New tax language sets dangerous precedent

Published: Saturday, July 21, 2012

Updated: Saturday, July 21, 2012 23:07

Photo courtesy of David Rogowski/MCT)

Larry McNeilis, of Pittsburg, Pa., rallies during a "Code Red" rally to oppose the health care reform 'Obamacare' March 20, 2010 in Washington, D.C. Hosted by the American Grassroots Coalition, the rally is the latest action of the "Take the Town Halls to Washington" project and is sponsored by over two dozen grassroots Tea Party organizations, including the Nationwide Tea Party Coalition.

Photo courtesy of Chicago Tribune 2011

Chart looking at selected challenges to President Barack Obama's health care law that are currently before U.S. courts; the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a challenge that originated from the U.S. 11th Circuit Court this session.

MCT

Graphic summarizes the roles of eight key players (with photos) in the Supreme Court's review of issues related to the Affordable Care Act; the court will hear an unusual three days of arguments.

Illistration by Kohnke

Columnist Greg Osborne is a junior and political science major at Armstrong. His views do not necessarily represent those of The Inkwell editorial board.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, was validated by the Supreme Court June 28 as a tax, making it the largest tax increase since the founding of the republic.

So often now it seems our sensibilities are assailed by events we have little control over. We are seemingly outraged in unison about what is happening in our nation’s capital. But time and time again that outrage goes unanswered by the system.

So brazen this government has become; so arrogant they underestimate the will of the people; so vain they inadvertently provided us with a silver lining to the whole situation — their vanity being a method of breaking the people free of their mindless trance so all of humanity’s gaze becomes fixed permanently on the true societal power structure and the diabolical designs being put in place for the society we are all a part of.

The debate over this controversial legislation is heated to say the least. Some are misguided by the few positive aspects of the bill and turn a blind eye to the myriad of attacks on the ideals of freedom that served as the foundation for this country for the past couple of centuries.

In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “The Affordable Care Act’s requirement certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax...Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”

As a result, the government is now granted right to force the citizenry to purchase whatever they desire by characterizing the purchase as a tax.

By 2016 individuals who do not purchase health insurance will pay a minimum penalty of $695 a year. Those not purchasing a health plan who make more than $37,000 a year will be assessed for 2.5 percent of their income as a penalty.

This sounds bad for a moment, until you realize there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 new taxes throughout the bill considerably more painful than paying a one-time fee per year for not purchasing healthcare.

There are equivalent taxes on the entire payroll of businesses refusing to provide care for their employees, but many large corporations have received waivers already, such as McDonald’s to name one. Paperwork will serve as an extreme burden to businesses and government alike, requiring even more government expansion.

The IRS has been budgeted with over $500 million to enforce the regulations of this bill, which equates to thousands of newly hired IRS goons tasked with going after any and all dissenters to force compliance.

You don’t get to choose your plan. There are committees for that; so expect your children to be insured when you don’t have any and expect to be covered for maternity services when you are not capable of having children, etc.

Review boards will decide what care you will receive and what care you will not receive, ultimately putting your life in the hands of the state, rather than your medical doctor or more importantly, you.

There are too many aspects of this legislation to list all pertinent information in any brief summary, but when one examines even a few of the key provisions called for in this bill, the picture we are faced with is dire indeed. As a nation, we have never before witnessed such a bold exertion of power and influence by the state in what was originally designed to be a free-market system.

Simply put, we are witnessing the death of capitalism.

One might think the remedy for such a situation would be to replace those in office, but in reality it is far more complex than that. We are at the sum of nearly a century of voting for the lesser of evils in a system designed to divide and conquer.

Both sides in the political realm are ultimately working together on issues that truly matter, while distracting the public with issues of no real significance, feigning opposition to each other.

We have Supreme Court justices appointed under both Republicans and Democrats alike who vote based on agenda rather than constitutionality, and their progressive ideals are working in tandem with the progressive left and right in the Congress to incrementally erode the rights and freedoms we enjoy.

For many decades, we have blindly fallen subject to the rhetoric and sophistry of both sides of the two-party system.

The template for Obamacare was written by a Republican and former governor in collusion with insurance companies after all, who is now coincidentally the main challenger of Obama in the coming election.

We must transcend such petty differences in ideology and understand the constitution is the foundation and common ground we all stand upon, and it is cracking beneath us. Unified resolve and defiance against tyranny is the only way forward.

Support your state government, as they are the last line of defense now that the Supreme Court has forsaken the constitution they have sworn an oath to uphold.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

Facebook Comments
Site Comments

Be the first to comment on this article! Log in to Comment

You must be logged in to comment on an article. Not already a member? Register now

Log In

Think Movies

‘42’ plays it safe

It is very easy to be cliche nowadays in the film industry.

