Better late than never?

posted at 11:01 am on July 5, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Now that Mitt Romney has adopted the “It’s a tax!” strategy that the RNC and Republicans adopted after the Supreme Court decision on ObamaCare, will all be forgiven on the Right? Not as far as the Wall Street Journal is concerned, which slammed Romney for campaign malpractice later the same day:

In a stroke, the Romney campaign contradicted Republicans throughout the country who had used the Chief Justice’s opinion to declare accurately that Mr. Obama had raised taxes on the middle class. Three-quarters of those who will pay the mandate tax will make less than $120,000 a year, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The Romney high command has muddied the tax issue in a way that will help Mr. Obama’s claims that he is merely taxing rich folks like Mr. Romney. And it has made it that much harder for Republicans to again turn ObamaCare into the winning issue it was in 2010.

Why make such an unforced error? Because it fits with Mr. Romney’s fear of being labeled a flip-flopper, as if that is worse than confusing voters about the tax and health-care issues. Mr. Romney favored the individual mandate as part of his reform in Massachusetts, and as we’ve said from the beginning of his candidacy his failure to admit that mistake makes him less able to carry the anti-ObamaCare case to voters. …

This latest mistake is of a piece with the campaign’s insular staff and strategy that are slowly squandering an historic opportunity. Mr. Obama is being hurt by an economic recovery that is weakening for the third time in three years. But Mr. Romney hasn’t been able to take advantage, and if anything he is losing ground.

Losing ground?  The WSJ doesn’t provide any data to support that contention, and the polls thus far show no sign of a significant bump for Obama from the Supreme Court ruling.

The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake believe that the rest of the Right might be more forgiving, and outline the risks and reward for Romney in his change in tactics:

“The most important thing is that the candidate has it right,” said one senior Republican operative granted anonymity to speak candidly about his party’s nominee. “It’s a tax and should be characterized as such. I don’t know why anyone else would have said otherwise. Perhaps some were overthinking how it would be compared to what he did in Massachusetts.”

The political reward of Romney’s new — or, at the very least, clarified — position on the health care ruling is obvious. Republicans have long scored political points by bashing Democrats as lovers of big government who want to finance growth in the size of the bureaucracy by raising taxes. That the key provision of Obama’s health care law was upheld due to a tax provision, then, fits perfectly into an advantageous political frame for Romney — and Republicans more broadly.

The political risk is also apparent. One of Romney’s biggest weaknesses as a politician is that people simply don’t believe he has a core set of convictions that guide him. The flip-flopper label went a long way in costing him the 2008 Republican presidential nomination and was at the center of his weaknesses in this primary fight.

Not surprisingly, Democrats went after the flip-flopper angle hard on Wednesday.

“He threw his top aide Eric Fehrnstrom under the bus by changing his campaign’s position and calling the free rider penalty in the president’s health care law — which requires those who can afford it to buy insurance — a tax,” said Obama campaign spokesman Danny Kanner.

Well, I wish them the best of luck in selling this as a Republican flip-flop.  The RNC got there first and best by highlighting Obama’s campaign pledge not to hike taxes and his argument with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, in which he denied that ObamaCare was a tax, but celebrated with other Democrats when the court upheld it on that basis:

Combine that with the last 30 seconds or so of this debate between Fox’s Chris Wallace and Obama chief of staff Jack Lew, which features Obama’s own Solicitor General arguing to the Supreme Court in March that they had to uphold the individual mandate as a tax, and the flip-flop argument becomes one that Romney would love to have:

Conservatives hammered Romney for his initial strategy in dealing with ObamaCare, but it may not have been as bad as they thought — at least on paper. In my column for The Fiscal Times today, I make the argument that conservatives were reacting more to the Ghosts of Campaigns Past, and that Team Romney’s approach may have been a good idea, had it been executed a little more expertly:

It’s not the first time [Eric] Fehrnstrom had created a controversy for Romney.  During the primary campaign, Fehrnstrom told CNN that pledges made in primary campaigns could be set aside during general elections, “almost like an Etch-a-Sketch.  You can shake it up and we start all over again.”  In this case, though, Fehrnstrom was trying to protect Romney from the logical conclusion of an attack on Obamacare’s mandate as a tax, which is that Romney’s health-care reform mandate in Massachusetts would then also have to be considered a tax.  Consider what exactly Fehrnstrom told NBC’s Chuck Todd:

“Chuck, the governor has consistently described the mandate in Massachusetts as a penalty. Let’s take a step back and look at what the president has said about Obamacare. In order to get it past the Congress, he insisted, publicly and to the members of Congress, that the mandate was not a tax. After it passed the Congress, he sent his Solicitor General up to the Supreme Court to argue that it was a tax.”

In other words, the Romney campaign had decided to hit Obama over his hypocrisy in arguing both ways on the mandate as a tax – one way in public, and another at the Supreme Court – rather than as a tax raiser.  It also put Romney in position of siding with the four conservative jurists who insisted that the entire law needed to be thrown out and that the tax argument was decided incorrectly; Fehrnstrom told Todd in the same interview that Romney “agreed with the dissent that was written by Justice Scalia.”  Had the strategy been executed more deftly, it would have kept the Romneycare issue out of the way without stepping on the “It’s a tax!” argument from other Republicans.  That might have been a clever plan, had Fehrnstrom not given the specific quote that “the mandate was not a tax.”

Sensing the rift opening on the Right, Romney moved quickly to shift his strategy.  By yesterday morning, Romney told CBS, “The majority of the court said it’s a tax, and therefore it is a tax.”  The speed with which Romney adjusted his attack is consistent with the rapid response efforts of Team Romney over the last two months, which had until now won praise from conservatives as a huge improvement over the relative lack of fight from the 2008 campaign of John McCain.

The need to tread carefully for lines of attack on ObamaCare is already well-known to Republicans.  Romney got attacked repeatedly for his own health-care mandate in Massachusetts during the Republican primary, but he responded well enough to win the nomination — mainly by focusing on jobs and the economy while promising a full repeal of ObamaCare.  The campaign’s effort to move past a potentially troublesome debate on the nature of the mandate to focus on the hypocrisy and deception conducted by Democrats to get ObamaCare passed made a lot of sense, but a fumbled delivery and a highly-sensitive Republican base now makes it an untenable strategy.

That’s no great loss — as I said, the risks for Romney on the “It’s a tax!” argument are pretty low anyway — but it’s also clear that Romney didn’t intend on shying away from the fight.  The bigger lesson might be less that Romney’s team (that conservatives had praised for two months for its willingness to fight the Obama campaign) needs to change, than the need for conservatives not to be so quick to hit the panic button over one response.


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 2 3

He wont even say what he’d change if he was able to “repeal and revise” the law.

