Republicans dodge question whether Romneycare was a tax

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/romney-my-individual-mandate-was-also-a-tax-increase.php
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/romney-complicates-gop-push-to-label-obamacare-a-tax.php?ref=fpa

Republicans are inadvertently inviting a new comparison between the Affordable Care Act and Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts health care reforms. This time it’s about taxes.

Citing Thursday’s landmark Supreme Court ruling upholding the ACA on taxing power grounds, Republicans are attacking Democrats for having surreptitiously raised taxes.

But if that’s true of Democrats, it’s also true of Romney.

“[W]e established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance,” Romney wrote in a 2009 USA Today op-ed. “Using tax penalties, as we did … encourages ‘free riders’ to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others.”

Romney has a long public record of supporting his individual mandate — a record he’d love to bury. But this is a rare example of him boasting that the mandate amounts to the same tax he and other Republicans are now attacking Obama for having adopted in the ACA.

On Fox News Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) attacked President Obama for sneaking a tax increase past the American public.

“The Supreme Court has now declared it a tax. They have unearthed the massive deception that was practiced by the president and the Democrats, constantly denying that it was a tax,” McConnell said. “The chief justice has made it clear — it’s a tax.”

But the GOP leader dodged several questions on whether ‘Romneycare’ is also a tax increase.

“Well I think Governor Romney will have to speak for himself about what was done in Massachusetts,” McConnell said. “I can tell you that every single Democratic senator voted for this tax increase.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) called the mandate “a penalty on free-riders.”

“Mitt Romney is in a total pickle here. He prescribed this. This was his bill,” Schumer said on CBS’ Face The Nation. “Are [Republicans] going to say that Mitt Romney had the biggest tax increase in Massachusetts? Forget about it.”

[chessdev]  What's hilarious is that Romney touted the "benefits" he brought his state while governor...and yet, argues against a law BASED ON HIS template as "unconstitutional" and "harmful to the country".   The argument of 'its only 1 state' is just nonsense -- especially if people are going to argue "tax" or "constituitionality".

and it's even more interesting Republican's cant manage to call Romney's plan as a tax...even though Romney himself called it a tax...  in the middle of a call of taxes being evil...

Should be interesting how Republican's have to back a candidate who pretty much legislated everything they hate...

Comments

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Shit oh dear.

If he loses, the batshit that will hit the fan will make 2009 look like, well, a tea party, won't it?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

You sincerely think that the GOP will ever call a spade a spade when it comes to this? They like taxes and big government and big spending, too, they're just the ones who are most unwilling to ever use the actual words.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

1. Cut please?

2. Again, what's the necessity for copy-pasting an entire article?

3. Could you expand on your last part?

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

1. I thought it was short enough to not need a cut

2. The entire article was short enough that pasting only part of it didnt seem to make sense

3. What do you feel is missing? I thought I pretty much explained my thoughts on the issue and gave examples why

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

1. Thanks.

2. Don't know. Putting a link and choosing the most relevant excerpts would've probably made it look a bit less like ontd_political. But it's just my opinion.

3. I remain uncertain if Romney has legislated everything that Repubican's(sic?) hate. And I do mean everything. ;-)

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

I did a cut, but it's less than a page.... unless someone is looking at LJ in 640x400 resolution, they shouldnt
be overwhelmed by what was there...

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Maaan, my screen was screaming. :-S

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Really? You using a cell phone to read this? 8-)

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Just a shitty laptop, duhhh.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

"watch the hand, watch the hand, watch the hand",
His hands are quicker then our eyes you know. It's like magic.
But it's really bad magic. Everyone knows the trick from BEFORE.
We anticipate the trick, wait for it and witness the slight-of-hand naked and obvious to all.
So we shouldn't be surprised by a Republican up to their old tricks.
There's no great revelation here.
Of course it's only a tax when a Democrat supports it.
Next up, " Canadians hate their healthcare."

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

The GOP doesn't care whether it's a tax or not. They care that Democrats took their plan and successfully passed it, and (of course) about winning elections.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The GOP does care whether it's a tax, mainly because Roberts decided it's a tax.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

So when Romney had this exact same idea, was it a tax? Yes or no?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

No, it is a penalty. Much like the health care reform "tax" is a penalty.

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

GOTO 1

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

No, he didn't quite say that. He said the penalty is a tax for Constitutional purposes; it is allowed due to the power of Congress to tax, but it isn't a tax per se. Small distinction that gets lost in the headlines.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

A distinction largely without difference, but point taken.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

We definitely consider it a penalty up here in the Commonwealth. But the difference is that state governments can enact penalties for noncompliance. Just because John Roberts has to invent a justification for the federal program does not make it identical to the state program after the fact.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

What is the strict interpretation of Article III of the Constitution that allows for Judicial Review?

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

My personal opinion is: I don't care. An objectively good idea at the state level should be adopted on the national level. If the Constitution gets in the way of it, either rewrite it through convention or compromise with a 'novel' interpretation. Although it's prolonging an outdated document, at least it gets progress right away. Gay marriage, civil rights, interracial marriage, desegregation, health care, etc.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

You know what distressed me more so then Romneycare or Obamacare? People talking about adopting a new constitution over this, I mean WT actual F?

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

People were talking about that?? Wow...

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

A sentiment I agree with, however for probably different reasons than the Tea Party.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204520204577251352548365994.html

as a general rule conservatives have supported a mandate to take care of a "free rider" problem—that is, to make people pay for their own health care, not as a tax to pay for someone else's.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/02/07/the-tortuous-conservative-history-of-the-individual-mandate/

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]