Repeal of 1099 provision fails again

For those of you that don’t remember or don’t know, the health care reform contains an onerous provision that requires businesses to file 1099 forms for expenditures totaling over $600 in a year. The provision is opposed by the United States Chamber of Commerce, the Obama Administration and several members of Congress in tough re-election bids support removing nixing this job killer.

Congress had a second chance to repeal the provision that is part of ObamaCare, and for the second time, they failed. When it first came up in the House, Democrats decided to play games by putting repeal of the requirement in a bill containing tax hikes. Yesterday in the Senate, Democrats did the exact same thing, this time putting the provision in an amendment with a tax hike on oil companies, which would hurt states like Louisiana that depend on that industry for jobs, in the president’s latest gimmick to “create jobs.” You can see how your Senators voted here.

Sen. Mike Johanns proposed the an outright repeal of the amendment was shot down by Democrats. Among the Senators voting against repeal of the 1099 provison were Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Patty Murray (D-WA), Harry Reid (D-NV), all of whom face tough re-election battles this year.

Well, if that fails there is always the lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare. One challenge in is in federal court in Virginia, which is very likely to move forward. Another in federal court in Florida is moving to moving to trail:

At a hearing in Pensacola, Fla., Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson indicated he would let the case proceed to a trial, NPR’s Debbie Elliott tells Shots.

However, Elliott, who was in the courtroom this morning, said the judge also said he would probably throw some parts of the case out without specifying which ones. He’s expected to issue a ruling by Oct. 14.

The crux of the case is whether it’s legal for the federal government to require people to have health insurance or pay a fine for going without it. The states in the case say no.

They also argue it’s not right for them to have to shoulder additional Medicaid costs they never had a say in.

Interestingly, the federal government is making the argument that Congress has the power to require individuals to purchase health insurance because of the Commerce Clause. This was the argument orginally made in the lawsuit in Virginia, however, the Obama Administration changed its tune now arguing that it is a tax.

Andrew Napolitano recently discussed these cases against ObamaCare, and believes that they have merit:

Unfortunately while these cases and repeal of the 1099 provision are still in the works, ObamaCare continues to be a burden to taxpayers, businesses and individuals.

 


The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.