MoreLiberty on July 5, 2012 at 11:28 AM

…in speeches in the past year, he has made clear that he favors tax breaks, increased competition and devolving decisions to states to make health care more affordable, proposals that reflect a consensus on health policy that has solidified in the last decade among Republicans.

Mr. Romney’s preferences, like those being proposed by Republicans in Congress, would put more emphasis on controlling health costs and less on reducing the ranks of the uninsured, the primary goal of the Obama plan. Conservatives say the new law does not seriously address rising health costs, a major factor in the high cost of insurance.

One of Mr. Romney’s chief proposals could shake up how the vast majority of Americans get health care — through employers. He would give a tax break to people who buy insurance individually on the open market, so they would enjoy the same advantage as workers who get insurance as a benefit at work, which is not taxed as income.

[snip]

One of the most ambitious changes Mr. Romney would enact is to transform Medicaid, which insures more than 50 million poor and disabled Americans, into a program of block grants, or lump-sum payments, to states. Grants would be capped to rise at the Consumer Price Index plus 1 percent a year.

The block-grant system that Mr. Romney supports is similar to a proposal in the House Republican budget fashioned by Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin in an effort to slow rapid growth of the program.

Parsing a Romney Alternative to Obama’s Health Care Law

Flora Duh on July 5, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Ok, it’s a tax, it’s a penalty… whatevs at this point.

How about a couple of stories on the fallout from ObamaCare preparations? The company where I work has gone from offering 5-6 HC options to one. I’m betting that by 2014, they will be paying “the penalty” and offering none, which screws us even more and puts thousands out of work who are currently administering the HC insurance overhead. This company has over 300,000 employees BTW, so it ain’t no small business.

Mr_Magoo on July 5, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Cindy, Have you ever heard a politician admit a signature accomplishment had flaws? What do you want Mitt to do?

He’s said time and again that the plan had flaws. But it was a brilliant idea, which conservatives overwhelmingly supported (and true ones still do). He tried to line-item veto portions which the 85% democratic legislature overturned. Good grief!? What do you want him to do?

Romney has never glossed over the failures of RomneyCare. And he’s never been given due credit for it’s success. The fact that he CUT taxes and balanced the budget in MA makes him the greatest Presidential candidate in the past 100 years. Even Reagan didn’t cut taxes in CA.

Crefonso on July 5, 2012 at 12:05 PM

The paid leftist commenters this morning have that desperation sense about them.

They sound like spoiled children. We are taking the country back anyway.

MrMoe on July 5, 2012 at 12:06 PM

No one gives a poop about this in the real world and they certainly won’t by November.

NoDonkey on July 5, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Boy you ain’t a kidding. This reminds me of the left’s Journalist. Invent a story or narrative and push it as if it’s the most important thing in the world. Only this time it’s Morrissy, Allahpundit, and most of the conservative blogosphere along with some print conservative pundits. Hell, Rush ain’t even buying into it, but that ain’t going to stop the rest.
And at the end of the day none of it means squat.

lowandslow on July 5, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Fernstrom looks like Nelson Rockefeller. Get rid of him Mitt!

MCGIRV on July 5, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Ed, you and Allah both seem to be missing a very fundamental point. This should be a very teachable moment for conservative of all stripes, but initially it seems to be turning into an unproductive food fight.

The comment thread from AllahPundit’s post yesterday is a mess’s mess!

To begin with, the constitutional powers of the states, and the limited, enumerated powers of the federal government, are in many respects quite different.

Under our system of government, the federal government has limited express powers as are specifically enumerated in Article I of our United States Constitution, while the states have differing powers, including the power to adopt a mandate as a penalty under State law, depending of course on the provisions of their respective state charters.

Pursuant to Massachusetts law and their Constitution, the people did favor the adoption of a statewide healthcare system, including a mandate adopted pursuant to the police power . . . a system that is not favored elsewhere.

Romney did not favor the adoption of this federal statute, and he agreed with the four conservative justices (plus Roberts) when they (all five of them) agreed that the Obama Administration was wrong when President Obama and the Democrat Congress improperly asserted that their mandate was a “penalty” justifiable pursuant to the federal authority contained in the “Commerce clause”. All five of those justices also agreed that it was not constitutional pursuant to the “necessary and proper clause,”, another of the limited enumerated powers under the federal Constitution.

Romney disagreed with Roberts and the liberals when they narrowly saved it (in Robert’s view, as an exercise of “judicial restraint”) when they salvaged it pursuant to the taxing power enumerated in the federal Constitution.

So, Mitt Romney now recognizes that since the Supreme Court chose to call it a “federal tax,” well that is what it now is . . . a tax . . . a new federal tax adopted in violation of Obama’s specific pledge to the contrary!

From the Crawford interview, as reported at Politico:
. . .

CRAWFORD: “But does that mean that the mandate in the state of Massachusetts under your health care law also is a tax? I mean, you raised taxes as governor.”

ROMNEY: “Actually, the chief justice in his opinion made it very clear that at the state level, states have the power to put in place mandates. They don’t need to require them to be called taxes in order for them to be constitutional. And as a result, Massachusetts’ mandate was a mandate, was a penalty, was described that way by the Legislature and by me, and so it stays as it was.”

CRAWFORD: “So at the state level because of … you’re saying the Supreme Court says that’s different, that the federal government — the powers are different between the states and the federal government? Does that make sense to you?”

ROMNEY: “Just take a read of the opinion. The chief justice said that states have what’s known as police power, and states can implement penalties and mandates and so forth under their constitutions, which is what Massachusetts did. But the federal government does not have those powers, and therefore for the Supreme Court to reach the conclusion it did — that the law was constitutional — they had to find it was a tax, and they did. And therefore Obamacare’s a tax. Like it or not, it’s a tax.”

For us to get sidetracked into a discuss of whether he contradicted his political aide, and other nonsense is really unwise.

This is the moment conservatives should be pointing out that there are now and indeed always have been differences between the sovereign powers of the states, and the limited, enumerated powers granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution.

That said, Roberts opinion regarding the breadth of the taxing power is, and ought to be viewed with alarm by Americans. I think that Roberts actually took the position from a point of view of “judicial restraint,” — the political branches should make the broad policy decisions, not the Court — but it opened the door to a new generation of federal spending like nothing any of us can even imagine.

This is a fight for our future that we are in — not some silly food fight over what Mitt’s campaign aide said.

The political branches — the Congress and the Executive under the President — are not without remedial capacity to limit expansive exercises of power in that regard. Just as one possible example, they could define a limited jurisdictional role for the Court, vis-à-vis the taxing power.

But no limitations of any kind will ever happen under Obama, or in any Democrat-dominated Congress.

Rather, they are right now licking their chops at the prospect for future expansion of central government pursuant to that taxing power!

