Morning Reads, Friday, June 29

Here in Georgia:

National / International stories of interest:

Links I like:


  1. Ed says:

    “Will Chief Justice Roberts be considered the swing vote from now on?”

    This is, IMO, one of the worst forms of journalism and its practiced in sports, business, political journalism–you name it. There will be on instance of an event happening and then bam, everyone seizes on it and tries to make a narrative. Its like dude–do you have any grasp of statistics?

    Anyway that’s my rant of the day.

    • John Konop says:


      I agree!

      The problem with many people is they support the issue over the constitution. Judge Roberts was correct legally on both immigration and healthcare.


      The key issue had to do with probable cause and individual rights ie warrants. Had he not overturned that part of the law, basically if the police saw you enter your house,with a minority, they could enter it without a warrant. Please help me understand why and rational person would support this?

      Secondly the reason he wrote a caution about the part of law up-held is practical application issues. I have been pulled over for not having my driver’s license a few times. Under the law unless they arrested me for this offense instead of a citation, that makes me latter demonstrate I have a license, the police could be accused of racial profiling. This law looks like a lawyers dream for civil suits or we will see increase in arresting people which will cost tax payers more money.


      This federal and state government has the right to levy fines, taxes……right now ie payroll tax, traffic tickets……… If you do think the government should be able to fine, tax, lien……than change the law via congress.

      A ruling should be based on law not what you feel about an issue. I am for cracking down on illegal immigration as many of you know, but at the same time we cannot abuse individual rights to achieve the goal. This is not a conservative or liberal issue it is about the law.

      • barstool69 says:

        “”[i]f . . . an applicable individual . . . fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) . . . there is hereby imposed . . . a penalty.””

        This is NOT a tax. It did not originate in the House, it is called a penalty over and over again in the legislation, the authors and Obama swore it was not a tax, and the penalty is paid when an individual violates the law.

        Roberts wrote law yesterday. For further evidence that this was a results driven opinion, see the semantics that occur on the first page of his opinion where he somehow comes to the conclusion that the ACA is not a “tax” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act, but is a “tax” for purposes of constitutional review.

        • John Konop says:

          In all due respect the government federal and state can have fines for lack of compliance. You may disagree with the penalty and or fine, but they do have the right.

          • barstool69 says:

            We’re talking past each other. The issue was reached on the premise of it being a tax, not a penalty/fine.

              • barstool69 says:

                I recognize your argument, I’m just saying there is no precedent to support it. I think a penalty is distinct from a tax, and the legislative intent bears that out.

                Thoughts on the penalty being unenforceable? Does it matter?

                • John Konop says:

                  In my mind traffic tickets, late fees on your taxes…….is all the same. The government can call it any name, but at the end of the day it is a tax. I tend to support user fees over a general tax because it attempts to associate the cost with the revenue. Ironically many on this site screaming about this ruling have supported the Roberts ruling on other issues ie user fees, penalties as being a tax. This was all part of the Grover Norquist pledge…….

                  From Grover:

                  ….. “If it’s raising net revenue for the government, then it’s a tax. If it’s paying for a service that’s really kind of voluntary, that is voluntary, then it’s a fee. Sometimes people have raised fees that doesn’t raise anyone’s hackles, and doesn’t get us to say that might be a pledge violation.” ……

                • John Konop says:


                  From the PP:

                  …………• $75 billion to $103 billion from direct user fees, including tolls

                  • $3 billion to $5 billion from indirect user fees, including fees on car rentals

                  • $78 billion to $79 billion in new taxes, most likely sales taxes

                  Georgia business leaders have pushed for years for more spending on transportation projects. While Georgia is the nation’s third fastest-growing state, it ranks dead last in transportation spending per capita.

                  “With the release of this report, it’s clearer than ever that our state lacks the transportation infrastructure dollars to support our booming population,” said Charles Tarbutton, chairman of the Georgia Chamber of Commerce. “Fortunately, the report also shows this problem can be overcome.”

                  There’s no doubt we need to spend more money on transportation. Unfortunately there are no easy choices for GDOT and the Legislature. However, raising taxes in this economy is just not a good idea……………..


  2. Bob Loblaw says:


    I understand your frustration. I think that the court was given something that walks and talks like a tax but was named “penalty”. Tax credits would be issued for some under the plan. How could it not fall under Congressional power to tax where tax credits and monies paid to the IRS are part of the law?

    We were sold something but have now purchased something different.

    And for those that believe these Congressional Republicans will “get away” with repealing benefits for kids, seniors, working poor who qualify: think again. Those TV ads will be so nasty that every demographic of the electorate will be turned off to, heh, change.

    That, and I don’t believe a thing Romney says.

  3. barstool69 says:

    Just read the mandate. Roberts was the only one who saw it as a tax for good reason. He voted to save the integrity of the Court, but threw a bone out there to the losers by not going the Commerce Clause route. Interesting strategy, but that engenders no respect from me.

  4. saltycracker says:

    Just supposing: Justice Roberts may be the smartest of the lot – Had the SCOTUS put Obamacare under the commerce clause couldn’t congress then take over every aspect of health care as a Federal program ? He then said the Feds couldn’t force the states on medicaid expansion.

    Making it a tax puts it back out there on the front burner for our elected to have to answer to the public as a tax. Seems like he threw the ball back to the citizens. Don’t know if that was good or not……..

  5. saltycracker says:

    Restaurant Assoc. raising prices –
    I thought the law nailed every working person and only businesses employing over 50 people, not just restaurants. Restaurants account for a lot of healthy folks, including management, flying under the radar for both taxes and taking the risk of no insurance.

    Fortunately it is a competitive business with discretionary spenders, so it will work out just fine.

Comments are closed.