The Supreme Court's decision upholding the Affordable Care Act was bound to cause extensive discussion, but the debate of the last several days has been oddly detached from what matters most.
The questions that seem to have the most relevance relate to Medicaid expansion, the future of the Commerce Clause, the positions of Republican governors, the extremism of the four dissenters, the threats to the law in 2013, etc. But the topic that's dominating the political world is the unexpected rhetorical fight launched by Republicans: should we call the tax penalty that would apply to 1% of the population a "tax" or a "penalty"?
This morning, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus took a side, but did so in a bizarre way.
For those who can't watch clips online, Priebus told CNN, "Well, our position is the same as Mitt Romney's position -- it's a tax."
Oh, for crying out loud.
Look, this is, at its root, a semantics debate. Going forward, what label gets applied to this policy has no bearing on the law itself, legal or otherwise. Republicans desperately want to scream from rooftops that Democrats, by imposing this penalty on free riders, raised middle class taxes, so we've been subjected to five days (and counting) of an irrelevant argument.
But if we're going to have this semantics argument, we should at least pretend reality matters. Literally just yesterday, the Romney campaign said it's a penalty, not a tax. This morning, the chairman of the RNC told a national television audience, "[O]ur position is the same as Mitt Romney's position -- it's a tax." Huh?
And this disconnect is why I think the story has any salience at all. I don't much care about the semantics, but I care quite a bit about the fact that the Republican Party and the Republican presidential nominee are, quite openly, at odds with one another over a key GOP talking point.
TPM had a good report on the behind-the-scenes tensions today.
Republicans are bewildered by the Romney campaign's declaration that the health care law's individual mandate is not a tax.... Republican strategists told TPM that far from the unified voice the GOP said it would present after the Supreme Court ruling, the messaging has been chaotic, and ultimately embarrassing for Romney and the GOP. [...]
"It's a problem, I'm not going to lie," said Hogan Gidley, a former top adviser to Rick Santorum's campaign. "I'm not going to sugarcoat it, it's a problem for the Republicans."
As we discussed yesterday, this is a box the GOP can't get out of. When it comes to attacking "Obamacare" and the mandate, there's no getting around the fact that 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 the Romney campaign, that means neither did. For every other Republican, that means both did.
You can almost hear Rick Santorum whispering, "I told you so."
Leave a Comment:
From a practical standpoint, the Medicaid ruling is not that significant. States cannot afford to turn down the money and medical providers will be calling on their governors. Republicans are doing political theater. These Republican governors will be forced to take the money by budgetary constraints.
I suspect the Republican Governors to stage a walkout.
Wonder where they got that from?
I especially enjoy the semantics of the authors of this bill. "We are giving you soooo much." Aren't they using our hard earned tax money to pay for this?
What exactly are they "giving" us?
Medicaid is designed to provide a minimum level of medical care for the poor and working poor. It may not give you anything, but it does serve a purpose. And yes, the taxpayers are paying for this. But taxpayers pay for a lot of things that do not necessarily benefit themselves.
You're right. They are not "giving" us anything
Just telling us how to spend our money
Thank Goodness they are here. Wouldn't know how to handle my own money without them!
Always nice to see Rancid Penis make a fool of himself.
I agree Priebus is not a particularly effective spokesman, but what are you, twelve? We can make our points without namecalling.
Shall we settle on Douchebag ?
There was a great headline over at Daily Kos on the refusal of Medicaid expansion promised by Rick Scott: "
Rick Scott on Medicaid expansion: If I can't steal it, Florida does not want it"
Doesn't that Priebus just exude weasel. Couldn't happen to a more appropriate two faced dick.
He kind of makes you miss Michael Steele
If they can't kill it before it actually takes affect then they will have no chance to ever kill it. After all even the people already benefitting from Obama care are fooled because they A) are too ignorant to realize they are benefitting or B) They think the right will just keep all the benefits and just quit calling it Obamacare.
Let's see if people at least try to understand the bill by November or if they will continue to let biased pundits lead them down the path to destruction.
The bill is on the web I do believe, so why are so many right wingers simply taking in what FOX tells them?
