No it isn’t. Max Baucus said the same thing on the Senate floor and in committee.
So do you agree that the 4th Circuit was wrong in it’s decision? If not, how do you square the statements of Baucus and Gruber with the decision?
What makes you think they need squaring?
Note the concession that the DC appeals court decision wasn’t based on any evidence.
The 4th Circuit ruled that the defendants presented a better case WRT the intent of Congress. Two people intimately involved in the crafting of the law say that the intent was to not provide subsidies to people in states that do not set up their own exchange. You don’t see any conflict there?
Except the actual wording of the law.
Nope. First, Baucus’ comments came well before the law was rewritten to provide subsidies to federal exchange states (or not, depending on your view). Second, even if Baucus was still of that view his opinion would not be controlling. We interpret constitutional provisions based on the views of one or two people because they were the only ones who wrote down what they were thinking. There is no need to guess at the views of the legislature as a whole based on the views of one person when interpreting modern legislation.
When was the law rewritten to provide subsidies to federal exchange states? I thought that was an IRS rule. Can you point me to something?
Agreed. We just need to look at the words the legislature actually passed.
How about the fact that he was a paid consultant? And as such, offered the explanation in the video.
The IRS has interpreted the legislation as requiring subsidies to exchange states.
He who? Max Baucus is (was, rather) a senator. I haven’t watched the Jonathan Gruber video (couldn’t if I wanted to).
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Agreed. We just need to look at the words the legislature actually passed.
[/QUOTE]
I see what you did there. 
The wording of a sentence within the law, snipping out the rest of the law, the commentary and debate that surrounded its creation, and the way it’s been enforced since its passage. When the wording of a law is vague, the judiciary normally defers to the legislature.
That’s quite a bit different than rewriting a law. The wording of the law seems clear. Baucus and Gruber seem to be saying the same things as the actual law says. The IRS then interprets the law to mean something different than the actual wording and statements made by two people intimately involved in the creation of this law. Still don’t see any conflict here?
ETA: Do we have any indication that the intent was to cover people in the federal exchange? Other than arguing in court. I’m not aware of any but I could certainly be wrong.
Do we have any evidence in the commentary and debate to suggest that the wording of the law intended to provide subsidies for people in the federal exchange? I mean other than an IRS rule.
That’d be reason enough. But yes. And yes. And yes. What you cannot find - other than a quote from Gruber that doesn’t jive with anything else anybody said on the subject - is a statement from anyone who voted for the law that says this is what they wanted to do.
No. You’re late to the party, so maybe you didn’t know, but the wording of the law does not “seem clear”. If you read the section in question, standing alone, then it seems clear that federally created exchanges do not come with subsidies. That’s not how statutory construction works, though; you have to read the whole thing, and when you do it is equally clear that federal exchanges are treated identically to state ones.
Your first two links (which are the same by the way) quotes a congressional staffer after the fact. That’s some evidence of intent. And, of course, this nugget:
Your third link doesn’t seem to say anything about intent. It’s a story about Wyden trying to push up the date for state waivers from ACA
I meant Gruber. Here’s the quote. It was in an answer to a question:
What he says now is that this statement was a “speak-o”, a verbal typo. Given the fullness of the answer I think it is clear that his “speak-o” excuse simple bullshit.
Yes, it is. (The kids might call this a sarcasm fail.)
If I understand this correctly, the Wyden-Brown amendment presumes the federal government will fund the state exchanges.