And, they are also laughing at conservatives carrying on worthless and utterly unproductive comment thread discussions about whether Mitt Romney contradicted his campaign aide, or what that somehow means for his election prospects, and the future of the Republic!

Buck up, people!

Trochilus on July 5, 2012 at 12:10 PM

The paid leftist commenters this morning have that desperation sense about them.

They sound like spoiled children. We are taking the country back anyway.

MrMoe on July 5, 2012 at 12:06 PM

The paid leftist commentators?

Hey Mitt, maybe you could hire this guy…LOL

idesign on July 5, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Well, you know I was never a MittWit but good grief, can some of the whiners come up with a better plan? Oh yeah, Gary Johnson! Might as well say Ross Perot, without the personality.

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 12:01 PM

It sounds like the only “plan” in this election is near complete or complete capitulation. For different people, that capitulation may involve supporting, Romney, Johnson, Baldwin, or Obama. None of these options are realistic “plans” for advancing any sort of limited government agenda.

besser tot als rot on July 5, 2012 at 12:10 PM

So if you worship God and not Ron Paul, please pray for a Romney win.

Crefonso on July 5, 2012 at 11:58 AM

You partisan hacks are foolish. If you really believe that we have a two-party system you’re dumber than I thought. Just look at how you write “god and not ron paul,” this shows you clearly can’t think out of a two-box system. It’s only one way or the other.

A great example of how stupid partisans are just look at the votes to raise the debt ceiling. Under Bush the vast majority of Republicans didn’t complain about debt, and of course the libs did care about debt. Then when the tables have turned, the republicans all of the sudden attempt to care about debt while the idiot dems don’t.

One party system.

MoreLiberty on July 5, 2012 at 12:11 PM

No one gives a poop about this in the real world and they certainly won’t by November.

NoDonkey on July 5, 2012 at 11:54 AM

This.

HA seems to be the only place that continues to beat that poor rented mule while Iran is now threatening to send a few missiles to our bases and Israel and Hillary kisses Pakistan’s arse.

JPeterman on July 5, 2012 at 12:11 PM

MoreLiberty on July 5, 2012 at 12:11 PM

You are aware that Ron Paul dropped out, right?

kingsjester on July 5, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Cindy, Have you ever heard a politician admit a signature accomplishment had flaws? What do you want Mitt to do?

Crefonso on July 5, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Say that it is bad policy, but the best policy that he could hope to get in MA. If he’s so worried about a “signature accomplishment,” he should put together a “signature accomplishment” that he hopes to achieve as President, not as some po’ dunk MA governor.

besser tot als rot on July 5, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Jayrae on July 5, 2012 at 11:12 AM

?

Bmore on July 5, 2012 at 11:14 AM

..forget about it. He’s a concern troll or one of the aforementioned limp-membered flouncing nancys.

The War Planner on July 5, 2012 at 12:16 PM

time and time again on these Romney threads we see blatant fanaticism. blind supporters, detractors blinded by their dislike. The truth lays some where in between and sometimes gets lost.

Bmore on July 5, 2012 at 12:16 PM

..or he forgot the sarc tag.

The War Planner on July 5, 2012 at 12:16 PM

A great example of how stupid partisans are just look at the votes to raise the debt ceiling. Under Bush the vast majority of Republicans didn’t complain about debt, and of course the libs did care about debt. Then when the tables have turned, the republicans all of the sudden attempt to care about debt while the idiot dems don’t.

One party system.

MoreLiberty on July 5, 2012 at 12:11 PM

This one gets it.

libfreeordie on July 5, 2012 at 12:17 PM

The War Planner on July 5, 2012 at 12:16 PM

Didn’t recognize that moniker, thought they may have forgotten the sarc tag, I see that is not the case. Duly noted. ; )

Bmore on July 5, 2012 at 12:18 PM

The Supreme Court called it a tax, Mitt Romney called it a tax. Move on.

jan3 on July 5, 2012 at 12:18 PM

What a maroon….so you think that when the “Union dissolves” your side is going t re-establish the Constitution…probably on Randian or Neo-Confederate lines…you are just like the environmentalists, you want to change the status quo, and believe YOU’LL be on top…more likely is that if the “Union dissolves” D@mn-all anarchy and tyranny will be the result and your little band of Anarcho-Capitalists/Randian Syndicalists/Neo-Confederates will simply be swamped in the chaos.

LOL…good one dude – nice try. When it disolves…like all empires and nations do, the break up will occur into numerous regions. Hell ya there is going to be chaos, just like when the USSR dissolved, like when the Roman empire dissolved and so on. That’s probably one of the larger reason why people are hesitant about revolutions – the fear of the unknown. Thomas Jefferson was correct when in the Declaration of Independence he stated:

“accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

MoreLiberty on July 5, 2012 at 12:18 PM

You are a filthy liar. That’s all that needs to be pointed out.

Obamacare is nothing like what came out of MA and you damn well would know it if you were something other than a filthy liar.

Happy Nomad on July 5, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Nothing like it? You must miss Bush. And you’re filthy too!

rickv404 on July 5, 2012 at 12:19 PM

This one gets it.

libfreeordie on July 5, 2012 at 12:17 PM

^^^ This one doesn’t.

Bmore on July 5, 2012 at 12:19 PM

RomneyCare wasn’t a bad policy. That’s why he won’t say it was.

The really bad part of it (employer penalties) was put in place by the legislature, vetoed by Mitt and then overruled.

Mitt did what everyone talks about but no one can do, he insured the uninsured without raising taxes.

This used to be the goal of conservatives, you know? To eliminate free-riders? Ring a bell? Mitt did it right and now we hate him for it?

Crefonso on July 5, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Crefonso on July 5, 2012 at 12:05 PM

We have some really knowledgeable people here that can describe at length what the original legislation was suppose to be and what Gov. Romney had to settle for based on his Democrat legislation. I would like to hear those differences from him and what impact they ultimately had and how it would have been better. If he is going to have to own and stand by Romneycare, he can explain the process.

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 12:20 PM

The paid leftist commentators?

Hey Mitt, maybe you could hire this guy…LOL

idesign on July 5, 2012 at 12:10 PM

It’s Orwellian. Those who object to Romney for his leftish record are “paid leftists”. LOL

ddrintn on July 5, 2012 at 12:21 PM

For us to get sidetracked into a discuss of whether he contradicted his political aide, and other nonsense is really unwise.

Indeed, but no more unwise than preferring Santorum to Romney.

Basilsbest on July 5, 2012 at 12:22 PM

^^^ This one doesn’t.

Bmore on July 5, 2012 at 12:19 PM

So what are you saying? Are you saying that when the debt ceiling rises under Republicans that its “good” debt? Or only when the Dims raise the debt is debt bad?

