When told that the Democratic party's recent electoral dominance may not be permanent, President Obama tests the theory, "What goes up must eventually come down".  It always does...

"Success has many fathers, and failure is an orphan" - JFK

We all pay taxes for services such as roads and bridges, but very few people build successful businesses.  So building roads and bridges doesn't create successful businesses, it just supports them.  Who did create that business after all?

 Where does this end?  What percentage of future success is attributable to my fifth-grade teacher?  Doctor? Lawyer?  The farmer who grows my food?  (Actually, free markets figure out the value).

Worse, the President is implying that by paying taxes, we are somehow paying back those who helped us along the way.  So how does the government get that teacher her fair share?  

If indeed we are all "partners in success" who reimburses entrepeneurs in the event their business fails?  Where are all the "partners" when we are trying to raise capital, or taking on personal debt, or working 80-hour weeks??  

That's not "fair".

Since fairness is so important to our President, perhaps he feels that the government should provide the seed money for all new ventures so that entrepreneurs are not unfairly burdened by the capital risk they take?

Yikes!  Let's not go there.

It seems odd to me that we are hearing so much about the Supreme Court's determination that the ACA penalty is really a tax.  

They certainly did not invent this notion on their own.  In truth, the administration itself argued before the court that it was indeed a tax (as an alternative argument in the event their commerce clause argument went south).  So the administration sold this originally as a "penalty" and strenuously protested that it was not a tax.  But to defend it before the court, they argued that it was indeed a tax.  Now today, to attempt to avoid the inevitable backlash to breaking (again) their pledge not to raise taxes, they are back using the "penalty" term.  

Why is the emphasis on the Supreme Court's determination that the penalty is in fact a tax, and not on the administration's obvious and repeated prevarications?