Shortly after the Supreme Court's ruling on the Affordable Care Act, Mitt Romney, speaking with the U.S. Capitol in the background, announced his disagreement with the court majority and emphasized his vow to kill health care reform "on my first day."
Among other things, the Republican presidential hopeful insisted, "Obamacare raises taxes." It is, as it turns out, the talking point of the day on the right, bolstered unexpectedly by the Supreme Court's ruling itself. As the five-justice majority concluded, the individual mandate is less a forced purchase and more a tax penalty for those who refuse to get insured.
"A ha!" conservatives have been saying for the last three hours. "That means Obama raised taxes when he signed health care reform into law!"
On a substantive level, this has all the sophistication of a second-grade spelling bee, but there's a fairly specific policy reason Republicans might think twice about their new rhetorical toy: it's called Romneycare.
As I assume everyone knows by now, Obamacare and Romneycare are effectively the same policy, sharing the same basic structure, including the individual mandate Romney used to be fond of. What happens in Massachusetts when someone doesn't want to buy insurance? They, you guessed it, pay a tax penalty, just like under the Affordable Care Act.
In fact, if someone in Massachusetts refuses to buy insurance, they pay the penalty on their income tax return, just like under the Affordable Care Act.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, apparently trying to rub it in, wrote, "Congress followed Massachusetts' lead."
Everyone on the right who seems to think the Supreme Court handed them a powerful talking point needs to realize that their presidential candidate is subject to the identical condemnation. If today's ruling means Obama raised taxes, it means Romney raised taxes.
Leave a Comment:
A Republican talking point doesn't have to make sense. It just has to be MADE and the faithful will nod approvingly. In this case, Romney has already switched his tune by saying it would be fine if every single state adopted to use Romneycare, but for it to be adopted at the federal level and thrust upon the states unless they can come up with something better is socialism and unconstitutional. There were words strung together in a sentence that tells us why we can still keep hating Obama, and that's enough for some folk
Some say the moon causes the tides to rise. Not so, says the other side; it is the tides that cause the moon to rise!
I'm sooo confused. I think I will ask Mr. Limbaugh; he explains things so us Simple Folk can understand it!
You'll get a wonderful answer from Mr. Limbaugh. It won't have a scrap of logic in it, but it will tell you that everything ever done by a Democrat is evil and wicked, and that every Republican from Nixon on has been slandered by the liberal media. Believe what you want, it's a free country. But it won't stay that way if you let highly paid political commentators do your thinking for you.
Actually, when it comes to the Moon and the tides, I think we're supposed to consult Bill O'Reilly...
;-)
Mitt
Please read Article II of the Constitution to learn what a president can or can't do, even on his/hers first day in office.
What do you call a tax you don't have to pay and they can't send you to jail or set a lien for nonpayment? The ACA mandate.
Honestly glb, that remains to be seen. My brother owed the IRS money and they came after him big time(but it took a while for them to get tough). The same may happen here....too soon to tell.
Actually, no it doesn't, because it's specifically stated in the law that they CANNOT come after you for not paying on this. If you ignore the rest of your tax bill, it's fair game, but not this.
Again, I do believe that it is too soon to tell if this is so or what really would happen to a person who doesn't pay his taxes.
Unless they're going to break the law, nothing will happen. If you're going to go all "that's what they want us to think" conspiracy theory, the Fox News forums are that way... *points to the darkest, stinkiest part of the internet*
For goodness sake.
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/26C48.txt
26 U.S.C. § 5000A(g)(2)
(2) Special rules Notwithstanding any other provision of law - (A) Waiver of criminal penalties In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure. (B) Limitations on liens and levies The Secretary shall not - (i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or (ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.So, what, do you think this part of the law is written in disappearing ink? That the IRS will just ignore it and the courts will let them get away with it? That the secret Death Panel provisions say "Hah hah! Our fingers were part when we wrote §5000A(g)(2)!" so this part doesn't really count as law?
Okay glb and steve: enough with your fox talk and caustic remarks(@steve). I am saying that it is too soon to tell what is going to happen to a person who doesn't pay the tax. The IRS does have a few cards to play here, regardless of what you just posted steve. We will just have to wait and see.
The only Cards the IRS can play. Are the ones the Tax Laws provide them. And in this case. They are only provide a means to say you owe. But not a way to enforce collection by a criminal process eg have you thrown in jail or force a lien.
Secondly even Judge Roberts said that the 'penalty' is not a Tax. The penalty is just enforceable under the Tax Laws. Because it is collected by the IRS.
Thirdly if you have health insurance. Guess what you just received a 1-2.5% Tax Break. Which is no different than getting a tax break to home owners. Meaning if you do not own a home eg renters. You cannot receive said Tax Break. It's how the Government has always encouraged it citizens to buy certain things.
