The Sunday shows were filled with a debate over one question: is the tax penalty in health care reform a tax or a penalty? Obama administration officials argued the latter; Republicans argued the former. Does it matter who's right, or is this silly political parsing? It's probably a little of both, actually.
Under the Affordable Care Act, if a consumer can afford insurance, he/she has to take responsibility for having insurance. If the consumer refuses, he/she will be subject to a tax penalty. The right wants to call that penalty a tax so that they can in turn argue, "Obama raised taxes on the middle class." It's deceptive -- and rather foolish -- but that's where things stand.
At least, it was where things stood before this morning, when the Romney campaign's chief advisor, Eric Fehrnstrom, told MSNBC's Chuck Todd that Republican rhetoric is wrong.
Fast forward to the 4:24 point, when Todd, unsure how to decipher Fehrnstrom's bizarre spin, tried to get a straight answer. It led to this exchange:
TODD: [Mitt Romney] agrees with the president that it is not [a tax], and he believes that you shouldn't call the tax penalty a tax, you should call it a penalty or a fee or a fine?
FEHRNSTROM: That's correct.
So, for three days, Republicans have said, "We should call the penalty a tax." This morning, the Romney campaign said, "No, we shouldn't."
This is a box the GOP can't get out of. Mitt Romney created an identical policy in Massachusetts under the identical structure for identical reasons. If Obama raised taxes on the middle class, then Romney raised taxes on the middle class. For Fehrnstrom, that means neither did.
But for Republicans, that's wholly unsatisfying. Indeed, the GOP message is an extraordinary mess, we now have the Romney campaign contradicting its own surrogates on the Republican Party's #1 talking point.
If the GOP finds this frustrating, maybe they should have thought of this during the primaries.
Leave a Comment:
I just saw this. OMIGOD. Obama is a hypocrite because he called it a penalty just like Romney did, but the Supremes called it a tax so Obama is lying. HUH? Go read Josh Marshall's STOP THE STUPID.
Interestingly Marshall provides no example of a Republican calling this the biggest tax in history, which makes his whole post... er, suspect. Meanwhile we have two politicians avoiding the word "tax" like the plague. What a surprise.
What really counts is that Congress now has no limits on what it can make us do. it can force people to buy a gun if it wants to, and if you don't, you'll pay a tax. How do I know it's a tax? Because if you don't pay up it's the IRS that will come after you.
Marsha Blackburn Falsely Claims Obamacare Is The "Largest Tax Increase In American History
Does he really need to provide examples? Every GOP talking head on the boob tube the past few days has been sure to work in this talking point. A simple google search "obamacare biggest tax increase in history" will provide plenty of examples (and plenty of fact checks which disprove said examples). So no, the post is not suspect.
Go read Ezra...it's the new GOP 'talking point'...http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/02/no-obamacare-isnt-the-largest-tax-increase-in-the-history-of-the-world-in-one-chart/
Uh, Congress has always had the power to tax people. In fact, that's the very first power given to Congress in the Constitution. What's the difference in Congress raising taxes to everybody then give them a discount if they happen to buy health insurance? Absolutely nothing. It's also no surprise that Obama and Romney are both afraid to call it what it is, because, as we can see, as soon as someone mentions the word "tax" everyone jumps back and says "hell no, you can't have my money!" Even if the reality is that only a small percentage will be affected, and that taxes are still cheaper today across the board than they were 10 years ago.
You have no reason to believe me, but I saw and heard Eric Cantor say those very words on the TV machine the day of the SCOTUS announcement.
I suspect that the Romney campaign will come out and say that Fehrnstrom was only talking about Massachusetts.
er, "I didn't know what i said, but whatever i said, i stand by it".
If this were a world where sanity prevailed, then this would indeed be a box the GOP wouldn't be able to escape. But it's not. This will be walked back by tomorrow with Fehrnstrom arguing that he was only talking about the state level and naturally on the federal level it's socialism. Besides, it was on MSNBC, so nobody whose opinion could possibly be swayed by Fehrnstrom's comments would have been watching, and if they had been watching, they'll soon be told that Fehrnstrom was taken out of context and believe it. I often say that a Republican's comments don't have to be true, they just have to be made and will be repeated often enough to become true. This will be the exception to prove the rule, as all sorts of other Romney reps will leap forward to "Correct" Fehrnstrom that before long, everyone will be back on the same page.
Oww Oww the stupid hurts!
Like Jon Stewart said last week , they want to keep all of the features of the ACA , except the part where you pay for it .
But, Romeny looks presidential. (Lost count of how many times this has been uttered by RW commenters)
Plus, the beltway pundits told the GOP base that Mitt could beat Obama.
You mean, for example, when his campaign bus is circling the current President honking it's horn just to be obnoxious? Or being proud of sending people to heckle the President? I'm still trying to figure out how that looks presidential.
