Posted on 07/03/2012 5:06:20 AM PDT by tsowellfan
Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign on Monday rejected a Republican attack on the Affordable Care Act, repudiating a contention made in last week’s Supreme Court decision that the law’s requirement that individuals carry medical coverage amounts to a tax.
The Romney team’s refusal to invoke the word “tax” with regard to the individual mandate puts the candidate at odds with others in his party at a moment when Republicans are attempting to capitalize on the Supreme Court’s decision, which deemed President Obama’s health-care law constitutional. Some Republican-led states are trying to thwart the legislation’s effort to cover the poor.
In an interview Monday on MSNBC, Romney campaign senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said the former Massachusetts governor “disagrees with the court’s ruling that the mandate was a tax.”
Although disappointing to conservatives, the justices’ decision contained what they regard as two silver linings: the potential to fuel political opposition to the law and a path to undermine its substance.
First, in ruling that Congress has the ability under its taxation power to fine people who choose not to have health coverage, the court undercut Obama’s credibility on how to define that provision. The president had insisted repeatedly that it is not a tax....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Do you have a link to that?
I'm having trouble fathoming this comment.
The phrase "tax increase" is toxic in a presidential campaign.
Regardless of whether its a fine, or a tax, or a mandate, shouldn't Romney shove the SCOTUS ruling down Obama's throat by using the phrase, now that they've salvaged his signature legislation by using the "tax increase" rationale?
I take that as a compliment coming from you :)
"Mr. P.C." McCain: How he wants our votes but not our introductions
ncalburt, Wednesday, February 27, 2008: "Don’t bother rationalizing with the people suffering from McCain derangement. This crowd just looks for any excuse to trash McCain."
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/25/romney-advisor-no-obamacare-repeal/
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/25/romney-advisor-come-on-obamacare-wont-ever-be-repealed-in-its-entirety/
And that is a just a quick search.
MR is running web abs calling this a tax increase
” - - - Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign on Monday rejected a Republican attack on the Affordable Care Act - - - “
What we have here is a GOP Elite-endorsed coward pretending to try to displace a Marxist Dictator in November.
Hang onto to your hat folks, as America is about to fall over the Financial Cliff!
Oops, sorry! I forgot, no politicians are talking about that yet. My bad!
Anyway, back to Romney: let us just DUMP that loser. The voters who care about the betrayal by Traitor John will remember how Romney did NOT embrace their outrage.
Romney has a great wife, great kids, great smile, and of course, great hair.
Romney’s great flaw is that he is the perfect candidate - - - - to lose again to Obama in November.
Just vote to ABSTAIN on the first ballot in Tampa. Vote, BROOM, done.
Link?
Romney sides with the minority opinion, the mandate is unconstitutional. He can still hold that either it’s a tax or it is unconstitutional.
And therein lies the poison pill; Roberts only ruled that the mandate represents a tax. He did not rule on what kind of tax it might be, nor on the constitutionality of the specific tax itself.
The challenge will now be focused on the tax. Since the kind/type of tax isn't specified in the original act, it may be as simple as a lower court simply declaring the tax as unconstitutional, because it doesn't meet any the criteria you listed.
If a court allows Congress to refine/define what kind/type of tax it is, and if Congress doesn't then act, it could also die. Or, it could rule that the tax falls within one of your criteria, but then that opens up a whole new set of challenges regarding exemptions, etc.
Roberts is either a genius for throwing this in the quagmire of tax details, or he lit the fuse for CWII. If we start to see the next series of legal challenges, I will stick with my opinion #1.
But remember folks, it’s vitally important that we vote for our socialist instead of their socialist, so get on the ball!
I just saw Gov. Christie on Fox News saying that this is not what Romney himself says about it.
But that doesn’t make any difference.
Apparently nothing will interfere with the passion of some self-proclaimed conservatives who will stop at nothing to discredit Mitt Romney and promote the candidacy of Barak Hussein Obama.
This is Washington Post b-effing-s.
It seems to me what the Romney “camp” was trying to claim (clumsily, what’s new?) is that Roberts’ corkscrewing the mandate into his opinion as a tax was preposterous.
Roberts couldn’t possibly uphold the mandate as a penalty, so he pulled an executive branch taxing authority out of his cowardly arse and validated the mandate thusly...
The Romney camp is just too “nuanced” (read: gutless) to make their point with a sharpened f’ing edge to it.
Coleman is a fool. I have no idea why they let him hang around. I know they don’t pay him.
He is the political genius who lost to washed up comic Al Franken.
I agree with everything you said and especially the above statement.
The reason for “nuance” is often used in politics to reserve the right to shake the Etch a Sketch of a particular issue at some point later in a campaign OR during one's Presidency.
Maybe, he is on the team however.
As much as I hate to agree with Mitt I don’t think its a tax either. Its a penalty. The whole thing is unconstitutional and Roberts has further undermined our national stability by coming up with his tortured opinion calling the individual mandate a tax. If you purchase something you pay a tax if you refuse to purchase it you pay a penalty. It makes you wonder about the guy’s reasoning abilities.
Roberts was doing Obama a favor. A pay back. Roberts was relieved that Obama’s executive order protected the children brought illegally to the United States. It does not just cover children from Mexico.
Nothing personal but this is the kind of post I really hate.
Do you honestly think there is no difference between Obama and Romney or are you just playing to the crowd?
I see no joy here; no optimism; no incentive to get out the vote and get rid of Obama.
Sometimes I’m beginning to wonder if Free Republic supports the Republican nominee for president or not ???
It’s a good question, isn’t it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.