The Power To Penalize

Is a Penalty Really A Tax?

  That was the central question. The finding in the Affirmative for Congressional taxing authority saved Obama's skin on upholding Obamacare.

   But where is the limiting principle here. Can policy now all be done by - if you don't buy this we will invoke an IRS Penalty?  Congress can enact Taxes to pay for the common defense and 'general welfare.' This doesn't solve the broccoli problem.

  You don't buy a car this year you must pay a penalty to the IRS equal to the value of a car because the general welfare of the country is served by supporting our auto industry. You don't
buy your neighbor a lawn elf you pay the equivalent of a travelocity tour around the world in an IRS Penalty- subject to of course the criminalization of the default on any legit IRS penalty. Ok Lawn Gnomes might not be for the general welfare, but what if they are made by an auto company?

   If the lack of limiting principle was of concern in the Commerce Clause discussion, why isn't it of concern in the taxation situation?

   The result might be good and beneficial here- health policy by taxation isn't a far stretch. But what if the act sought was forcing something more objectionable?  What if an act sought to require every adult to pay for expensive childcare in a castle whether or not they have children under IRS Penalty if they do not.

   The slide toward absurdity is hard to conceptually avoid here. Its a problematic ruling constitutionally, while one that has an ultimately good outcome in terms of the social benefits of advancing the health care situation in the country potentially. Potentially only, not certainly because major cost issues are still not addressed.