Sep 2 - Gary Johnson Feels 'So Much Better' Not Being A Republican Anymore

WASHINGTON -- It was another hot, humid day earlier this summer, and Gary Johnson was in town again. This time he didn't offer to come to HuffPost's offices. We would meet at Kramerbooks in Dupont Circle.

"Isn't that kind of a date place?" asked a colleague. "It's like, 'Look how well read I am!'"

But if we'd hoped to find America's Libertarian presidential nominee fingering a copy of Friedrich Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom," we were gravely disappointed. He arrived about a half beer after my editor and I did, and was interested in neither the books nor the bar.

People have talked about Johnson as an election spoiler, theorizing endlessly about from which camp he'll draw most heavily and in which states. That's a conversation he hopes they keep on having. It's good publicity after all, and though he served two terms as the Republican governor of New Mexico, he has no qualms about taking votes away from the GOP. "I long to be a spoiler in this race," he said.

Those sentiments were only reaffirmed by watching last week's Republican National Convention, according to Joe Hunter, Johnson's press secretary who was on the ground at the convention in Tampa, Fla.

"He was not hearing what needs to be said from the Republican standpoint on balancing the budget," Hunter said.

What Republicans characterized as bold still isn't bold enough for Johnson, who advocates balancing the budget by cutting $1.4 trillion in spending in 2013. Plus, there's his distaste for the party platform on social issues.

"I was going to go to my grave labeled a Republican," Johnson said that summer day. "I feel so much better. I really do."

Gary Johnson is the man.

he is a politician just like the rest of them though. If you think one man can change things you are mistaken. You libertarians should focus on taking over the Republican party from the neo-cons.

if elected he wouldnt do !! he cant without congress

people fail to understand this about Obama's presidency...his first bill he proposed was struck down [pic] Had to go all the way to the Supreme Court just to get health care passed [pic]

people fail to understand this about Obama's presidency...his first bill he proposed was struck down [pic] Had to go all the way to the Supreme Court just to get health care passed [pic]

The law’s most controversial component, known as the “individual mandate,” requires all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a “shared responsibility payment” to the government.

On the day the law was enacted, 26 states, several individuals, and others sued to have the law struck down as a violation of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, which gives the federal government the power to regulate commerce between the states.

In its ruling, the court held that the law could not be upheld under the Commerce Clause, which was the government’s primary argument in its support. “The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance,” Roberts wrote for the majority.

But wait—doesn’t that mean the law should’ve been struck down?

The Commerce Clause argument was only one of three the government made in support of the law. It also argued that the law could be considered a tax, and this is the argument the court bought.

Specifically, the court held that the individual mandate is not a “penalty,” as the health-care law identified it, but a tax, and therefore a constitutional application of Congress’s taxation power.

In deciding to accept the government’s tax argument, the court wrote that “the question is not whether that is the most natural interpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a ‘fairly possible’ one.”
In accepting the tax argument, the court relied on the “well-est@blished” principle that “if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so.”

The court then noted that the government’s argument—that the mandate represented a tax on people who choose not to buy health insurance—“makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income.”

In deciding to accept the government’s tax argument, the court wrote that “the question is not whether that is the most natural interpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a ‘fairly possible’ one.”

How can the court call the mandate a tax if the law itself didn’t call it that?

The court is not bound to interpret laws exactly as they are written, but uses what it calls a “functional approach”—considering the substance of a law in addition to its formal language.

Under this approach, the court ruled that the penalty the law imposes on people who don’t buy health insurance “looks like a tax in many respects,” and that it is permissible under the court’s previous case law for several reasons: the amount of money due is “far less than the price of insurance” and it is collected by the IRS under normal means of taxation.

The court acknowledged that the mandate “is plainly designed to expand health insurance coverage,” and noted that “taxes that seek to influence conduct are nothing new”—for example, the taxing of cigarettes to discourage smoking.

Finally, the court reasoned, the mandate does not make the failure to buy health insurance unlawful. Beyond the payment to the IRS, the court explains, “neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance.”

So am I going to have to pay more tax now?

Starting in 2016, when the “shared responsibility payment” is fully in place, the amount you would owe for not having health insurance is the greater of 2.5 percent of your income or $695. There is currently no means to criminally prosecute those who do not have health insurance and also refuse to pay the shared responsibility payment.

What’s that part about the Medicaid expansion?

The health-care law also expanded Medicaid to cover all nonelderly people with an income below 133 percent of the poverty line, and gave the government the authority to penalize states that choose not to participate in this expansion by taking away their existing Medicaid funding.