Wow, what a maroon. Way to swing the independent votes, or maybe he did? For @!$%#'s sake, who can tell any more?
Although I'm sure Rmoney's healthcare is "prohibitively expensive" he sure is otherwise a lying douche!
Obama-llama care! Obama-llama care!!
Obama-llama care! Obama-llama care!!
Hermitage Foundation....
Who runs that again?
Who came up with the Mandate?
I have to
believe that the only reason Chief Justice Roberts sided
with the four (4) Liberals is because hundreds
of people across America complained to the Court; as I did a few days
ago:
Question:
Why don’t you have a Fax number?
Comments:
The
wonderful concept of the Constitution taught me as a child has proven
unreal
as I near my 82nd birthday. Our "constitution" is whatever five (5)
politically-appointed
individuals SAY it is!
Today's
"Justice Mafia" has imposed cancerous conditions affecting
current
citizens.
Never before have I written to SCOTUS, although the "eminent
domain"
decision came close.
Through the
years SCOTUS decisions have become (more evidently) political
leanings
interpreted within legal framework; the MOST cancerous and divisive
recent one
being Citizens United.
I'm
surprised you didn't provide "voting rights" for Corporations;
but then – they
can (now)
just buy the Congress of their choice.
I thought e.e. cummings was dead.
The beauty of poetry and literature is that the great ones are truly immortal, and available to inspire those who know where and how to look...
;-)
I'm a bit confused, if this is considered a "tax penalty" didn't they just "kick the can down the road" as said in an earlier post and thus this doesn't mean that much?
Opponents of Obamacare argued that the government forcing us to buy insurance is a dangerous path that would allow a future Congress to force you "to buy broccoli". Nonsense, says Chief Justice Roberts, the ACA says you should buy broccoli,... and if you don't we will raise your taxes to buy broccoli, and the right of the Congress to force you to pay taxes is part of the Constitution. Roberts took the debate away from the commerce clause, made it a simple tax question and made the case a slam dunk tax issue. Touche, well done.
What is so brilliant about Robert's opinion is that it made this a campaign issue about taxes, so all the anti-tax nuts will be out in force at the Tea Party rallies. He not only secured his place on the Court in history, he made sure that the radical hard line right did not carry the day. It's a message to the conservatives to thin the herd.
'thin the herd'...I LOVE that!
Mittsywittsy is probably egotistical enough to believe that as President he would be able to "repeal" laws by fiat.
He can probably see Russia from Massachusetts too!
I wouldn't be at all surprised if he literally has hallucinations...maybe not that exact kind.
Mitt says that Obama care will take money from Medicare, Is
this correct?
Will this reduce Medicare services to seniors?
There is no reduction in services. There is a reduction in the amount some providers are paid.
short answer: NO.
long answer: the ACA reduced funding for Medicare Advantage, a program that subsidized private insurance policies. That is not the same thing as "cutting medicare". But apparently many folks believe that repeating a lie enough times will make it stick.
No, it is not correct, but it has been a popular talking point for two years. If your food costs you less because the price went down did you strip money out of your food budget?
Not really, No.
It is rather clever of them to call spending less on something a loss though, innit?
As I've been flipping around the channels today I heard Boehner saying 'we care about the HIGH COST of health care so we are going to vote to REPEAL!' It strikes me that the HIGH COST of health care has everything to do with the GOPs buddies in private industry and nothing to do with the ACA. Do one of your charts Steve and show the rising care of health care over the last decade...or two.
A couple of points about that "tax":
1. You owe a penalty, or tax, if you don't have or buy health insurance. But if you don't pay the penalty, there is no penalty for that. IRS will not come after you.
2. We're going to hear a lot about this new "tax." Dems would be better framing it as a new "tax break" for anyone covered with insurance. That's a better political argument, and probably as accurate as what the other side is claiming.
FTFY. You're welcome!
;-)
Romney will overturn a SCOTUS decision and a law passed by congress on his very first day on the job? Srsly? He is going to declare martial law and democracy as we know it will be over? Stupid? or Evil?
Mittsywittsy demonstrates daily that it is possible to be both.
Chief Justice Roberts didn't declare the ACA mandate a tax. He said that the ACA mandate was constitutional through Congress's taxation authority rather than the Commerce clause. In fact, there is no mechanism to enforce any penalty or "tax" you can point out in the mandate, because there are clauses within the mandate that prohibit any government entity (such as the IRS) from levying or jailing a person for not paying them. The penalties were meant to motivate people to get insurance, but it was watered down to not actually punish them.
