When the State doesn’t wish you to express your dissent, they simply make dissent illegal.
See? Problem solved.
Of course, such a tyrannical move is usually only seen in oppressive, fascistic regimes. To which I say: “Welcome to Obama’s America, ladies and gentlemen”.
By the Treasury Department’s issuing a diktat that businesses would have to certify, under penalty of perjury, that any and all staffing changes have nothing to do with ObamaCare (h/t Ed over at HotAir.com), they are now making the Federal Government the arbiter of not only people’s actions, but the rationale for their actions.
In short, they can be found either guilty or innocent …for their thoughts.
Apart from the Treasury having no such power, this also forces you to attempt to prove a negative, which is utterly impossible to do. Whereas previously a business owner could make adjustments to their employee rolls based on the entirely reasonable realization that Obamacare compliance will hurt their business, they must now either:
- eat the lost profits, thus risking their entire business,
- or lie to the Federal Government…
…thereby risking a federal perjury charge. To quote Chris Stirewalt: “To avoid ObamaCare costs, you must swear that you are not trying to avoid ObamaCare costs.”
If anyone is having flashbacks to Orwell’s Thought Police, rest assured: you’re not alone.
As the video pointed out, the Administration got all sorts of bad press when one business after another said that Obamacare directly influenced their decisions to cut payroll. With this new “rule”, that’s gone: if a business says that they reduced staff as a result of Obamacare, they can well expect an up-close-and-personal visit from their local Treasury Official.
Dissent? WHAT dissent?
If the use of ‘1984‘ as metaphor seems overused these days (and that fact alone is telling), try this one: we’re now being thrust into an updated version of the Salem Witch Trials, only now folks won’t have to merely prove they’re not one of the devil’s agents.
Rather, they need to prove that they were not responding to market forces, but were acting on, oh, I don’t know, …the stages of the moon, perhaps, or due to the voices in their head. ANYTHING, as long as their actions weren’t a result of their logically trying to keep their business afloat.
Perhaps worst of all, the president’s recent ingenuous remarks on the subject are chilling in their blasé-ness, as if this were some minor afterthought, instead of an upheaval of basic equality before the law:
Yep, he’s just trying to “make sure that nobody is unnecessarily burdened”. Other than those pesky business owners, naturally.
Hey, here’s an idea: what about if we applied the same benchmark to Obama’s assurances that he has now imposed on us? Yes, PROVE to me, Mr. Obama, that the “purpose” of your law “is not to punish“.
What’s that? You can’t prove that, you say? You mean, we’re just gonna have to “trust” you?
Seriously, Mr. President, isn’t it a bit late for that now?