All errors should be reported to

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Faux Conservatives attack Trump -- over their own mistake

True Conservatives are learning under President Trump how fake the conservatives in Washington (and sadly elsewhere) are.

Consider Trump's efforts to end the unconstitutional health insurance mandate.

Voters gave Republicans a mandate to eliminate the mandate six years ago. They lollygag.

Last November voters gave Trump the same mandate. He took action. Now Faux Conservatives attack, attack, and attack him.

First the facts -- as misrepresented by the Faux Conservative media.

From the Washington Times:
The IRS is no longer requiring that tax returns indicate that a person has health insurance under Obamacare — a move that Reason magazine called a major blow to the law’s individual mandate.

I will explain later.

First the sky-is-falling hysteria.

From Jazz Shaw at Hot Air:
Opponents of both the individual and employer mandates (among which I include myself) are no doubt cheering this announcement. I remain of the opinion that these mandates are patently unconstitutional no matter what Supreme Court had to say on the subject. But given the fact that the law still exists and is on the books, is this legal? Our colleague Patterico at Red State finds the proposal to be on dubious legal grounds at best, but beyond that sees this move as a terrible way to approach policy on a couple of levels.
Actually, executive orders are required by the Constitution as the president is the chief of the executive branch and must instruct government employees will carry out the law.

From Patterico (who is a district attorney):
At, Peter Suderman reports that the IRS has passed a rule that says they will accept tax returns that don’t indicate whether someone has health coverage. If the report is accurate, the ObamaCare mandate is now optional. It’s pursuant to President Trump’s executive order softening the impact of ObamaCare;
[Quotes Suderman]
This does not sound legal.
It is. He knows it. "Executive Order" became a leftist bogey man under Bush 43, and righties adopted that attitude.

But Suderman, Jazz Shaw, and Patterico should have looked before they leaped. Syderman had to sheepishly admit he got the story wrong.

From Suderman:
Correction: The IRS did not reject silent returns last year, as this story originally indicated. The plan was to go into effect this year, for 2016 returns, but the IRS reversed course on February 3. Reason regrets the error.
So the story is Line 61 was never mandatory.

Democrats never, ever required people to fill out that line.

The sky is not falling -- as much as these Faux Conservatives.

Emily Litella called. She wants her "never mind" back.

Listen -- and listen good -- we are in a fight against Evil: a federal government that consumes more than one-third of all economic activity in America.

We do not have time for these games. Get over Trump's nomination already.

If not -- goodbye.

True Conservatives have no time for these fakes.


"Trump the Establishment," my look at the general election, is available in paperback at Create Space, or if you prefer or (via Instapundit) Amazon as a paperback.

Kindle will be available March 1.

This is the sequel to "Trump the Press," which covered the nomination. It is available on Kindle, or in paperback on Create Space.

Autographed copies are available by writing me at

Please follow me on Twitter.



    Take a look at this. I had little respect for Ryan before. Even less now.
    Just on the basis of the EMR thing I think he should be drawn and quartered. Yes, really.

  2. The suggestion that the IRS would "reject" a tax return that's filed without Line 61 filled in, apparently doing so out of hand, makes little sense to me. If a return is incomplete in any other respect, the IRS would normally send the taxpayer a letter saying the filed return was incomplete and requesting further information regarding specific line items or insufficient documentation. And if the taxpayer ignored that letter, the IRS would normally send a follow-up letter, perhaps leading to an in-person audit. But "rejecting" an incomplete tax return without further follow-up by letter just doesn't sound like the SOP of the IRS that I know and love so dearly. And what makes the original false claim even more ridiculous is that by law the IRS has no legal recourse to pursue if someone without insurance fails or refuses to pay the tax penalty, other than the IRS withholding any tax refund the non-payer might be due. Sure, the IRS could drag a refusnik through audit hell, but the half-dozen audits I've experienced in the past were all more entertaining than scary.

  3. I started calling these people Whigs ever since McConnell started showing his true colors.

    They are not Republicans and they are not Conservatives. They are no different that the "dough-faces" who sided with the Democrats in the 1850s.

  4. Hear that in the distance, Faux Conservatives?

    The war's over there.

  5. "True Conservatives have no time for these fakes."

    I heartily agree but I doubt that we are pulling on the same yoke, since the question is not whether I or even George Will are conservative as much as it is a concern over Donald Trump's unconcern about political leanings.

    When short-term issues drive policy, we will always end up worse than we started. In the first month it appears that Donald Trump remains in the campaign mode and we endured that mode for eight years under Prez Zero.

  6. You have to remember that though a Rep (I guess)Patterico is a rabid anti Trumper. He is a bit over the top with it.

  7. What the IRS and the entrenched beaurocrats need to understand is: It's none of your business, you pigs. What if I have enough money to go out of pocket? Kiss my white ass. Line 61 = blank.