The All New And Improved Death Panel Nonsense-Obamacare As Middle Class Tax Increase - Rick Ungar (Forbes.com)
In our state if you dont pay the fine you lose the license first then if not paid it goes on to your taxes so I see this the same way whats so hard about getting insurance other then cost republicans are all about making the rich richer
Republicans claim that we are taxed for doing nothing. Have we been taxed for inactivity? Do we pay more to the IRS for doing nothing?
Yes. I didn't contribute to a 401(k) plan. Because I didn't, I paid more in taxes for NOT entering into an agreement with a provider. If I rent when I could buy a house by taking out a mortgage, I pay more in taxes for NOT entering into an agreement with a mortgage provder.
Is a penlty a tax under the Tax & Spend Clause? Yes.
Congress has the power to tax. Doesn't that power include the ability to define tax deductions, tax exemptions, and tax credits? If so, doesn't that power include the ability to define a tax penalty for underpayments or late payments? Like deductions, exemptions, and credits, penalties can be included as the tax in the context of the Tax & Spend Clause.
How has nobody realized the Romney campaign is just not very good? They're always going off message, and they're using middle school tactics to annoy the President. Horrible. Campaign.
Okay, so when my daughter was little, she called every dog "Jazz" (which was our dog's name). Didn't change the other dogs' names. If you can afford health insurance, you should have it...or have one of those financial responsibility waivers like you can get in lieu of automobile insurance. Everybody should have access to at least basic health insurance (like an allowance for 4 -6 visits to a GP a year and wellness care). I contend that in order to enjoy the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, you need a certain level of health.
This is just a political word game whereby Republicans have greatly expanded the scope of who must pay this new health care penalty/tax - whatever - by saying this is the biggest tax in US history, the world, the universe, blah, blah, blah. So by their new definition, are your late payment penalties on federal student loans now called a "tax" that will affect all Americans now?
Late paying your personal federal taxes? With the Republicans expanded new tax definition, will this make all Americans be subject to you're penalty?
Either the Republicans are simply the poster children for the galacticly stupid i.e. actually believing anything that Rush says, or they chose to ignore that this new penalty will only affect those who don't obtain health insurance - about 1% of the country.
This whole thing is simply a power trip. Republicans do not want the Democrats to be given credit for healthcare reform, like FDR and LBJ did, that resulted in Democratic power in Congress for decades (along with Supreme Court nominees). Nothing more.
Form v. Substance. The decision boiled down to a form v. substance argument.
When a law is interpreted, Congressional intent is determined. Question: What did Congress intend? Simply put, it intended for the taxpayer (the language of the statute) to pay more to the IRS if not covered under insurance. This was the "substance" of the law.
What was the "form" of the law? The dissent correctly notes that Congress intended a mandate-and-penalty under the Commerce Clause (where either penalty or mandate used 18 times). However, this is the "form" chosen by Congress for obtaining "substance" -- to pay more to the IRS if not covered under insurance.
What the dissent did was to place "form over substance"; this, however, is not traditional judicial practice. Traditionally, courts do not place "form over substance." In this case, the Chief Justice followed judicial restraint by ensuring "substance" prevailed over "form."
The argument of Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito fails because it places form over substance.
The problem as I see it is that Mr. Eric Fehrnstrom was speaking for the OTHER Mr. Mitt Romney- you know, the one that DIDN'T do the other opposite thing that he says he did the next day from the anti-anti matter universe.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned that this was the same Fehrnstrom who introduced the "Etch-a-Sketch" into our political discourse. The fact that he still has hos job makes me doubt even more that Romney is at all serious about winning, or that he has the slighest clue what he's doing.
I agree, the Obama campaign should be helping pay this guy's salary.
If Obama was forced to pay for Ferhnstrom's services, would that be considered a tax or a penalty?
"Keep costs down, that's the answer!", the republican mantra........yet, they never say how they propose to do that. 'Just more flaptrap to protect their corporate friiends.
Who cares what you call it, because you don't have to pay it. If you don't have insureance you are "taxed" and if you refuse to pay the tax.... nothing no penalty or anything.
this is just a stupid argument like saying there are death panels and you will be restricted on how many tests you need. Doctors are already saying that there are too many tests any way and some can cause lasting damage if we have them too often, and we already have death panels they are called insureance companies.
Yeah, the thing is it doesn't start until 2014 and you can file a waiver, JUST LIKE in Massachusetts.
http://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/i/individualresponsibility.html
http://www.healthlawadvocates.org/tools/publications/files/0015.pdf
It's that old individual responsibility the conservatives are always harping about. The argument for indivudual responsibility is now turned on its ear because government forces you to buy something… unless you claim exemptions or when we subsidize the tax credits for businesses to provide individual employees with health insurance.
We live in the Star Wars Type World of Jedi-Eye Mind Tricks. The Republicans play this game learned from Star Wars continuously day in and day out. Those of us remaining rational thinkers have to avoid being Jedi-Eyed! Too many folks have already fallen prey to become victims of the Jedi Eye!