Both the majority and minority opinions are badly written and are merely the first word on this issue, not the last SCOTUS will inflict upon us.
The key word that Romney used in his speech was the word act. Yes, he is probably going to act as though he is repealing his updated and new, and improved version of Romneycare but, he won't he will simply sit on his laurels and be another puppet President like Bush. That was so depressing nobody wants to revisit that. I want to see my President and hear from him and have him explain things the way he does. If Romney were to become President we will never see him, much like his mentor Bush.
Agreed. He's an empty cardboard box. Even some Republicans are complaining that he doesn't offer any substance.
Someone who lies and changes his mind as often as Romney does has nothing whatsoever to offer this country. He is being controlled by the party, and if we let him into office, he will be another Bush. He has done nothing to counter this idea. We have absolutely no idea what he will do if elected.
All I know is shortly after the bill was passed Rachel Maddow predicted on her show that the Supreme Court would affirm the bill by a 5-4 vote on the basis of the rights of taxation.
Today's decision shows how smart she was when she made that comment.
My big problem isn't with the constant repeat of the Lies that Mitt spews... It how he doesn't even understand the role the Judicial Branch plays in our Government. They did what they are there to do, rule if something violates the Constitution or not. They are not and never should rule based on if something is a Good or Bad Policy or Law. That is the job of the Elected Congressional Branch and if they get it wrong then WE THE PEOPLE, Vote their Butts out... How can a guy run a country when he doesn't even know how it works.. Like throwing a guy in a car with a stick shift and he refuses to learn what the clutch is for.
So, wait. Let me get this straight. Regardless of whether its Constitutional, Mittens is against the law because its "bad policy"? Bad policy? That's what you got now? It was bad policy before the court's decision and it's still bad policy and that's why you'll kill it? Really?
So do tell us, Mittens, was it "bad policy" when you pushed essentially the same policies through a reluctant state legislature in Massachusetts? Is that what you were doing? Putting all your weight behind "bad policy" in Massachusetts because you hated the people there so much yo wanted to afflict them what what, in hindsight (after a Democrat fixed it) became a wildly successful and highly popular law?
Or could, perchance, it only have become "bad policy" when the scary black man whose job you want pushed the same policies through the United States Congress?
Yeah, good luck thinking up an answer for that one at the debates, Millard. Looking forward to watching the smoke come out your ears.
I couldn't even make it through half of his speech. Couldn't stomach the lying. The question is, will anyone in the so-called liberal media call him on it? I'm betting on no.
Justice Roberts saved those in congress who are tea party in name only from the base, uncaring, rich puppeteers who care only for their rich cronies. I still have faith that there are spineless congress people on the right who are secretly glad that they can complain about healthcare but not actually have to screw the havenots on this issue. The moguls financing the right would not support repeal and replace. Those on the right who have dodged the moral bullet on this will have to verbalize the tea party line but not have to act, at least at this time.
There needs to be some pop-up video action
1:32 The Chamber of Commerce survey cited delightfully notes in it's methodology: "This online survey is not based on a probability sample and therefore no estimate of theoretical sampling error can be calculated."
Huh. That's... funny? And, I guess, if there's no estimate of error, it must be right? (BTW, I really like your username, LOL).
;-)
Romney shares Palin's comic book perception of the role of the Executive Branch in the federal government.
Romney made a Dewey-esque prediction that the ACA would be deemed unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, and he declared that Obama's first term in office had been a complete waste as a result.
Poor Mitt spiked the ball ... in his own endzone.
What kind of fools does Romney think Americans are? Romney is a congenital liar. Outrageous!!! America has to choose: elect a liar and a flip-flopper like Romney working for the health insurance companies or Obama, fighting for 99% of the people.
I really like his comments that people who "like" their healthcare plans are going to lose them.
Errr... Who LIKES their insurance plans that they have now??? Maybe the rich??? I sure don't like what I can get. It is too expensive and has gone up big time in the last 10 years, my deductible is too large, and I KNOW they can cut me at any time they want! What's to like??? I just consider it a "necessary evil"!
When people imply that Obama is a liar because he promised not to raise taxes on middle earning Americans, or on the bottom 90% in income of Americans, they are mistaken.
When someone currently has no health insurance and they go to the hospital they
get care. If they cannot pay for the care we the people pay for it by higher medical bills, the hospital and doctors have to charge us more to cover this loss they occur, or some government entity, again we the people pays them for the loss. If this is a tax we are already paying it. What the mandate does is make the responsible persons, those who are not insured but can afford to be insured, pay for the coverage, or tax if you will.
This is not a new tax. WE ARE CURRENTLY PAYING IT. The medical bills we now pay
will go down and taxes we pay do cover those not insured will go down.