MoreLiberty on July 5, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Bmore on July 5, 2012 at 12:16 PM

I’m pretty sure I qualify as a “Stuck in the Middle with You”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DohRa9lsx0Q

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 12:23 PM

You are a filthy liar. That’s all that needs to be pointed out.

Obamacare is nothing like what came out of MA and you damn well would know it if you were something other than a filthy liar.

Happy Nomad on July 5, 2012 at 11:28 AM

The guy who had a hand in designing both would disagree.

ddrintn on July 5, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Didn’t recognize that moniker, thought they may have forgotten the sarc tag, I see that is not the case. Duly noted. ; )

Bmore on July 5, 2012 at 12:18 PM

..I’m all at sea over this one as well. I do know this: there’s a whole nation out there of mirror-fogging mouth-breathers whose only concern is the next winner of American Idol. None of them will even begin paying attention until after Labor Day and by then such minutiae will bewilder the poor darlings who will, like so many paramecia, will only swim toward the light.

(Sorry to sound like someone who dropped $15 on the San Diego Fireworks show.)

The War Planner on July 5, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Y’all ain’t alone.

kingsjester on July 5, 2012 at 12:23 PM

There is one reason Mitt is hesitant to say “tax”. If he does, he now has to run as a tax raiser in MA and Team Obama can hammer him.

So far, Team O has been relentless in the attacks. I live in a red state that is certainly NOT in play, and all we see is Obama ads and not Romney. Money certainly is advantageous, I guess.

inthemiddle on July 5, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Good grief, we are going to fight over W? Talk about living in the past.

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 12:27 PM

(Sorry to sound like someone who dropped $15 on the San Diego Fireworks show.)

The War Planner on July 5, 2012 at 12:23 PM

They charge for the fireworks??!!!!!

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 12:28 PM

I posted this a few minutes ago over at the Washington Post:

Isn’t it just hilarious that most liberals think this decision is final and provides 20-30 million people with free health care—under government mandated health care exchanges?

Wonder how they’ll react when the “government exchanges” tell the insurance companies that they no longer have to provide coverage for a life-saving technique for one of their loved ones, ONLY SOME PAIN MEDICATION, so they can die with dignity?

Wonder if any liberals ever actually read the bill, and understand how it becomes “affordable”?

You should hear some of the stupid responses from our intelligent liberal commenters. It’s comical.

Rovin on July 5, 2012 at 12:28 PM

I think that Roberts actually took the position from a point of view of “judicial restraint,” — the political branches should make the broad policy decisions, not the Court — but it opened the door to a new generation of federal spending like nothing any of us can even imagine.

Trochilus on July 5, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Before this decision, back when Obama had super majorities in congress, they could have raised our taxes sky high without even needing to explain it. They didn’t because they thought they could tax us by calling it something else. So in that regard, you’d have to say it closed a door instead of opened it.

Buddahpundit on July 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM

You are a filthy liar. That’s all that needs to be pointed out.

Obamacare is nothing like what came out of MA and you damn well would know it if you were something other than a filthy liar.

Happy Nomad on July 5, 2012 at 11:28 AM

The guy who had a hand in designing both would disagree.

By the way, the guy’s name is Jonathan Gruber.

Romney has argued on the campaign trail that the plan was specific to Massachusetts, and not meant to work on a national level. But his critics say he’s flip-flopping now that he’s running for President.

Gruber made the heated remarks in response to the Supreme Court’s decision to debate whether or not Obama’s individual mandate is constitutional.

“I’m frustrated that the future of the American health care system rests in the hands of one or two of these unelected people who might make the decision based on political grounds,” he said. “It’s frustrating.”

Gruber, who also helped President Obama with his “Affordable Care Act,” gave the GOP presidential hopeful some credit for not completely disowning the healthcare plan, but said Romney was being disingenuous in trying to differentiate between his and President Obama’s bill.

“He just can’t have his cake and eat it too. Basically, you know it’s the same bill. He can try to draw distinctions and stuff, but he’s just lying,” said Gruber.

He added, “The only big difference is didn’t have to pay for his because the federal government paid for it. Where at the federal level, we have to pay for it. So we have to raise taxes.”

ddrintn on July 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM

MoreLiberty on July 5, 2012 at 12:22 PM

No, did I say what you just said?

Bmore on July 5, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Cindy, your sincerity and temperance appear to be pretty rare here on this thread.

Mitt has explained this a lot. It’s all out there. He designed the bill to target the 8% of people in MA who were uninsured. The bill did not effect the other 92% (as Mitt shaped it). The feds gave money to MA to pay for abuses on the healthCare system by free-riders. Mitt took that money and, instead, used it to help the uninsured, who truly couldn’t afford it, purchase their own private insurance.

If they COULD afford it, but just didn’t want to buy it, Mitt used state-reserved powers to mandate that they buy it and stop tasking the rest of MA tax-payers with their negligence.

By law (Reagan’s law), hospitals MUST treat everyone, so without buying insurance the 8% were burdening the rest of us and Mitt could not change that law. He brilliantly diverted federal funds to those unable to purchase private insurance so they could get off the dole of the tax-payers. This supplanted the need to raise taxes. The “penalties” in RomneyCare are needed purely for incentive, NOT funding. The penalty only punishes those who could buy it but choose to task the system anyways. There are no burdensome regulations like in ObamaCare so there is no need to raise more tax revenue. RomneyCare was a conservative’s dream come true.

Many provisions of the law were changed and inserted by the MA legislature against Mitt’s hopes. He vetoed all that he could, but they overrode much of it. In the end, he did absolutely EVERYTHING a conservative governor could possibly do!

It’s all available online, I wish HotAir would do a post on it. Give it to Erika.

Obama did this on purpose. He knew Mitt would be his running mate, so he dressed up universal healthcare as a repeat of Mitt’s plan. He wanted these comment threads to occur. And he played us all. He won. We’ve all been fleeced by Axelrod and Obama. Mitt’s brilliant plan has been totally rebranded as ObamaCare’s father, when it’s nothing of the sort.

Crefonso on July 5, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 12:23 PM

LOL! : )

Bmore on July 5, 2012 at 12:32 PM

Rovin on July 5, 2012 at 12:28 PM

They are fun aren’t they? I just wish they didn’t vote. Multiple times.

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Just a little backgtround to remind us of the 2 men running:
_

PERSONAL INFORMATION:_
His full Name is: Willard Mitt Romney
He was Born: March 12, 1947 and is 65 years old.
His Father: George W. Romney, former Governor of the State of Michigan
He was raised in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan
He is Married to Ann Romney since 1969; they five children.