Putting aside Hannity, the programs I watch on Fox all present the facts:1) law upheld 2) Commerce Clause rationale nixed 3) upheld under taxing powers 4) Fed can't blackmail states into accepting fed edicts. Talking heads on either side of the issue then discuss. That's more than you get from MSNBC where the facts are presented, then a group think ensues with everyone saying how correct the other is
Congrats for catching Fox doing something right...and group think ensues there also, so lets not make ego stroking a purely MSNBC phenomena.
Gee tom, I did not mention FOX. I wonder why you drew the conclusion that I was refering to them?
I don't think Romney cares about the facts. Yes we know that Romneycare has an individual mandate and that's the same as Obamacare. But Romney has no problem simply asserting that his plan was good and the ACA is bad, must be repealed, etc.
He used to say it was unconstitutional. Now Roberts et al say it's OK, so it's just "bad policy." But if it was good policy for Massachusetts, why not for the US? --He already has to tie himself up in knots trying to make that case, so the tax vs. penalty question is just one more knot.
I've been asking this since Thursday. I laughed when that remark was uttered by Romney following the ruling. No reporter has asked anyone from Romney's campaign how they square that one.
Any sensible person, by sensible I mean not Republican, knows that it is a penalty. If the Republicans make repealing the law an issue, it will cost them the House and the Senate and likely the Presidency. Obama put money in people's pockets and they will not elect anyone wanting to take it away.
The republican party will soon come together on this talking point: It's a taxalty! Where's the birth certificate?
I've never understood Republicans trumpeting how great it is that they're enacting a complex network of fees and penalties, because it means they're not raising taxes. That's what makes this latest bind of theirs so bizarre -- is there anyone who isn't a hard-core conservative who cares whether the money they're required to pay to the government is called a tax, a fee, or a penalty? And I suspect they care only because they assume that a tax applies to everyone (which this one doesn't), but fees and penalties are targeted, so they'll only apply to other people (the same reason they're okay with racial profiling, gutting of protections for criminal suspects, etc.)
I guess that's why it's such a big deal. Contrary to their triumphant declarations about the ruling, being able to say it's a tax won't gain them any votes from people who haven't bought into their scam, but it has the potential to lose them votes from people who have.
They need to scream that "it's a tax!" so that we won't analyze how big a tax it is, or how many people it will affect.
To me this is what the Republicans should do. It's up to Obama and the Dems to explain - every day - what the details are. I don't even know what the numbers are. Ezra had a graph that made it look larger than I thought it would be.
President Obama: get out there and explain the details. You might catch some of these goofballs changing channels...
Whether or not the Penalty is a Tax is FAR more significant than a matter of "Semantics". The ONLY way Republicans can repeal ObamaCare with a simple majority in the Senate is if everyone agrees it's a tax. THAT then falls under "Reconciliation".
http://mugsysrapsheet.com/2012/07/02/sorry-right-wingers-the-health-care-penalty-is-not-a-tax/
If you don't "concede" it's a tax, they can't use Reconciliation to repeal it with a simple majority.
potato and potahto
People that support ACA = penalty
People that don't support ACA = tax
It really does't matter what it really is. The first group will vote for Obama and the second group will vote for Romney.
Nuff said.
And actually it won't matter since this is early July and the average voter will not remember any of this by August, let alone November.
What a surprise. Republicans are muddying up an issue that should be damaging to them so that the public that doesn't pay much attention just gives up trying to understand.
Whether this is brilliant or just lucky stupidity, I don't know. We can be sure of one thing: Democrats will decline to take advantage.
SCOTUS ruled it as a tax and that means Obamacare will be taxing us to oblivion.
At least in my mind, the difference between tax and penalty isn't just a matter of semantics. If it is indeed to be considered a tax, I'm assuming that may mean people or companies assessed the tax can then turn around and use that tax vis-a-vis their income taxes. Which in turn probably has federal/state revenue implications. Or maybe I'm just overthinking it.....
Winston5,
I believe your argument has merit. If not being insured is either a tax or a penalty, then the insurance itself should be considered a tax and should be fully deductable for individuals.
But it's a tax that *only* applies to those individuals who a) can afford to buy health insurance, and b) don't.
Americans especially the middle class does not want to hear the word "tax or more taxes". Usually they tend to vote out president's that raise taxes on them. Remember George Bush Sr. infamous "Read my lips, no new taxes" promise, we all know how that turned out.