“The governor disagreed with the ruling of the court,” Fehrnstrom said. “He agreed with the dissent that was written by Justice [Antonin] Scalia, which very clearly stated that the mandate was not a tax.” – [Politico]
ETCH A SKETCH Romney man and senior advisor, gaffeman extraordinaire Eric Ferhnstrom, has done it again. If this guy was a woman he’d be looking for a new line of work. In an interview with Chuck Todd today, he walked away from the “tax” argument given to Team Romney by Chief Justice Roberts. Instead, he extolled the consistency of former Gov. Romney, once again blowing the message Republicans and the right want to use to bludgeon Team Obama.
So, if you’re keeping score, Chief Justice Roberts sides with the majority, the liberals, on the Supreme Court, upholding Obamacare, while stating it’s not the Court’s job to adjudicate between a law written by the legislative branch and politicians put there by the people, but at the same time hemming in Congress through his denouncement against the Commerce Clause as a valid vehicle, citing tax to validate Obamacare constitutionality.
Republicans freak, flop around rhetorically, then regroup and get exercised about having the tax issue from Roberts, calling it the “largest middle class tax increase in U.S. history,” which came after Rush Limbaugh’s “the biggest tax increase in the history of the world,” the premise such a deliciously easy canard to prove false.
Meanwhile, right on cue, Democrats get defensive over the tax issue, as they always do in the Obama era.
Then today, in another general election gift to rival Etch a Sketch but will be remembered a lot longer, Mitt Romney’s top advisor gives Democrats the nod against Republicans working against Obama.
Not even Aaron Sorkin could have scripted this one.
It doesn’t matter if you call it a tax, as Chief Justice Roberts decreed in his political opinion, or a “penalty,” as former Gov. Romney and Pres. Obama both prefer. Insisting all Americans pay for health insurance in some form is the crux of it.
We the People are in this together and if you want to use the capitalistic services of the health care industry, in all its bloated fee glory, which we each will at some point in our lives (see Justice Ginsburg’s opinion), then you’ll have to pay for it. Most people already do through their employers in some form, so most won’t be impacted at all from the tax/penalty.
Bottom line: no free-loaders.
That used to be a conservative notion, but today Republicans are so far right it isn’t, and where they once stood Democrats have taken up court.
You’ll get no argument from me that both Romney and his advisors are very poor articulators of positions.
I happen to believe McCain’s inability to articulate well was second only to the Lehman crash as why Obama ended up winning enough independents to prevail. Romney is very unimpressive in not having taken that lesson to heart right from the get-go.
Ferhnstrom could have simply said Romney’s legislation was crafted under state laws, not Federal laws and won the point without having to “agree with Obama”.
Respectfully, I disagree. The state law argument applies to the Commerce Clause and enumerated powers argument, not the tax argument. It’s beyond dispute that the federal government has the ability to tax. Thus, if it’s a tax, there is no state law distinction. OTOH, a Commerce Clause argument is risky from 10th Amendment perspective – if federal government can do this, what is the limiting principle from an enumerated powers perspective?
Romney resists the tax characterization because if it’s a tax, he’s a tax raiser too. Obama’s thinking the same thing.
hey ogenic~ How is that that baby boy? Getting big I bet?
Hi LL – yes, he is! I need to update the avatar!
Trust all is well with you.
Things are good here…hot, hot, hot. I just cancelled my annual 4th of July party… it is so hot out and my little cottege can’t hold 40 + people. We have had to cancel two markets. But at least we have electricity..
I am a little uncomfortable with the free-loader meme. I don’t like the the judgemental sound of it.
I am sure there is a percentage of people who show up at emergency rooms who can afford insurance but have not bought it. I would venture to guess that a much larger percentage are poor or have preexisting conditions who would love to be able to buy insurance that is currently way out of reach for them..
The emergency room is the place of last resort because of a law that says hospitals have to stablize everyone who comes.I understand that this is a terrible and expensive way to give medical care and at cross purposes in truly managing disease, But it is the only choice for some people.
If the Rethugs should happen to win the Senate and the WH and the Tea-evangelicals get into their full evil glory, I worry that they will repeal that law.
I think you’re right, Lake Lady, and that’s why I disagree with Marcia Angell’s assertion in her HuffPo article that people will blow off the mandate and pay the penalty. I think most people will get insurance if they can afford it. As far as it being a tax, that’s a design to make it pass legal scrutiny. There has to be a way to get everyone in the pool or it’s just not sustainable. TR Reid of the Washington Post says this concept is completely uncontroversial in every country but this one. Go figure.
Stridehyde` They have not had hundreds of millions of $ of propaganda aimed at them.