EDUCATION:
B.A. from Brigham Young University ,
J.D. and M.B.A. from Harvard University

RELIGION:
Mormon – The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints
WORKING BACKGROUND:
After high school, he spent 30 months in France as a Mormon missionary.
After going to both Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School
simultaneously, he passed the Michigan bar exam, but never worked as an attorney.
In 1984, he co-founded Bain Capital a private equity investment firm, one of the largest such firms in the United States .
In 1994, he ran for Senator of Massachusetts and lost to Ted Kennedy.
He was President and CEO of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games.
In 2002, he was elected Governor of the State of Massachusetts where he eliminated a 1.5 billion deficit.

SOME INTERESTING FACTS ABOUT ROMNEY:
Bain Capital, starting with one small office supply store in Massachusetts , turned it into Staples; now over 2,000 stores employing 90,000 people.
Bain Capital also worked to perform the same kinds of business miracles again and again, with companies like Domino’s, Sealy, Brookstone, Weather Channel, Burger King, Warner Music Group, Dollarama, Home Depot Supply, and many others.
He was an unpaid volunteer campaign worker for his dad’s gubernatorial campaign 1 year.
He was an unpaid intern in his dad’s governor’s office for eight years.
He was an unpaid bishop and state president of his church for ten years.
He was an unpaid President of the Salt Lake Olympic Committee for three years.
He took no salary and was the unpaid Governor of Massachusetts for four years.
He gave his entire inheritance from his father to charity.
Mitt Romney is one of the wealthiest self-made men in our country but has given more back to its citizens in terms of money, service and time than most men.
And in 2011 Mitt Romney gave over $4 million to charity, almost 19% of his income…. Just for comparison purposes, Obama gave 1% and Joe Biden gave $300 or .0013%.

MITT ROMNEY IS TRUSTWORTHY:
He will show us his birth certificate
He will show us his high school and college transcripts.
He will show us his social security card.
He will show us his law degree.
He will show us his draft notice.
He will show us his medical records.
He will show us his income tax records.
He will show us he has nothing to hide.
Mitt Romney’s background, experience and trustworthiness show him to be a great leader and an excellent citizen for President of the United States .
You may think that Romney may not be the best representative the Republicans could have selected. At least I know what religion he is, and that he won’t desecrate the flag, bow down to foreign powers, or practice fiscal irresponsibility. I know he has the ability to turn this financial debacle that the current regime has gotten us into. We won’t like all the things necessary to recover from this debt, but someone with Romney’s background can do it.
But, on the minus side, He never was a “Community Organizer”, never took drugs or smoked pot, never got drunk, did not associate with communists or terrorists, nor did he attend a church whose pastor called for God to damn the US

Bambi on July 5, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Bmore on July 5, 2012 at 12:32 PM

I was feeling all QOTD’y.

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 12:34 PM

RomneyCare wasn’t a bad policy. That’s why he won’t say it was.

This used to be the goal of conservatives, you know? To eliminate free-riders? Ring a bell? Mitt did it right and now we hate him for it?

Crefonso on July 5, 2012 at 12:20 PM

The personal responsibility ends justify the big government, statist “solution” means? I’m sorry, but you are wrong. Giving the government more power to achieve the goals that you want is what all politicians do and why we have the run away, out of control big government that we have now. Arguments such as yours do Romney no favors. (Which, by the way, sound exactly like Obama’s arguments.)

besser tot als rot on July 5, 2012 at 12:35 PM

The War Planner on July 5, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Quite true. Hopefully it was a good show. : ) Well I’m off to town, dropped the left lens out of my glasses into the lake yesterday, recovered the glass lens intact. Gotta get a screw. Later. ; )

Bmore on July 5, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Crefonso on July 5, 2012 at 12:31 PM

I try, Kiddo. Gov. Romney may not be the greatest choice but he just maybe the man of the moment in our history. I’ve gotten a great view of what doesn’t work for the last three and half years, I’m hoping for change.

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 12:37 PM

I was feeling all QOTD’y.

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 12:34 PM

I like to do that occasionally too. I think Ed likes it. ; )

Bmore on July 5, 2012 at 12:38 PM

The problem here is that Eric Fehrnstrom should have been fired a long time ago. Forget throwing him under the bus. Throw him through a window on the 50th floor. Idiot.

cicerone on July 5, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Well then throw Romney out with his, because Fehrnstrom was merely giving Romney’s line of the moment.

ddrintn on July 5, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Bmore on July 5, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Am I missing your snark, San Diego’s fireworks all went at once, something like an 18 second “show”.

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Bmore on July 5, 2012 at 12:38 PM

He knows where to reach me if he doesn’t.

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 12:39 PM

5. The ObamaCare Medicare Payroll Tax increase

This tax soaks employers to the tune of $86 billion over the next ten years.

As you can understand, there is a reason why the authors of ObamaCare wrote the law in such a way that the most brutal tax increases take effect conveniently after the 2012 election. It’s the same reason President Obama, congressional Democrats, and the mainstream media conveniently neglect to mention these taxes and prefer that you simply “move on” after the Supreme Court ruling.

Got that! Move on you disgruntled Conservatives.

Rovin on July 5, 2012 at 12:39 PM

ddrintn on July 5, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Where ya been? Vacation? I missed you.

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Bambi on July 5, 2012 at 12:34 PM

right on Bambi

MrMoe on July 5, 2012 at 12:40 PM

I try, Kiddo. Gov. Romney may not be the greatest choice but he just maybe the man of the moment in our history. I’ve gotten a great view of what doesn’t work for the last three and half years, I’m hoping for change.

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Very hard to convince yourself to support Romney when he continually defends that same “doesn’t work” stuff just because it is in his record, not Obama’s.

besser tot als rot on July 5, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Rovin on July 5, 2012 at 12:39 PM

But but, it’s just the 1% those nasty free riders!!!

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Rovin on July 5, 2012 at 12:39 PM

But but, it’s just the 1% those nasty free riders!!!

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 12:41 PM

LOL! But this is the narrative we have to endure with these folks Cindy. You have to wonder who fills their heads with this BS?

Rovin on July 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM

besser tot als rot on July 5, 2012 at 12:41 PM

It’s true but he has to explain why it doesn’t. I think I read somewhere that a lot of Romneycare was paid for through federal Medicare payments to MA., obviously you can’t do that on a national level. I know the Obama is trying to frame this as a states’ issue right now but only because he wants it to fail and become a single payer national healthcare program. It’s hard to debate the issue when one side won’t be honest about what their goal really is. Right now, I want Congress to just get rid of it. I’m probably not going to get my way but it’s my best case scenario. You have no idea how hard it is for me to come to the defense of Gov. Romney, while I think he is an honorable man, I am not blind to the irony of him as the nominee.

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Rovin on July 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM

What bothers me more is that it works! All thanks to our impartial constitutionally protected watchdogs for the American people, the media. I’ll stop, my blood pressure can’t take it and I don’t have blood pressure problems.

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Obamacare is only legitimate if the President who signed it is legitimate.

