Squashed

jayparkinsonmd and matthewdipaolamd selectively quote a letter from the Joint Committee on Taxation that includes the language:

H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.

[A bunch of helpful context, omitted here]

Criminal penalties

Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses.  Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:

• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.

It’s true, of course, that it would be theoretically possible for somebody who refused to buy health insurance and willfully refused to pay the increased tax could end up in prison for felony willful tax evasion.

But it’s not actually going to happen. It’s really just a talking point. And that’s a game two can play. Can I say something similarly ridiculous? Let me try:

Under the current tax code, you can take deductions for political donations. So somebody with my income who makes a large donation to the Republican National Committee would pay fewer taxes than I, who did not. And if I decide to willfully pay the same amount of taxes that they did because I think I have a constitutional right not to be penalized for not donating to the RNC, I could end up in prison. The Republicans aren’t fighting to change this—so I have to assume those fascist Republicans want everybody who doesn’t donate to their reelection to go to prison.

There’s a lot to be unhappy—even angry—about in the decision to escalate the War in Afghanistan. But it may be the best of a series of really awful options. In fact, we’re not really escalating the war. We’re just ratcheting up our involvement. That’s not a euphemism—it’s simply an acknowledgment that the war will continue with or without our involvement. And the people who die will be equally dead and equally mourned whether or not their names get noticed by our evening news or their obituaries run in our newspapers. Let’s not forget that we’re not the only ones who can kill or be killed.

Today in Pakistan, militants attacked a mosque in Rawalpindi. Thirty-six people were killed, seventeen of them children. This wasn’t a case of carelessness. It wasn’t a case of mistaken identity. It wasn’t even a couple rogue psychopaths in an isolated massacre. This was a calculated act by a loosely affiliated, transnational group that determined it would lose if it attacked military targets, so it decided to kill people at random. It is an attempt to promote a political or social agenda by making opponents fear for their lives.

And this is where a categorical pacifism starts looking pretty ineffectual. Pakistan’s government has tried negotiation. It has tried cease fires. None of it worked. And, though the attack happened in Pakistan, it would be remarkably short-sighted to think that what happens in that part of Pakistan isn’t inextricably linked to what happens just over the border in Afghanistan.

I don’t like war. There are bad wars and there are worse wars. The consequences for Afghanistan and much of Pakistan of a unilateral NATO withdrawal—or a gradual NATO defeat through attrition and loss of will are about as bad as they get. I don’t like Obama’s plan. But it could be worse. And I don’t know if it could be better.

Apparently, the Way of the Holy Spirit is not a secretive Jesuit martial arts cabal.

jgh writes,

Since when do politicians not read from Teleprompters? Obama has written many of his own speeches. I’m unsure of what this talking point is supposed to be about.

Can somebody help?

I think it’s a mix of a few impulses. It’s very important for a lot of people for Obama to be over-hyped—so if he speaks intelligently and persuasively, it must be some kind of trickery. Thus, the teleprompter. Obama himself is some kind of charismatic actor. The nefarious, liberal forces write his speeches and Obama simply reads them. This helps some people feel less threatened.