that's what we're counting on to make this go through!"
But a second speech, this time in the form of audio, surfaced this
morning in which he makes the same claims before the Jewish Community
Center of San Francisco at around the same time. In it, Gruber actively
acknowledges that should if states revolt en masse, they’d bring down
the law. But, he said, that he had enough faith in democracy to believe
that even the states that didn’t like Obamacare would eventually succumb
to the “ultimate threat” that “if your governor doesn’t set up an
exchange, you are losing hundreds of millions of dollars in tax credits
to be delivered to your citizens.”
Gruber's 'faith in democracy': "If we steal enough of your money, and threaten not to give any of it back unless you do what we want, we can make you bow down and obey."
Directly connected: the IRS complicity(we're supposed to trust these bastards on ANYTHING, why?)
And it was entirely political. Democrats needed those subsidies. The
party had assumed that dangling subsidies before the states would induce
them to set up exchanges. When dozens instead refused, the White House
was faced with the prospect that citizens in 36 states—two-thirds of the
country—would be exposed to the full cost of ObamaCare’s overpriced
insurance. The backlash would have been horrific, potentially forcing
Democrats to reopen the law, or even costing President Obama
The White House viewed it as imperative, therefore, that IRS
bureaucrats ignore the law’s text and come up with a politically helpful
rule. The evidence shows that career officials at the IRS did indeed do
as Treasury Department and Health and Human Services Department
officials told them. This, despite the fact that the IRS is supposed to
be insulated from political meddling.
Yet in March 2011, Emily McMahon, the acting assistant secretary for
tax policy at the Treasury Department (a political hire), saw a news
article that noted a growing legal focus on the meaning of that text.
She forwarded it to the working group, which in turn decided to elevate
the issue—according to Congress’s report—to “senior IRS and Treasury
officials.” The office of the IRS chief counsel—one of two positions
appointed by the president—drafted a memo telling the group that it
should read the text to mean that everyone, in every exchange, got
subsidies. At some point between March 10 and March 15, 2011, the
reference to “Exchanges established by the State” disappeared from the
Emails viewed by congressional investigators nonetheless showed that
Treasury and the IRS remained worried they were breaking the law. An
email exchange between Treasury employees in the spring of 2011
expressed concern that they had no statutory authority to deem a
federally run exchange the equivalent of a state-run exchange.
But they followed orders anyway. And, as I recall, they found that the chief counsel was in the loop of 'Screw with the conservatives' actions by the IRS.