Take a look at two stories that are up on the Drudge Report right now

Obama’s Social Security Number challenged…

‘American story’ faces fresh scrutiny…

ITguy on July 5, 2012 at 12:51 PM

ITguy on July 5, 2012 at 12:51 PM

The TSA want to share my drink?

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 12:54 PM

ITguy on July 5, 2012 at 12:51 PM
The TSA want to share my drink?

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Are they going to backwash?

kingsjester on July 5, 2012 at 12:56 PM

With whom is he losing ground? I’m as anti-Mittens as they come and he’s finding ways to turn me into an ally. I still won’t give him money, but at least I’ve stopped saying “never”.

swinia sutki on July 5, 2012 at 12:56 PM

kingsjester on July 5, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Eeewwww! Not going to be given the opportunity.

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 12:58 PM

The TSA want to share my drink?

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 12:54 PM

No, not the headline story, the two links I shared in the comment above:

Obama’s Social Security Number challenged…

‘American story’ faces fresh scrutiny…

ITguy on July 5, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Damn all spineless Republicans to the deepest depths of hell. They deserve nothing less. As I have said many, many times, “the GOP will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory”. They don’t have a clue how to do anything else.

ultracon on July 5, 2012 at 1:00 PM

RomneyCare wasn’t a bad policy. That’s why he won’t say it was.

The really bad part of it (employer penalties) was put in place by the legislature, vetoed by Mitt and then overruled.

Mitt did what everyone talks about but no one can do, he insured the uninsured without raising taxes.

This used to be the goal of conservatives, you know? To eliminate free-riders? Ring a bell? Mitt did it right and now we hate him for it?

Crefonso on July 5, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Interesting, so you are of these Republicans who supports the mandate since everyone is forced to “pay for their own healthcare.” It’s pretty interesting of you to “come out” like this, most people here who support Romneycare/Obamacare usually lie about their beliefs.

Doomberg on July 5, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Everyobody calm down. It’s only the beginning of July, and every presidential campaign goes thru this type of fire, if only because the media demands it and will write about it even if no such problem exists.

People forget that Ronald Reagan was being flagged by conservatives for running a boring and dead-end campaign as late as the first week of October in 1980. Look it up.

matthew8787 on July 5, 2012 at 1:05 PM

With tomorrow’s job numbers report for June, we can then assess if Romney is “losing ground.” I doubt it.

matthew8787 on July 5, 2012 at 1:09 PM

You have no idea how hard it is for me to come to the defense of Gov. Romney, while I think he is an honorable man, I am not blind to the irony of him as the nominee.

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 12:48 PM

I have convinced myself a dozen times to support the guy. But then wake up the next morning and just can’t go through with it. He needs to throw me a bone on Romneycare (and needs to remove Roberts as his jurist model!!). The same ol’, same ol’ on Romnecare just isn’t cutting it.

besser tot als rot on July 5, 2012 at 1:14 PM

besser tot als rot on July 5, 2012 at 1:14 PM

I know. But honestly, did you ever in a million years think that Roberts would do this?

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Dr. Williams and Dr. Sowell on Rush! Heaven, I’m in Heaven!!!!

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Just got this this morning. I wish it wasn’t true.

Do all the people all in really know what’s in it. I surely don’t. Heaven help us – how did we get this guy anyway?
And yet the aarp stands to get billions from this and is all in. Good luck seniors.

YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS.
At age 76 when you most need it, you are not eligible for cancer treatment see page 272
What Nancy Pelosi didn’t want us to know until after the healthcare bill was passed. Remember she said, “pass it and then read it!!.” Here it is!

Obama Care Highlighted by Page Number
THE CARE BILL HB 3200
JUDGE KITHIL IS THE 2ND OFFICIAL WHO HAS OUTLINED THESE PARTS OF THE CARE BILL.
Judge Kithil of Marble Falls, TX – highlighted the most egregious pages of HB3200
Please read this……. especially the reference to pages 58 & 59

JUDGE KITHIL wrote:
** Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.
** Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual’s bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.
** Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now – ACORN).
** Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their
right mind come up with that?)
** Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all
doctors’ fees.
^^ Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient’s age.
** Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.
** Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an “end-of-life planning” seminar every five years. (Death counseling..)
** Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.
HAD ENOUGH???? Judge Kithil then goes on to identify:
“Finally,it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already
exempt from the Social Security system, and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick ‘fix’ to make the plan financially sound for their future
.”
HonorableDavid Kithil of Marble Falls, Texas
All of the above should give you the ammo you need to support your opposition to Obamacare.

Bambi on July 5, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Crefonso on July 5, 2012 at 12:20 PM

I’m not a big fan of mandates of any kind from anyone. Finding ways to make insurance more affordable (tort reform, purchasing across state lines, cheaper catastrophic policies, etc. etch) and then let those who don’t have it, pay the consequences. I don’t care if they have to pay on the bills for the rest of their lives, like student loans, no bankruptcy write offs. I like more options not more mandates.

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Am I the only one who sees no contradiction here at all?

The mandate was ruled unconstitutional because it wasn’t a tax.

It was remade into a tax and then deemed constitutional.

Therefore, Eric Ferhnstrom called the original mandate unconstitutional and not a tax, which is true.

Then Romney said the court remade it into a tax and that’s a tax, which is true.

Am I the only one who sees no problem in this?

Ferhnstron was right, originally, the mandate was not a tax, it’s not a mandate anymore, it’s a tax.

Crefonso on July 5, 2012 at 11:31 AM

No, you are not the only one who sees no contradiction.

Romney agrees with Scalia that it is an unconstitutional penalty, but the court called it a tax. But whatever the SC calls it, it is a bad law and must be repealed. That has been Romney’s official line since Thursday.

What I see is total confusion and chaos among conservatives.

Gelsomina on July 5, 2012 at 1:25 PM

ITguy on July 5, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Notice the qualifying and rationalizing the Fox story does? Everybody does it!!!

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 1:26 PM

The mandate was ruled unconstitutional because it wasn’t a tax.

Incorrect. The mandate is un-Constitutional, whether it was a tax (which it isn’t) or not. Period.

I guess you think abortion is a privacy issue, too? Right?

WTF is wrong with people?

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 5, 2012 at 1:27 PM

I’m not a big fan of mandates of any kind from anyone. Finding ways to make insurance more affordable (tort reform, purchasing across state lines, cheaper catastrophic policies, etc. etch) and then let those who don’t have it, pay the consequences. I don’t care if they have to pay on the bills for the rest of their lives, like student loans, no bankruptcy write offs. I like more options not more mandates.

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 1:24 PM

You’ve pretty much cited the correct conservative stance on this. If people can’t pay for their own health care, then they shouldn’t receive health care. This bizarre idea that “we must pay our fair share” (and by this of course, this means working people must always pay for the unemployed) is a core socialist idea.