The court called this “economic dragooning” that leaves states with no option but to accept the expansion, and found that it violated the Constitution because states could not have anticipated such a dramatic restructuring of Medicaid.

However, the court found that the Medicaid expansion could be saved by removing the government’s authority to remove all of a state’s Medicaid funds if it chooses not to accept the expansion.

What will happen next?

Politicians have been falling over each other to respond to the ruling.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor immediately called for a vote to repeal the law. The vote is scheduled for July 11.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Obamacare is a crushing blow to patients throughout the country,” Cantor said. “Obamacare has failed to keep the president’s basic promise of allowing those who like their health care to keep it, while increasing costs and reducing access to quality care for patients.”
In remarks Thursday morning, Mitt Romney told reporters, “What the court did not do on its last day in session, I will do on my first day if elected president of the United States. And that is I will act to repeal Obamacare.

“Our mission is clear,” Romney said. “If we want to get rid of Obamacare, we’re going to have to replace President Obama. My mission is to make sure we do exactly that.”

Ahead of a closed-door meeting of Republicans, House Speaker John Boehner issued a statement: “Today’s ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety. “What Americans want is a common-sense, step-by-step approach to health-care reform that will protect Americans’ access to the care they need, from the doctor they choose, at a lower cost. Republicans stand ready to work with a president who will listen to the people and will not repeat the mistakes that gave our country Obamacare.”

if elected he wouldnt do !! he cant without congress

It went to the supreme court for an opinion on the legalities on forcing citizens to buy coverage, the individual mandate.....that aint the same as what your saying.

All I'm saying is lets have REAL conversations not contrived arguments. Within his first week, he signed an Executive Order ordering an audit of government contracts, and combating waste and abuse......that sounds like a lot better lead in an argument. No need to be combative AND dishonest when you can do all the damage you want to ignorant people with facts.

WTF @ those saying "oh [Gary Johnson's] a politician. So = no change, no better than any other politician"

you realize how pathetic and mentally inadequate you sound? You're telling me you don't have a single friend or family member who works for state, local, or the federal govt? Politicians get a bad rap, just like lawyers, and there really are people to give a bad name to EVERYTHING, but to blanket condemn the entirety --each and every person-- of whatever group or profession you're casting judgment on is outright fallacy, foolishness, and....well, you're just dumb

oh did i mention i hate fast food

meaning, of course, that not one good person works in the fast food industry they all should be hated cause i hate fast food

[pic]

Congrats you win stupid argument of the year award, most immature and inept niccaz up in here i swear... [pic]

[pic]



No dumbazz.....You do realize a politicican is 10/10 more likely to favor the views and problem/solutions that affect those who donate big money to his campaign before he focuses his attention on the little folks who simply entered a ballot on election day. Which is the main argument people have when criticizing Obama...."Oh Obama said he was gonna do this for the middle class", Oh Obama said he was gonna raise unemployment", Obama said he was gonna set black people free from white oppression, Obama said he was gonna help rich white people with a tax cut.".......STFU. It's not about you anymore. It hasnt been since the early 1900's. Its big money options. Helping the rich get richer. And its about wrapping all the bullshyt up and making sure "The Bankers" own everything so that impossible to pay debt we keep talking about is void, void because the banks that owe it back is owned by the bank that printed it out. Its a big joke to these people. They fund both party and libertarians will never have a voice, why do you think Ron jumped ship. I started to believe he was a sell out and realized if he had any chance to get in a position of power he better get with the program but now I feel like he just wanted a platform to voice his opinion. Quit the arguments and debates and Romney/Obama bashing. Thats what they want you to focus on, "The Puppet." And if you dont believe that nor see that then you my friend are blind to reality.

You do not cut spending in a weak recovery or an economy that is in a recession. Thats the last thing you want to do. You do it when the economy is growing at a good rate like 5-10% where private investment is adequate enough for spending to be cut. We need spending cuts but it can't be too severe to a point where it will spin us back into contraction.

The conventional wisdom holds that in the absence of government countercyclical policy, whether fiscal or monetary (or both), we cannot expect economic recovery — at least, not without an intolerably long delay. Yet the very opposite policies were followed during the depression of 1920–1921, and recovery was in fact not long in coming.

The economic situation in 1920 was grim. By that year unemployment had jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent, and GNP declined 17 percent. No wonder, then, that Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover — falsely characterized as a supporter of laissez-faire economics — urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to turn the economy around. Hoover was ignored.

Instead of "fiscal stimulus," Harding cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding's approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third.

The Federal Reserve's activity, moreover, was hardly noticeable. As one economic historian puts it, "Despite the severity of the contraction, the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and fight the contraction."[2] By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7 percent and it was only 2.4 percent by 1923.