The Supreme Court ruled that ObamaCare’s individual mandate is not constitutional under the Commerce Power, which was how Congress framed the mandate to avoid a political backlash from calling it a tax. Congress and the president swore up and down that the mandate was not a tax. Yet the Court upheld the mandate as a valid use of that disavowed taxing power. What Congress said the individual mandate is, the Court said is not constitutional. What Congress said the mandate is not, the Court ruled is constitutional. Everybody got that?

Where does that leave us?

1. The Supreme Court just enacted a law that Congress never would have passed.
2. The Court just told Congress it is okay to lie to the people to avoid political accountability.

Today, the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act in its entirety. The most controversial part of the act, the individual mandate, was upheld not as a naked command under the commerce power, but as a tax on those who choose not to purchase health insurance.

Upholding the individual mandate as a tax was the most politically safe path for the Supreme Court, and, unsurprisingly, it was Chief Justice Roberts who steered the Court toward that path. Nevertheless, just as a rose would still smell as sweet, a “tax” to coerce you into purchasing a product from a private business is still an unprecedented intrusion into the private lives of American citizens.

On the bright side, a majority of the Court agreed that upholding the individual mandate under the Commerce Clause would be an unprecedented stretching of the meaning of “commerce.” The Court broadly accepted the argument put forward in our brief (joined by Pacific Legal Foundation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, 13 other organizations, and 333 state legislators) that neither the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause permits Congress to compel commerce into existence in order to regulate it. As Chief Justice Roberts wrote:

Just as the individual mandate cannot be sustained as a law regulating the substantial effects of the failure to purchase health insurance, neither can it be upheld as a “necessary and proper” component of the insurance reforms. The commerce power thus does not authorize the mandate.

The Commerce Clause returns to where it was in 2009, which is still wildly distorted from where it should be. The taxing power, already quite broad, gets even broader. Going forward, we’ll have to see how much Congress is willing to use this newfound taxing power. If there is one thing the federal government knows how to do well, it’s tax.

With the Supreme Court ruling on President Obama’s health care law, everyone is wondering what’s next for big government. Here are some ideas for federal policymakers to consider:

Federal Broccoli Act of 2013: Eat your broccoli, else pay the IRS $1,000.

Federal Recycling Act of 2014: Fill your blue box and put on the curb, else pay the IRS $2,000.

Federal Green Car Act of 2015: Make your next car battery powered, else pay the IRS $3,000.

Federal Domestic Jobs Act of 2016: Don’t exceed 25 percent foreign content on family consumer purchases, else pay the IRS $4,000.

Federal Obesity Act of 2017: Achieve listed BMI on your mandated annual physical, else pay the IRS $5,000.

Federal National Service Act of 2018: Serve two years in the military or the local soup kitchen, else pay the IRS $6,000.

Federal Housing Efficiency Act of 2019: Don’t exceed 1,000 square feet of living space per person in your household, else pay the IRS $7,000.

Federal Population Growth Act of 2020: Don’t exceed two children per couple, else pay the IRS $8,000.

Even though the Supreme Court action today is a setback for those of us who’ve fought for decades to revive limited constitutional government, it’s hardly the end of the road. The ideas this litigation put in play – in the court decisions below, in the oral arguments before the Supreme Court, and in the huge debate that has taken place across the country – will not go away. They’re the ideas of limited constitutional government that are as compelling today as they were when the Founders first articulated them over two centuries ago, even if this Court has found itself unable to give them force in this case.

But it’s not simply that the ideas are now “out of the bottle” as they haven’t been for a very long time. More deeply, it’s because they address the fundamental problem the nation faces today – out-of-control government, at all levels, giving us a looming economic disaster – that they’ll increasingly be in play. After today’s decision, it will fall to the people themselves, who’ve opposed this legislation from the beginning, to elect a Congress that stands for restoring limited constitutional government, such that a future Court will be better able to do what this Court should have done.

Fretting that Americans are not sufficiently well educated about the government’s perspectives on policy and the world, the President today introduced the Affordable News act. This legislation will make New York Times subscriptions vastly cheaper than they are today, by taxing everyone who does not already subscribe to the paper.

Just kidding.… For now, anyway.

Talking to Marketplace Radio, former Senate Majority Leader turned lobbyist Tom Daschle is candid about the attractions of political office:

Hobson: What do you miss about your time in the public sector, if anything at this point? You’ve been in the private sector for a while.

Daschle: Well, to be honest, I miss the power. The senators have an enormous amount of power, probably second only to the president of the United States.

He’s doing OK in what Marketplace laughingly calls “the private sector” — they mean “the rent-seeking sector” — having made some $5.3 million in his first two years for “providing strategic advice” at a lobbying/​law firm. But he still misses the power.

Today, the New Hampshire House and Senate took a stand for choice and freedom in education. Both bodies mustered an overwhelming 69-percent super-majority in favor of the School Choice Scholarship Act, over-riding the Governor’s veto.

This is by far the largest margin of victory ever secured for a new private school choice program.

The law is path-breaking, supporting for the first time in the nation a family’s choice to home school their child.

The law protects independence and innovation in private education, imposing no new restrictions on private or home schools, because the lawmakers understand that direct accountability to parents and taxpayers is the most effective kind of accountability.

The program allows up to 30 percent of the credit funds in the first year (more in subsequent years) to support children who are already in private school, but need assistance in order to remain there.

And after the first two years, the program can expand by 25 percent each year.

I provided analysis and advice on education tax credit policy structure to individuals in New Hampshire over the past year, but a policy analyst can only explain why certain structures are better or worse for accomplishing particular goals.

The New Hampshire legislators and others who pushed this education tax credit with perseverance, principle and thoughtfulness deserve the highest praise …it is not often that we are fortunate enough to see a critical mass of true leadership in politics.

Legislators in other states should take note of what can be accomplished when lawmakers take principles and policy seriously.