Romney advisor: You’re right, the ObamaCare mandate isn’t a tax

posted at 9:54 pm on July 2, 2012 by Allahpundit

When you nominate the man responsible for RomneyCare, don’t be surprised if his team’s reluctant to embrace Roberts’s argument that a mandate is a tax. Even if everyone else in the party has spent the past five days happily rubbing The One’s face in it.

Over at Breitbart.com, Joel Pollak urges Romney to get it together:

Fehrnstrom allowed Chuck Todd to push him off message–and re-ignited the fears that conservatives have long had about Romney’s will and ability to fight. In response, conservatives–who had just coalesced around opposition to what many now call “Obamatax”–exhort: Mitt, start fighting, or give up and let someone else do it.

Fehrnstrom’s point–in defense of Romneycare–was that the Supreme Court was wrong to uphold Obamacare under the taxing power. The individual mandate was never intended to be a tax, Congress never called it a tax, and it wasn’t a tax in Massachusetts, either. Fine–but now that Obama’s lawyers went to court and called it a tax, and Chief Justice John Roberts called it a tax (and spare us the non-distinction between “tax” and the “taxing power”) Obamacare is, undeniably, a massive tax on the middle class. Obama lied. It’s that simple.

The GOP primary is over, and this is not a mistake that Fehrnstrom can merely shake away. It’s going to be used–and already is being used–by the Obama campaign to save itself from the tax argument, and to label Romney as a liar (when that label belongs squarely on Obama, who campaigned against Hillary Clinton’s individual mandate in 2008).

Tom Maguire says Fehrnstrom should have fallen back on the federalism argument that Romney’s used in the past to distinguish a state program like RomneyCare from an unconstitutional federal power grab like ObamaCare. Would that still work, though? Now that the Court’s upheld O’s signature boondoggle, the “RomneyCare = legal, ObamaCare = illegal” defense doesn’t really fly. I’m not sure that it ever really did: The reason RomneyCare’s such a liability for Mitt isn’t because it’s constitutionally questionable but because it’s a hair-raising government expansion that ended up blazing a trail for O-Care. To me, Romney’s federalism indictment of ObamaCare always smacked of him saying to voters, “Don’t worry! Legally, as president, I couldn’t impose my Massachusetts plan on you even if I wanted to.” Um, great.

I think that argument’s even weaker when it comes to taxes just because alarms start going off in people’s heads at the mention of the word. Hard to think of federalism niceties when you’re focused on more money potentially being sucked out of your pocket. That said, though, Pollak’s right: I think you have to hit O on the “tax” charge even if Romney’s a terribly flawed messenger for it. It’s viscerally effective and you can count on most low-information voters not to know or learn that Romney had a little tax-penalty-mandate of his own in Massachusetts. If worse comes to worst, he can always claim that Massachusetts residents love to pay taxes — which isn’t strictly true, but is true enough that they keep electing Democrats — and that most Americans don’t, and he’ll govern accordingly. Unlike The One.

Two clips for you, one of advisor Eric Fehrnstrom and the other via NRO of Krauthammer urging Romney to be just as hypocritical about this as Obama and Democrats are. Exit quotation via Mitt spokeswoman Andrea Saul: “The federal individual mandate in Obamacare is either a constitutional tax or an unconstitutional penalty. Governor Romney thinks it is an unconstitutional penalty. What is President Obama’s position?”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

oldroy on July 3, 2012 at 10:19 PM

Don’t you have a toilet seat or lazy boy recliner you need to warm up… AGAIN!

DannoJyd on July 3, 2012 at 10:43 PM

Wow. Both of you moron clowns still swinging axes in every direction.

oldroy on July 3, 2012 at 10:19 PM

If that is how you ‘discuss’ you can keep it. Most of your posts are void of content, let alone relevance.

You failed before you started and post like a brainwashed liberal. You impress no one.

DannoJyd on July 3, 2012 at 10:50 PM

The reports are finally getting out there. From yesterday:

However Mr Romney’s own vague plans for health care – starting with “repealing and replacing ObamaCare” on day one of his presidency – were viewed favourably by just 30 per cent of people, and negatively by 47 per cent.

Mr Romney’s stance on the subject has been undermined by “Romneycare”, the Massachusetts system that was copied in the creation of Mr Obama’s reform.

While Mr Romney now claims that he never believed it should be used across the US, in fact he said in a 2007 speech that it was “a model for the nation”.

This is so depressing that I don’t even feel like telling Rom supporters that I warned them about this. SHEESH!!!

DannoJyd on July 4, 2012 at 6:06 AM

The Constitution is toast. Stick a fork in it, turn it over.

This whole primary election cycle, culminating in the long-prophesied victory of Willard Hussein Obamney, was a complete waste.

Every election of the last generation that put a Republican in office in the hopes of creating a conservative Supreme Court, capable of turning back grossly unconstitutional power-grabs by a radical executive and/or legislative agenda, was proven a total waste last week. The parasites are now so numerous, even unelected officials charged with Doing the Right Thing get spooked, and the host is now doomed.

Why do we care so much for a country, the majority of whose inhabitants seem content to watch it die so long as they get their illicit benefits?

Why do we care so much for a party, the majority of whom seem content to nominate the most liberal of all available options, knowing full well said nominee is just as slippery and unprincipled as the opposition’s when it comes to fidelity to constitutional principles?

I guess the answer to both questions is “because we still belong here.” Strangers in a strange land that is getting stranger all the time.

Soon, it will be a totally lawless land, a nation of men and not laws, but by then it will be to late to conserve anything.

It was a nice Republic, while it lasted.

bobcalco on July 4, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5