There have been many biopics about any sort of inspirational figure filmmaker’s can think of, but every once and awhile there is one that manages to break through the generic stereotypes and stand out.

Many famous directors have tried to make a film centered on Jackie Robinson’s incredible baseball career, but they have all failed to bring his story to the big screen until now.

Brian Helgeland, director of “Payback” and “A Knight’s Tale,” delivers his respectful, yet unremarkable homage to Robinson, appropriately titled “42,” which covers all the bases while ultimately playing it safe.

The film focuses on the relationship between Robinson, played by talented newcomer Chadwick Boseman, and the general manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers Branch Ricky (Harrison Ford).
‘Evil Dead’ is bloody disgusting and wickedly fun

Modern horror movies are criticized for being repetitive and uncreative, relying on heavy amounts of gore and production value to make up for the lack of depth and originality. It also does not help the majority of horror flicks are remakes, rebooting vintage horror films that deliver all the splatter but none of the creativity that made those movies so great.

Classics such as “Halloween,” “A Nightmare on Elm Street” and “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre,” have been remade into the standard Hollywood schlock that audiences are conditioned to. So when it was announced that Sam Raimi’s beloved first film “The Evil Dead” was getting the remake treatment, it was no surprise that fans were skeptical and outraged.

However, director Fede Alvarez, handpicked by Raimi himself, has delivered an unflinching and grisly horror flick that manages to hold its own against the criticism and thrill viewers with his twisted vision.
‘G.I. Joe: Retaliation’ is more of abomination

Summer 2009 was filled with top-notch movie releases like “Star Trek,” “Up,” and “Inglourious Basterds,” which both entertained and dazzled audiences with great production value and stellar writing.

Out of all the movies released, “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” has the glorious distinction of being the worst movie of that year, which is quite an accomplishment considering its competition was “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.”

Now, four years later, the sequel no one wanted opens nationwide after being delayed eight months for a 3-D conversion and reshoots. Despite a new director, a remodeled cast that adds the likes of Dwayne Johnson and Bruce Willis, and last minute restructuring, “G.I. Joe: Retaliation” still manages to fall short of already low expectations.

After being set up and double crossed by the president of the United States, the G.I. Joes, led by the towering Roadblock (Johnson), pull together all their resources to confront the evil terrorist organization known as Cobra and save the world.
‘The Croods’ is a fun time for all

Pixar and Disney films have dominated the animated box office for the past few decades, but DreamWorks Animation has steadily challenged that market with hit movies like “Shrek” and “Kung Fu Panda”. Now filmmakers Chris Sanders, the director of “How to Train Your Dragon”, and Kirk De Micco bring audiences “The Croods”, a film that follows a family of Neanderthals through a prehistoric journey that is bound to be a hit with viewers of all ages.
‘Oz The Great and Powerful’ does the trick

It has been over 70 years since Victor Fleming’s “The Wizard of Oz” was released back in 1939, becoming one of the most important films in cinema history. Now, director Sam Raimi delivers “Oz the Great and Powerful” to the big screen, a prequel to L. Frank Baum’s original work.

After big Hollywood adaptations of fantasy stories such as “Alice in Wonderland” and the “Harry Potter” films, it makes sense that a film as influential as “Wizard” should be tackled next. Unfortunately, there are so many factors that come into play when revisiting a beloved franchise that it is nearly impossible to satisfy fans wanting to return to Oz.
‘Jack the Giant Slayer’ falls short of expectations

Fantasy films are becoming a major trend in Hollywood lately with such major releases like “Alice in Wonderland,” “Snow White and the Huntsman” and “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.”

Now Director Bryan Singer brings the classic fable of Jack and the beanstalk to the big screen with “Jack the Giant Slayer.” Singer, who is known for making blockbusters such as “X-Men” and “Superman Returns,” relies on his experience with epic story elements and massive effects to deliver a movie that aims to please viewers with suspense, humor and action.

Unfortunately, the filmmakers give too much time to focusing on visual eye-candy and not enough putting together a new take on the story that holds up for today’s audience.

Nicholas Hoult stars as Jack, a young peasant who comes into the possession of magical beans that sprout into a giant beanstalk that acts as a bridge between the world of the humans and the land of a dreadful race of giants.
‘Amour’ redefines meaning of love

Michael Haneke is an Austrian director who is generally thought of as being cold, distant and unsentimental when making his films. His films are the epitome of the term ‘art house cinema.’

After making such perverse and unsettling films like “The Seventh Continent,” “Funny Games” and “The White Ribbon,” Haneke has earned a reputation for working on projects that are complex, unemotional and challenging for audiences to watch.