If the Republicans knew this was a tax all along, why did they claim the bill was unconstitutional since the Federal government has the power to tax.
Because they like making statements like being forced to buy broccoli, it plays to their base. Forget that we are paying way too much for health insurance premiums and medical treatments because business Execs are not willing to forego their bonus money in order to provide health care to a person with cancer-aka death panels. Plus medicare is so darn lucrative to tap into for their making profit.
"Bring costs down, that's the answer!"..........the republican mantra. Trouble is, they never say how they would do that. 'Just more flaptrap rhetoric to protect their corporate friends. Discouraging. Very discouraging. Democrats and empathetic, problem solving independents are carrying all the water on this and so many other issues directly affecting people's lives and livehoods while republicans stand aside like spoiled, insolent delinquents taking pot shots at any effort to make things better for the country.
I do love how Obama seems to be capable lately of putting the GOP in really difficult positions. Though to be fair, running with Mitt Romney they mostly put themselves in this one. Who could have predicted that having a candidate who created a health care plan that gave a penalty if you could afford to buy health insurance but don't going up against a President who created a health care plan that gave a penalty if you could afford to buy health insure but don't would put them in a hard-to-defend position?
Really, they should have seen this coming. I hate to give Rick Santorum credit for anything, but on this he was right. Mitt Romney is the worst Republican to run with an anti-health care platform.
Once again we see that Santorum, for all his faults, was exactly right about Romney. Mitt has no ability to carry the republican message. What's funny is that it also shows that the republicans basically have no capacity to put forward even moderately successful political leaders as their candidates, because political leadership means giving a darn about the voters.
"If the GOP finds this frustrating, maybe they should have thought of this during the primaries." - BINGO!
I shake my head whenever a Republican shakes their fists demanding Romney somehow HAS to knock out Obama... a VERY unlikely scenario and I have voted for candidates of both parties so I am not some left leaning Democrat.
The GOP selected the WORST POSSIBLE person to run for President up against Obama in November. They KNOW it. However, it was Republican voters who went to the polls and voted for Romney, getting him the nomination. That is not Democrats fault, it is not Obama's fault, it is not the Supreme Courts fault, Global Warming, etc.
Obama is gaining the upper hand daily and Romney's own team trips over itself when he isn't making up total lies about Obama's record, history and the economy. Heck, he is traveling to states like Ohio saying the economy is struggling because of Obama and REPUBLICAN governors of those states are raising their hand saying "Um, no my state is actually recovering." as Romney's message makes his own parties governors look bad.
Mitt Romney could not win a Presidential election against anyone. Forget the man who killed Bin Laden, has repaired our standing in the world, ended the Iraq war, saved the auto industry, just executive ordered his own Dream Act and is overseeing an economy that is slowly improving. Yes, Obama has made mistakes that I myself have been frustrated with. However, he's got a 80% chance or being re-elected by every measure you can find and Republicans need to look in the mirror for the reason... Romney is a train wreck.
Nothing new in Romney, he's in it for himself and his family- like always.
Nobody can take seriously a guy who can't keep his story straight. He said himself "I don't know what I said, but whatever it was, I stand by what I said". Now if that isn't just pitiful, the liar is truthful about keeping his lies straight.
Ann Coulter pegged it quite some time ago, even if she walked it back.
Perhaps it punctuates that there is no growing real conservative momentum across the country as some folks like to say? Even with all that Gingrich Adelson money. Even with all that Santorum anti-gay, anti contraception/abortion talk. There may be some sprouting here and there but not what you could really call widespread. The party keeps driving more away than they can attract.
I think most people just want a competent person who stands up for Americans, even when it is unpopular. We heard all this anti this, anti that talk trying to limit rights for certain people. It is not what is wanted. People want jobs, Romney outsourced many jobs. Why in the hell is that viewed as an asset at a time like this?
That old trickle down and pamper the corps doesn't seem to be working. People should notice, that is what the Republicans are telling them. They get them to worry more about debt than jobs. But resulting in what? Less jobs, less hours/wages/less pensions in order to give it over to Wall Street to outsource jobs and take risks without regulations? Not much hiring because of the tax breaks they have had, so where are the results to back that up?
Why do i get the feeling John Robert's plot backfired?
Doesn't anybody think this whole thing is contrived and played out according to a script?
They just forget to tell the Romney campaign about it, since Romney's just a pen holder to the Grover (Republican) party.
Knobson..the billionaires bankrolling the GOP side of this election are going to spend at least twice as much as Romney is worth. They are worth 10,000 times more than Mitt. Romney is simply their employee, a puppet on the payroll. Roberts is playing to these guys. Pres. Obama got his health care bill because Roberts knows that the winner in Nov. is going to repeal it. How? The court will decide the election. Just watch them. Never take your eye off Karl Rove.