Geithner ignored Obama Care requirement pertaining to State requirement to establish Exchanges ( in order for private health insurance companies receiving a 800 billion bailout ) , seems to be indicating he will play fast and loose regarding witholding ( but not the obligation to pay taxes ) if no Fiscal cliff deal reached by years end......

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=214735

I Told You So (Health "Reform" An Asset-Stripping Scheme)

 

Time to get the flag out again...
I'm rather surprised that I missed this originally -- but it was brought up on the forum and definitely deserves a Ticker....

It turns out that ObamaCare makes an essential part of its regulatory scheme—an $800 billion bailout of private health insurance companies—conditional upon state governments creating the health insurance “exchanges” envisioned in the law.
This was no “drafting error.” During congressional consideration of the bill, its lead author, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), acknowledged that he intentionally and purposefully made that bailout conditional on states implementing their own Exchanges.

Note: Bailout.  As in "hand money to private health insurance companies stolen from you" (as if the premiums they've been collecting aren't enough to begin with!)

Now that it appears that as many as 30 states will not create Exchanges, the law is in peril. When states refuse to establish an Exchange, they are blocking not only that bailout, but also the $2,000 per worker tax ObamaCare imposes on employers. If enough states refuse to establish an Exchange, they can effectively force Congress to repeal much or all of the law.
That might explain why the IRS is literally rewriting the statute. On May 24, the IRS finalized a regulation that says the law’s $800 billion insurance-industry bailout will not be conditional on states creating Exchanges. With the stroke of pen, the IRS (1) stripped states of the power Congress gave them to shield employers from that $2,000 per-worker tax, (2) imposed that illegal tax on employers whom Congress exempted, and (3) issued up to $800 billion of tax credits and direct subsidies to private health insurance companies—without any congressional authorization whatsoever.

So the IRS (Treasury, that being Timmy Geithner) decided to ignore the law.
That's not uncommon, you know.
The problem is that this isn't an accident -- it's clear legislative intent.  And that is documented, which makes for a wee problem in that the courts are rather more likely to get involved here as well.
The long and short of this is that PPACA, as designed by Congress and signed by the President gave the States the power to shield their residents from the $2,000 penalty, er, tax.  It also made conditional the bailout on state setup of exchanges, the very predicate for the funds.

But then some states revolted and said "no, we will not set them up." 

And in response the Executive (IRS, a division of the Treasury) appears to have simply ignored the law.

As for why you should care, it's pretty simple: If the IRS ruling falls (and it appears that legally it will) any state that refuses to implement a state exchange effectively voids the penalty in that state.  This means that if you live in such a state you are exempt from the "tax/penalty" should you choose not to buy health insurance.

When the government evidences clear intent to ignore the law you are left with only a few choices.  We shall see how this one plays out, but one thing is quite clear: We have a rogue administration.

and.......

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/09/new-plan-we-just-wont-collect-the-taxes/

New plan. We just won’t collect the taxes

POSTED AT 12:31 PM ON DECEMBER 9, 2012 BY JAZZ SHAW

  

There’s a new bit of creative thinking making the rounds in DC this weekend, proving yet again that not all ideas wind up being good ones. According to this line of thought, assuming no deal is reached to prevent tax rates from going up on the middle class, Timothy Geithner has certain, hidden superpowers which will save the day. If the tax rates go up, people won’t need to worry about it because we just won’t withhold the extra money from their paychecks.

The White House has the power to temporarily protect taxpayers from middle-class tax hikes even as upper income rates rise if Congress does nothing and all of the Bush-era tax rates expire in January.

Experts and lawmakers alike agree that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has the power to adjust how much is withheld from paychecks for tax purposes — for all taxpayers or just for some.

By doing so, Geithner could ensure paychecks reflect the White House position that wealthier taxpayers with annual income higher than $250,000 see their taxes rise. Geithner at the same time could leave withholding tables where they are for the middle class, ensuring those workers don’t see a higher cut from their paychecks.

I’ve noticed a bit of confusion out there, particularly given some of the comments popping up on Twitter, so we should first identify what this doesn’t mean. The White House can not simply ignore the tax laws put in place by Congress and collect a different amount of tax than what is due, and this proposal isn’t suggesting that. If the tax rate goes up, you’re still going to owe more money.

But what they’re talking about is the fact that Treasury is responsible for publishing the withholding tables which employers use to determine how much to deduct from workers’ paychecks for their taxes. In theory, Geithner could leave the withholding tables the same for lower income workers, effectively making it seem as if their taxes haven’t gone up. But this is a pretty dangerous game to play unless you’re very sure you know what the eventual tax rate is going to be and when it will go into effect. If you guess wrong and fail to withhold the correct amount, tens of millions of people will find themselves owing a big ole’ check to the IRS when tax day rolls around and you’ll find yourself about as popular as a skunk at a garden party.

So what does this plan actually “solve” in terms of the ongoing tax debate? In reality… nothing.