This is why it is all the more surprising a film as tender and honest as “Amour” comes from an auteur such as Haneke. Throughout four decades of making films Haneke has focused on the relationships and dark motivations that consume the characters that inhabit his frame, but he has yet to make a movie poignant and moving as his latest work of art.

Georges and Anne, portrayed with brutal honesty by Jean-Louis Trintignant and Emmanuelle Riva, are both in their ’80s and are enjoying their quiet life together in a comfortable apartment in Paris.
It’s ‘A Good Day to Die Hard,’ but not a great one

In 1988 “Die Hard” became one of the biggest moneymakers of that summer and continued to become one of the most successful and beloved movie franchises of all time.

Now considered to be the best action film ever made by many hard core fans, it has spawned four sequels and countless rip-offs that still attempt to replicate the massive success that made a star out of Bruce Willis.
‘Side Effects’ leaves its mark

Steven Soderbergh is one of the most talked about and respected filmmakers of the past two decades, with a career that includes small independent films such as “Sex, Lies, and Videotape” and “The Limey” and big budget studio projects like “Ocean’s Eleven” and “Magic Mike.”

He has avoided being pinned down to having one specific style and demonstrates such versatility in his film choices he never stays in one genre. Soderbergh has stated “Side Effects” will be his last theatrically released movie before he officially retires from directing, and it is fitting a film as smart and clever should be the final entry in the stellar filmography of one of the finest filmmakers in recent time.
‘Warm Bodies’ mixes romance, comedy with bloody good fun

Now that the “Twilight Saga” is over, Hollywood is frantically searching for a movie that will be a smash hit with teen audiences to fill the void where vampires and werewolves used to be.

Jonathan Levine’s film “Warm Bodies” mixes comedy, romance and zombies in a fashion reminiscent of Edgar Wright’s 2004 flick “Shaun of the Dead.”

Both films use preconceived notions of what romantic comedies offer viewers and the rules established in past zombie movies to surprise audiences by building on those expectations and providing their own filmmaking flourishes to the generic formula.
‘Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters’ is terribly fun mess

Every once and awhile a movie comes along that doesn’t care about critical reception or garnering any type of award attention.

Sometimes a movie is made for the sole purpose of entertaining its audience with no intention of being artistic or intelligent, allowing viewers to enjoy the experience without having to think at all about what they’re watching.

“Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters” is such a movie.

Director Tommy Wirkola is best known for his 2009 Norwegian flick “Dead Snow” where a group of friends vacationing in the Norwegian mountains run into a hoard of killer Nazi zombies. Four years later, Wirkola brings his sick, twisted sense of humor to an action-packed version of one of the most popular fairy tales of all time.
‘Mama’ delivers scares

January is known as a dry period for movie releases, with films from awards season still trickling into theaters, and big-budget, holiday releases still dominating the box office.

However, there is the occasional flick that manages to stand out among the rest of the mediocre fare of January such as “The Silence of the Lambs” did back in 1991. Director Andres Muschietti’s film “Mama” may seem like a standard horror movie at first glance, but there is a great film lurking within its generic setup.
‘Zero Dark Thirty’ goes distance

Director Kathryn Bigelow became the first woman ever to win an Academy Award for her 2009 film “The Hurt Locker.” Now, her follow-up “Zero Dark Thirty” is up for several awards this season and has been on the receiving end of raving critical attention and an impressive start at the box office.

However, there has been much controversy surrounding some of the sequences depicting torture being used to extract information that has placed Bigelow under much criticism.
‘Lincoln’ brings history to life

Filmmaker Steven Spielberg is known for making films of epic proportions. He created a monstrous great white shark in ‘Jaws,” brought dinosaurs back to life in “Jurassic Park,” and put viewers in the middle of a battle of WWII in “Saving Private Ryan.”

However, his latest project may be his most ambitious work to date. Making a historical biopic is daunting enough, but Spielberg’s latest film sets out to actualize Abraham Lincoln on film.
‘Skyfall’ celebrates 50 years of Bond

It has been 50 years since Ian Fleming’s iconic character James Bond first appeared on cinema screens in 1962’s “Dr. No” with Sean Connery playing the British secret service agent known as 007.

Five different actors have since taken on the role since Connery, with Daniel Craig now starring in the 23rd Bond film “Skyfall.”

After many attacks on MI6 by a devious cyber-terrorist called Silva (Javier Bardem), Bond is put on the case. Once in pursuit, Bond slowly unravels a plot of revenge set against MI6’s commander “M” (Judi Dench) that ultimately tests his loyalty to his commander and his own dark past.

With Academy Award winning director Sam Mendes at the helm, along with revered cinematographer Roger Deakins and composer Thomas Newman, there is no denying the talent involved from behind the camera.