It depends on what the meaning of is is

Former President Bill Clinton famously said "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.  Republicans were appalled by Clinton's lawyer-speak, after all, words have meanings and to play games with words are not what the "strict constructionists" believe.

Strict Constructionism

Republicans are big fans of strict constructionism.  They say time and time again that Judges should not "make law," but should interpret the law as it was written.  Look to the statute and don't pull a Bill Clinton "is is." Strict constructionists look at the literal meaning of the words in question, or at their historical meaning at the time the law was written. Congress' demand to see President Donald Trump's taxes are grounded in an unambiguous statute which empowers them to do so.

Trump's taxes

The House Ways and Means Committee has requested the Department of Treasury (the IRS) to turn over six years of Trump's.  Trump has said he is not obligated to turn over his taxes and is directing the IRS to not turn them over.  Trump believes that the Democrats are acting "politically" and therefore Trump is not obligated to turn over his taxes.  Apparently, the President who appoints strict constructionists the federal bench doesn't believe in strict construction when it pertains to him.

Tax information is generally between the IRS and the individual.  There are a few exceptions to this general rule.  States, for example, can access your federal tax information if they deem it necessary to reconcile the information you sent your state versus what you sent the Feds,  Congress (the Ways and Means Committee in particular) has the power under a 1924 law to get tax returns and related tax information on any American if they ask for it.  This is an absolute rule.  Congress need not state a reason.

The 1924 law states, "Any committee (such as the Ways and Means Committee) shall have the authority ... to inspect returns and return information at such time and in such manner as may be determined by such chairman..."  This provision applies to anyone who files taxes, and the origins of this law had its impetus in scandals under the President Warren Harding administration.  Congress did not have the power to get tax returns prior to the 1924 law, so Congress granted themselves the power.

Why we need to see the tax returns

Congress needs to see Trump's tax returns for one simple reason --- we need to know if his business interests conflict with the interests of the American people.  If we don't know the exact extent of Trump's financial interests, we cannot know for sure whether Trump is acting in the best interests of the American people or in his own best financial interests.  Trump either does not understand this or doesn't care.  In either case, that's conduct inconsistent with the job of leader of the free world.

We do have precedent and a perfect example of what full disclosure looks like.  In 1974, President Gerald Ford (himself appointed to the job of Vice President) appointed a man whose name is synonymous with wealth --- Nelson Rockefeller. 

Rockefeller was Governor of New York for 15 years and a man who sought the Presidency in his own right a number of times.  Rockefeller was also extremely wealthy, with business interests all over the world.  When he was nominated by Ford, Congress had serious concerns that Rockefeller's job could be affected by his vast business interests.

Did Rockefeller give Congress the middle finger?  No, that was a couple years later and not directed at Congress.  Rockefeller engaged in a procedure foreign to Trump.  It's called "full disclosure." Rockefeller submitted himself to months of Congressional inquiry.  He was nominated by Ford on August 20, 1974, and was not finally approved by the Senate until almost four months later on December 10, 1974,

We need to know the exact extent of Trump's financial interests, and the fact that he won the 2016 Presidential election does not mean this issue has been already litigated.  The Republican Congress woefully neglected their oversight duties in 2017 and 2018 by not asking for the financial information. 

Checks and Balances

Congress is a co-equal branch of government, and in fact, it can be argued that the Founding Fathers actually believed that Congress was more important than the other two branches.  Congress' powers and duties are addressed in Article One, the President in Article Two, and the Judiciary in Article Three.  The Founding Fathers were afraid of any branch having too much power.  Each branch was directed to "keep an eye" on the other. 

As outlined in the Federalist Papers (No. 51), James Madison explained that "the biggest threats to the government of the United States would be the ability of one governing branch to obtain too much power over another..." 

Get Over It, Obamacare Is Here To Stay

In 2010, the GOP kicked some electoral butt as a result of Obamacare, now they're about to get their butts kicked if they keep up efforts to appeal it.  The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is here to stay, and it is and always was the signature accomplishment of the Obama administration. To quote Joe Biden, it's a "big F**KING deal."

How does it work?

The Affordable Care Act is officially known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but has become known as the "Obamacare."  Obamacare was the classic "law by committee." President Barack Obama took a hands-off approach to the crafting of the law and allowed Congressional Committees to craft differing versions of a law whose main goal was to cover as many Americans as possible.  The result which is by no means perfect was light years ahead of the messed up system that was in place.

Despite attempts for a single payer system or even a system with a "public option," the overall plan is still primarily a private insurance company based system.  Most Americans (excluding those over 65, disabled, or covered under the Children's Health Insurance Program {CHIP}) have some form of employer-based healthcare.  Obamacare made it mandatory for employers with over 50 fulltime employees (30 hours or more a week) to offer "affordable" and "minimum essential coverage." The rest of the public (excluding the aforementioned seniors and the disabled) fell under mandated Obamacare insurance.

