General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"The 1934 Dinner Party That May Have Helped Save Obamacare."
When FDR created Social Security, his labor secretary feared the court would reject ituntil a justice told her over dinner that framing it as a tax could save it. By Jonathan Alter
Could a 1934 Washington dinner party hold the key to Chief Justice John Roberts landmark decision on the Affordable Care Act?
In late 1934, President Franklin D. Roosevelt had been in office more than a year and decided to move forward on what would become his greatest domestic achievement: Social Security. He assigned his secretary of labor, Frances Perkins, the first woman ever to serve in the Cabinet, to lead the way on designing the program.
But Perkins was worried. The Supreme Court was moving toward a narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause that would invalidate many of the great achievements of the New Deal. Soon that would include the National Recovery Act, the capstone of FDRs famous First Hundred Days in 1933.
(It would be another four years before Justice Owen Robertsno relationwould famously switch sides and the Court would begin reversing itself, partly in response to FDRs 1937 court packing scheme.)
Perkins went to dinner at the home of someone lost to history and recalls in her memoirs that she bumped into Justice Harlan Fiske Stone there.
When Perkins expressed worry about whether an old-age and survivors insurance program would pass constitutional muster, Stone, a Republican appointee to the court and future chief justice, replied: The taxing power of the federal government, my dear; the taxing power is sufficient for everything you want and need.
Stones point was that if Social Security or anything else Perkins might cook up was financed by a tax, it was permissible under the Constitution, especially since the original taxing power had been bolstered by the 1913 adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment, which legalized a federal income tax.
-snip-
Then, as now, there was some sales deception involved. Social Security was sold by FDR as a social insurance program where each employee paid premiums into a personal retirement fund; in truth, its financed by a payroll tax and the money collected goes to todays retirees, not the workers who paid in. Obamacare was sold as being funded by a mandate; in truth, its like a cigarette tax, as the chief justice wrote, designed not so much to raise revenue as to change behavior.
After the dinner party, Frances Perkins went to FDR and swore him to secrecy on the advance opinion from the court, but Justice Stones view gave the Roosevelt administration more confidence as it moved forward with what would become the most popular and successful social program in American history. The Affordable Care Act is the completion of the cradle to grave insurance coverage that Roosevelt envisioned when he launched Social Security.
Unless Mitt Romney wins, we will have ended discrimination against sick people in our timean historic achievement that wouldnt have been possible without an obscure constitutional argument over taxes.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/01/the-1934-dinner-party-that-may-have-helped-save-obamacare.html
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)And it does indeed open the door to government provided health care.
FlaGranny
(8,361 posts)If you can tax some people for something, you can tax everyone for that same something.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)Lucky Luciano
(11,253 posts)that discussion at the dinner party was way out of bounds and totally inappropriate.
meaculpa2011
(918 posts)why was it inappropriate? There was no case before the court. He was just offering an opinion.
Lucky Luciano
(11,253 posts)together. There is a strong appearance of a bias and that politics will rule the court.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)There was no case at that moment but he could reasonably foresee that this precise issue might well come before him. I wonder if Stone had had a glass or two of wine to loosen his tongue. From other things I've read about him, I'd formed the impression that he was usually very scrupulous about judicial proprieties.
BumRushDaShow
(128,855 posts)This is exactly the case. The almost 80-year precedent is there for Social Security/Medicare to exist as a "tax" (in that instance, a "payroll tax" . Throwing that out would then invalidate Social Security & Medicare, and could have ramifications of ignoring the 16th Amendment. I.e.
And those without income are exempt from the "penalty" provision in the ACA.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)If it had a Public Option, maybe,
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)These things could become lost in history.
I now fully understand the significance of this piece of law. Obama is indeed a great president and brilliant man.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)For anyone interested, I recommend "The Woman Behind the New Deal The Life and Legacy of Frances Perkins - Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and the Minimum Wage" by Kirstin Downey.
graywarrior
(59,440 posts)efhmc
(14,725 posts)I hope that works. It's info about her biography, which I hope to get soon.