When is a tax, not a tax? When Obama says so

President Obama appeared on television yesterday 5 times and it is interesting that very little, if any news, came out of any of them.

The guy is worse than a broken record. At least there, we can take the needle off the disc and make it stop. We are not so lucky with Obama. There's nothing we can do but turn off the TV when he repeats the same things over and over again about health care reform the same things he has been saying for months. Every speech, every townhall, every interview he makes the same points, tells the same lies, and repeating the same mischaracterizations of what he is trying to do.

George Stephanopoulos bored in on one lie the president has been spreading; that people who don't have mandated health insurance will be taxed. This exchange as reported by Carol Lee of Politico is indicative:

Obama spent much of his ABC interview denying that his health care plan breaks his campaign promise not to raise taxes on the middle class. He insisted that requiring everyone to have health insurance, or face a fine of up to $3,800 per family, is "absolutely not a tax increase." Host George Stephanopoulos pressed Obama so much on the issue that, after Obama accused him of making things up, Stephanopoulos read the definition of "tax" from Merriam-Webster's dictionary. "George, the fact that you looked up [in] Merriam's dictionary the definition of ‘tax increase' indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now," Obama replied.

We on the right are quite familiar with this tactic from the left; their bold as brass ability to simply change the definition of terms when they are losing an argument. Of course the "fine" is a tax - as are "fees," and other ways that the Democrats are seeking to raise revenue. The liberals believe that simply because they call a tax something else, it is not a tax. Who they think they are trying to fool is a mystery - unless, it is perhaps themselves.

A Wall Street Journa l editorial sums up this dishonesty:

If you can follow this reasoning, then you probably also think that a new entitlement is the best way to reduce entitlement spending. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Senate's individual mandate will result in new revenues of some $20 billion over 10 years because some people will choose to opt out of ObamaCare-or because they can't afford to buy in, given that other taxes and regulation will make health care more expensive. If that $20 billion doesn't count as tax revenue, then what is it?

And for that matter, what doesn't count as a nontax under Mr. Obama's definition? All taxes can be justified in the name of providing some type of service, however wasteful. Mr. Obama complains that "My critics say everything is a tax increase," as if that is his political problem. His real problem is that the individual mandate really is a tax, but the President doesn't want voters to think of it that way, because taxes are unpopular.

Ordinary Americans are not fooled by this shell game with terms. They know a tax when they see one and Obama can gloss over the truth all he wants and it still won't change the fact that his plan will raise taxes on the Middle Class for no other reason than they wish to opt out of his big government takeover of health insurance.

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky

by Rick Moran