Without getting into the specifics of federally run exchanges and state-run exchanges, Obamacare gave monetary subsidies to individuals making between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level (around $12,000 a year per individual and an additional $4000 for each dependent.)  The Advanced Premium Tax Credits amounted to large "gifts" to the health insurance companies which allowed individuals to pay reduced premiums for health insurance.  The subsidies allowed millions of people the chance at health coverage.  This was the "carrot."  The "stick" was the individual mandate (a monetary penalty if you didn't buy health insurance.)

If your income is under 133 percent of the poverty level (about $16,000  a year for an individual or $32,000 for a family of four) you are eligible for Medicaid (the Medicaid Expansion.)  If you make over $48,000 as an individual or $96,000 for a family of four, you do not get any financial help buying insurance, but you still have to purchase health insurance or face a financial penalty assessed by the IRS on your next year's taxes.

All of this, by the way, is paid and did not increase the deficit.

The Supreme Court mucks it up

As soon as Obamacare became the "law of the land," Republicans (the guys and gals who abhor the courts "making" laws) filed legal challenges to strike down Obamacare.  The thrust of their argument was that the mandate to buy insurance was an unconstitutional use of power by the federal government.  It was argued that the Commerce Clause did not allow Congress to force people to buy health insurance, which, of course, lead to the crazy legal discussions by the late Justice Antonin Scalia about the federal government forcing individuals to buy broccoli.

In the end, Chief Justice John Roberts saved the day, by declaring Obamacare good to go constitutionally, but not under the Commerce Clause, but he reasoned that the individual mandate was a "tax" and Congress certainly has the right to tax.  He also threw a bone to the conservatives by saying that states were not required to enact the Medicaid expansion, because that was a bridge too far constitutionally.  A number of states (those controlled by Democratic legislatures or Governors,) took the federal money and expanded Medicaid.  Those under Republican control said "we don't want your stinkin' money" and shafted its poorest residents by refusing to expand Medicaid.  The number of states expanding Medicaid has steadily increased, and currently 37 states and the District of Columbia have expanded Medicaid (the most recent few by popular referendum.)


The Supreme Court may get another chance to muck things up if the case which is working its way through the federal court system makes its way to Washington. Before the GOP got its butt handed to them in the 2018 election, Republicans repealed the individual mandate as part of their tax "reform" legislation.  This afforded those diehard Obamacare haters to file suit which basically says that since there is no more individual mandate, there is no tax, and thus the whole of Obamacare is unconstitutional.  A federal judge in Texas agreed, but his ruling is on hold pending appeal.

Repeal and Replace

Repeal and Replace has been the mantra of Republicans for years when it comes to Obamacare.  While this slogan carried some weight when the GOP first coined the phrase, it no longer excites crowds, except for true believers.  This lack of favor came for two major reasons --- Republicans had no "replacement" and Obamacare now usually polls at least fifteen points on the positive side.  It seems like people are happy with the law's prohibition of discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions, keeping children on their plans until age 26, the subsidies, and the elimination of junk insurance plans.  The jury is also in on premium costs because even though health insurance costs continue to rise, the rate of increase has slowed dramatically.

The basic reason for passing Obamacare was to increase the number of individuals with health coverage.  Health insurance would no longer be a luxury only for those who could pay the bill.  Hard working individuals would now be able to go to get medical care without having to "tough it out" and pray for the best or get medical care and then seek bankruptcy protection.  At least 20 million people now have health insurance who wouldn't without Obamacare, and the GOP and President Donald Trump have no plan to cover these people.  Health Savings Accounts ain't gonna do it.

Where do we go from here?

Obamacare is here to stay, and thankfully so.  Millions of Americans now have health insurance who could never afford it.  One of the groups who benefit the most from Obamacare are those "small business people" the GOP loves to canonize.  It is not uncommon for a family health insurance plan to cost as much as $3000 a month, that $36,000 a year for those of you scoring at home.

A small businessman (making $60,000 a year) with a family of four would have to pay about $2000 a month for a family health insurance plan.  Under Obamacare, that small businessman would now get that same coverage for about $400 a month.  Now he can make that business grow and not have about being forced into bankruptcy by health insurance premiums or bills from an unexpected illness.

President Trump has promised a "really good" health insurance plan both on the campaign trail and now since he's instructed the Justice Department to join GOP Attorneys General in support of striking down Obamacare.  He recently said, the GOP will become the "party of healthcare."  This ain't gonna happen if you don't have a plan.  Trump's die-hard bases might take him on his word about healthcare, but a good majority of the American people won't.

Buzz and I are in agreement with a vast majority of the American people.  Fix Obamacare and don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Obamacare is not perfect, but it is so, so much better than what we had before.  Millions of more Americans are covered, and that's a great start.  Let's start tweaking it to cover even more Americans.