR), but would rather evaluate all plausible approaches (and so also analyze HCR’s constitutionality under the taxation power). My point is that the Obama administration did this a long time ago, before the brief, before the TV show, probably before the campaign.
---
### Author:  [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)
#### Post date: [July 22, 2010, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-obama-lie-then-or-now-or-is-there-another-explanation/547544/32 "2010-07-22T06:22:47Z")
> [@kingbighair](#):
>
> Yes, they are defending the constitutionality of the law. To do that, they must give an argument why it is constitutional. Since they are citing Wickard, it appears they are advancing the argument that the health care mandate and penalty are constitutionally valid exercises of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause. If the Court disagrees with this (and it would not be surprising if it does), the DOJ will then claim that it is a tax. So they are not really rendering the Commerce Clause argument moot, but instead advancing it and using the tax argument as a backup.
>
> I think I am done speculating on arguments I am not familiar with because this might get pretty embarrassing. I hope someone finds a link for the brief.
Yes, I’ve been surfing around some more and that’s the sense I get. I don’t think that will help, as a tax and a penalty are two different things. I found an interesting blog [here.](http://volokh.com/2010/07/18/so-much-for-frivolous-commerce-clause-challenge-to-individual-mandate/) Make some good points. Some of which, I admit, are a bit over my head from a lawyerly standpoint. Since I am not one.
---
### Author:  [@kingbighair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kingbighair)
#### Post date: [July 22, 2010, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-obama-lie-then-or-now-or-is-there-another-explanation/547544/33 "2010-07-22T06:26:10Z")
Perhaps I should not have said smart lawyering. Maybe comprehensive would have been a better choice because I was trying to get the point across that they are using multiple approaches. Thanks for explaining 🙂
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [July 22, 2010, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-obama-lie-then-or-now-or-is-there-another-explanation/547544/34 "2010-07-22T17:23:13Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#):
>
> Please let us know what you think after reading the entire quote in the OP, including the last line.
That was a joke.
But I’m kind of with \*\*Hamlet \*\*here. Politicians spin. They all do it, and it doesn’t shock me every time I find out they do. However, I will note that we had a thread on this earlier in the year where several lefty posters here would not concede an inch on the “it’s not a tax” claim. That thread went for quite some time. I would direct this more at them, and say: so, is it a tax now?
---
### Author:  [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)
#### Post date: [July 23, 2010, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-obama-lie-then-or-now-or-is-there-another-explanation/547544/35 "2010-07-23T16:42:16Z")
> [@gonzomax](#):
>
> A mandate to but health insurance does not effect everybody. Most are covered, poorly, by work. Many have medicare. You would have to horribly slanted to think it is a tax, especially since if you can not afford it, you will get assistance. Here we go with the righties bloviating again.
Kind of like the federal income tax? Many who cannot afford it don’t pay it and actually receive assistance. Is it horribly slanted to call the income tax a tax?
---
### Author:  [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)
#### Post date: [July 23, 2010, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-obama-lie-then-or-now-or-is-there-another-explanation/547544/36 "2010-07-23T19:39:05Z")
> [@yorick73](#):
>
> Kind of like the federal income tax? Many who cannot afford it don’t pay it and actually receive assistance. Is it horribly slanted to call the income tax a tax?
Excellent reply to a not so excellent point.
---
### Author:  [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)
#### Post date: [July 23, 2010, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-obama-lie-then-or-now-or-is-there-another-explanation/547544/37 "2010-07-23T19:45:27Z")
> [@yorick73](#):
>
> Kind of like the federal income tax? Many who cannot afford it don’t pay it and actually receive assistance. Is it horribly slanted to call the income tax a tax?
Nobody recieves assistance to \*pay \*income tax. They receive assistance because they don’t have an income – or not enough of an income which they wouldn’t pay taxes on in the first place.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [July 23, 2010, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-obama-lie-then-or-now-or-is-there-another-explanation/547544/38 "2010-07-23T20:34:37Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#):
>
> Nobody recieves assistance to \*pay \*income tax. They receive assistance because they don’t have an income – or not enough of an income which they wouldn’t pay taxes on in the first place.
He didn’t say they were receiving assistance to pay income taxes. He was talking, I assume, about the Earned Income Tax Credit.
---
### Author:  [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)
#### Post date: [July 25, 2010, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-obama-lie-then-or-now-or-is-there-another-explanation/547544/39 "2010-07-25T01:52:17Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> > [@Jack\_Batty](#):
> >
> > Nobody recieves assistance to \*pay \*income tax. They receive assistance because they don’t have an income – or not enough of an income which they wouldn’t pay taxes on in the first place.
>
> He didn’t say they were receiving assistance to pay income taxes. He was talking, I assume, about the Earned Income Tax Credit.
I didn’t think that needed to be explained but thanks.
---
### Author:  [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)
#### Post date: [August 1, 2010, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-obama-lie-then-or-now-or-is-there-another-explanation/547544/40 "2010-08-01T23:17:54Z")
So you guys are saying you’d rather go back to the Public Option?
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-obama-lie-then-or-now-or-is-there-another-explanation/547544.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-obama-lie-then-or-now-or-is-there-another-explanation/547544.md?page=3)