I’m worried we’re going to hear more of this kind of talk as an excuse not to dump the mandate should the Republicans win going forward. I’m also concerned this kind of talk can be used to excuse tax increases or justify the levying of a VAT tax as well.

Doomberg on July 5, 2012 at 1:29 PM

The mandate was ruled unconstitutional because it wasn’t a tax.

The whole law is un-Constitutional because the feral government is not allowed to be mucking around in individual health insurance. You seem to have totally missed that and don’t seem to care about that little fact anymore. Great stuff.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 5, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Mitt did what everyone talks about but no one can do, he insured the uninsured without raising taxes.

This used to be the goal of conservatives, you know? To eliminate free-riders? Ring a bell? Mitt did it right and now we hate him for it?

Crefonso on July 5, 2012 at 12:20 PM

That’s not the correct history of RomneyCare.

Remember, Heritage developed the individual mandate in 1993 in response to Clinton’s single-payer proposal. It was to be used only as a last ditch effort to stop single-payer and preserve some semblance of a market-based health care system, in the event that it looked like single-payer might have passed. Clinton’s plan died on the vine in 1993 and the idea was put back on the shelf.

The Democrats in Massachusetts in 2005-06 effectively tried to enact a single-payer system. They wanted a dramatic expansion of MassCare (government health care) and a tax structure designed to kill the private insurance market. Call it Massachusetts’ version of the “public option.” Romney deployed the mandate to stop that from happening and to preserve some semblance of a health care market in Massachusetts.

Where Romney went wrong, though, was treating RomneyCare as a signature policy achievement when it was not. RomneyCare has done serious damage to Massachusetts’ health care market and Romney knows it. By digging in his heels as he has done, he’s put himself in the position of not being able to effectively attack Obama on ObamaCare. I don’t know what to say there.

Outlander on July 5, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Obamacare is a tax.

Romney: “Obamacare is a tax.”

Conservative-posers: “BURN HIM! HE’S A WITCH! BURN HIM!”

Crefonso on July 5, 2012 at 11:50 AM

It’s deja vu all over again. We are in the O’Donnell wars again.

The one side uses every opportunity to criticize and mock the official GOP candidate.

The other side says that the primaries are over and that the constant deriding of the candidate is pointless and actually harmful.

Gelsomina on July 5, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Me, too! Now, if I could just comprehend have of what they’re discussing. They are both brilliant men.

kingsjester on July 5, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Doomberg on July 5, 2012 at 1:29 PM

People who don’t have healthcare should be asked a few questions. They still shouldn’t be forced to buy but I just want to know, what is the cost of your cell phone plan, how much is your cable bill, what is your car payment? Again, I have no problem with whatever the answers are but I just think we, who want to be fair (or are expected to pay for fair) have a right to the priorities of those who are in need of fairness.

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Gelsomina on July 5, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Comparing Gov. Romney to Ms. O’Donnell, break out the rain gear, heads are about to explode! Just kidding, I know you are being situational and not dealing with personalities.

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 1:40 PM

“The bigger lesson might be less that Romney’s team (that conservatives had praised for two months for its willingness to fight the Obama campaign) needs to change, than the need for conservatives not to be so quick to hit the panic button over one response.”

Does this mean Ed Morrissey is jumping on the Allahpundit RINO Bus?

Czar of Defenestration on July 5, 2012 at 1:41 PM

kingsjester on July 5, 2012 at 1:36 PM

I missed most of it, just turned it on for last few minutes. Dr. Williams is making me feel guilty for taking senior discounts.

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 1:43 PM

LOL.

Here’s a question: Romneycare:

When is expanding the role of government in our American’s lives ever a “Conservative” plan?

Remember what Reagan said:

The nine words you never want to hear are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.

kingsjester on July 5, 2012 at 1:47 PM

kingsjester on July 5, 2012 at 1:47 PM

I kind of like when states experiment with stuff. Look at Texas and their tort reform. They have no shortage of doctors. I think Romneycare was an experiment that didn’t work in its final form. That’s why I want to more about what the original plan was and what they ended up with. But the biggest problem that I see with Romneycare is that it became an entitlement, which we know doesn’t work. I just saw a Republican on Fox (didn’t recognize him and couldn’t see his name) who suggested that groups like the Raritans, Elks, groups like that getting together and buying group insurance policies. Why not, indeed! They would get younger people in their ranks and more good works would get done.

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Comparing Gov. Romney to Ms. O’Donnell, break out the rain gear, heads are about to explode! Just kidding, I know you are being situational and not dealing with personalities.

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 1:40 PM

And of course it’s the other way round now. Many of O’Donnell’s defenders – who were constantly imploring the others to stop their attacks because the primaries are over and it harms our side – are now attacking Romney.

I was on O’Donnell’s side of the divide, BTW.

Gelsomina on July 5, 2012 at 1:57 PM

The reason Romney was reluctant to call it a tax is obvious to some of us. Those who need it explained to them should do themselves a favor and follow the link at my 12:40pm comment.

Basilsbest on July 5, 2012 at 2:01 PM

People who don’t have healthcare should be asked a few questions. They still shouldn’t be forced to buy but I just want to know, what is the cost of your cell phone plan, how much is your cable bill, what is your car payment? Again, I have no problem with whatever the answers are but I just think we, who want to be fair (or are expected to pay for fair) have a right to the priorities of those who are in need of fairness.

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 1:37 PM

I used to think the government could perhaps make these decisions on a case by case basis in limited circumstances, but I feel it’s become so corrupt we can’t trust them to do this without creating a new class of free riders. These days I just advocate stopping all government support for health care.

I do understand where you’re coming from, though, and this would be a good solution in an ideal world.

It’s deja vu all over again. We are in the O’Donnell wars again.

The one side uses every opportunity to criticize and mock the official GOP candidate.

The other side says that the primaries are over and that the constant deriding of the candidate is pointless and actually harmful.

Gelsomina on July 5, 2012 at 1:35 PM

That’s not an accurate representation of what’s going on.

The real problem is, as it was when the primaries were started, issues of policy and not personality. The conservative base/Tea Party doesn’t trust Romney on fiscal policy, and the hysterical overreaction of his supporters to even mild criticism (such as “Romney should fire these advisers who keep making these kinds of gaffes”) is only fueling their fears.

Romney had a golden opportunity to hit a home run on this health care decision and his advisers basically blew it for him. His supporters telling people “what’s past is past, stop talking about Obamacare” has only made the situation worse. Ultimately, conservatives want reassurance that Romney and the Republican party leadership isn’t going to go wobbly on policy, and they apparently haven’t gotten it.

Doomberg on July 5, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Gelsomina on July 5, 2012 at 1:57 PM

I was on the people of Delaware’s side. I believed that their chosen candidate deserved the total support of the Party. I learned a sad lesson. One which, I must admit, Gov. Romney did not participate in.

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Doomberg on July 5, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Yep, D.C. has proven time and time again that they are not the answer.

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Bambi on July 5, 2012 at 1:21 PM

I’ve read that before, and that is exactly why I’m sick at my stomach over the SC ruling. I’m on Medicare, just completed treatment for breast cancer, and shortly my healthcare will become limited because of my age, while illegal aliens will get free unlimited
medical care. Something is very wrong in this country.

silvernana on July 5, 2012 at 2:24 PM

For us to get sidetracked into a discuss of whether he contradicted his political aide, and other nonsense is really unwise.

Indeed, but no more unwise than preferring Santorum to Romney.

Basilsbest on July 5, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Huh? For whatever it’s worth, that is not something that I ever did. I never supported Rick Santorum. Nor did I ever support Newt Gingrich.

But I think you missed my point in making the above statement, which you might have “gotten” had you actually taken a few minutes of your time to read my entire comment, above rather than just cherry picking one statement taken it entirely out of context, and quoted it without any attribution whatsoever, as a way to make your own irrelevant statement!

There are significant differences between the limited enumerated powers of the federal government, as specified in our United States Constitution, and the powers of the States, such as through what is termed the “police power,” makes much of this discussion (trying to compare Mass. healthcare to Obamacare) entirely irrelevant. The States are sovereign on different grounds that the federal government.

Conservatives should be pointing that out. And they should also be emphasizing that ObamaCare was an attempted unconstitutional power grab under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. Five justices so agreed — the conservative block, plus Roberts. They should also be pointing out that the same five justices also agreed that it was unconstitutional pursuant to the “necessary and proper” clause, another of the limited enumerated powers under our federal Constitution.

Those holdings were huge!

Roberts voted with the liberals to uphold the act on the third alternative theory advanced by the Administration — that it was a “permissible” extension of the enumerated federal taxing power. And he did so on “judicial restraint” grounds.

Romney himself has said he agreed with the dissenters (Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas & Alito) on that point, which was why his campaign initially kept referring to the attempted federal mandate as such, and the “penalty” — they wanted to continue to hammer the point that the Obama “commerce clause” interpretation was wrong and unconstitutional. It was.

Now Romney’s point simply is that since the Court has called the ObamaCare provision a tax, then it is a tax . . . and a violation of Obama’s pledge to boot!

The States have different sovereign powers than the federal government does, so under Massachusetts law, and the Massachusetts enumeration of powers pursuant to their Constitution, it is indeed a mandate, and the penalty is indeed a penalty.

But under the limited enumerated powers of the federal government, the Supreme Court has said that ObamaCare was an unconstitutional attempt to expand both the “Commerce” and necessary and proper” clauses.

Yes, Chief Justice Roberts shifted when it came to the taxing power explanation, but keep in mind that if the Obama administration had tried to sell their plan as an extension of the taxing power, they would have fallen flat on their faces.

However, conservatives should all be highly alarmed at the prospect of a second Obama Administration, and their ability, not only to preserve ObamaCare, but also to seek further expansion of federal power pursuant to the “taxing” power.

These continued discussions attempting to conflate the State program signed by then-Governor Mitt Romney, with the federal program advanced by Barack Obama, are irrelevant because they ignore the significant differences in the powers held by states, versus the limited enumerated powers held by the federal government.

Those powers are “apples and oranges” different.

Trochilus on July 5, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Roberts changed the text of the law and made it an extra-Constitutional tax, thus setting an horrific precedent in the SC.

It is now a tax, putting the tax system back to how it was before the tea was dumped into the Boston harbour.

You and Gelsomina can dance around that like on a pin but it won’t change anything.

Mitt and his should have taken the ‘gift’ on a platinum platter from Roberts, made lemonade with the lemon, and hit Obama over the head with increasing taxes, regressively, on the middle class and the poor. Obama hates both groups. This s/b run, along with Obama’s lies to the contrary, 24 hours, 7 days, until Nov.

Fluffing for Mitt from the right is more disgusting than watching the leftist latrine rats around here.

Schadenfreude on July 5, 2012 at 2:40 PM

. . .
Romney had a golden opportunity to hit a home run on this health care decision and his advisers basically blew it for him. His supporters telling people “what’s past is past, stop talking about Obamacare” has only made the situation worse. Ultimately, conservatives want reassurance that Romney and the Republican party leadership isn’t going to go wobbly on policy, and they apparently haven’t gotten it.

Doomberg on July 5, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Nuts. Read what he said during the interview yesterday!

It is spot on. Please try to understand that the sovereign powers of the states in our system are different than the “LIMITED ENUMERATED POWERS” of the federal government as specified under the Constitution of the United States.

. . .

CRAWFORD: “But does that mean that the mandate in the state of Massachusetts under your health care law also is a tax? I mean, you raised taxes as governor.”

ROMNEY: “Actually, the chief justice in his opinion made it very clear that at the state level, states have the power to put in place mandates. They don’t need to require them to be called taxes in order for them to be constitutional. And as a result, Massachusetts’ mandate was a mandate, was a penalty, was described that way by the Legislature and by me, and so it stays as it was.”

CRAWFORD: “So at the state level because of … you’re saying the Supreme Court says that’s different, that the federal government — the powers are different between the states and the federal government? Does that make sense to you?”

ROMNEY: “Just take a read of the opinion. The chief justice said that states have what’s known as police power, and states can implement penalties and mandates and so forth under their constitutions, which is what Massachusetts did. But the federal government does not have those powers, and therefore for the Supreme Court to reach the conclusion it did — that the law was constitutional — they had to find it was a tax, and they did. And therefore Obamacare’s a tax. Like it or not, it’s a tax.”

He’s got it.

Trochilus on July 5, 2012 at 2:48 PM

silvernana on July 5, 2012 at 2:24 PM

How are you feeling? Have you competed radiation?

Cindy Munford on July 5, 2012 at 2:55 PM

I do not remember conservatives screaming that the mandate was a tax before this Supreme Court decision. The conservatives argued that Obamacare was not Constitutional because it was an over reach of the Commerce Clause and they were livid when Roberts wrote a majority claiming it was Constitutional because it was a tax.

And now all of a sudden we are supposed to believe that Romney was parting with conservatives or Republicans because he did not say it was a tax right off the bat…when they did not say that themselves.

Once the decision was made it was seen that it could be politically useful to make an issue of it being a tax..but it is not as if this was some strong conservative belief.

Obama tried to have it both ways. Romney tried to be consistent and the same people that complained that he was a flip flopper are mad that he did not flip flop soon enough.

Sounds kind of silly to me.

Terrye on July 5, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3