Well, SCOTUS really threw the Romney camp a curve ball by upholding the individual mandate on the basis that it is a tax.
See, Romney's very similar health care bill in Massachusetts also has the individual mandate with penalty. And at the time he insisted that it was a penalty, not a tax. And he still does.
He's been cagey since last Monday's decision was announced, saying he "agreed with the dissenters" that the mandate was unconstitutional; and he disagreed with the majority that it is a tax. Well, at least that was consistent with previous statements.
But then one of his main advisers yesterday said, "It is a penalty, not a tax." OK, that also seemed consistent with his boss's prior position.
Then yesterday Romney says, "It is a tax." Confused? Don't be. Wait for the explanation, which is too clever by far.
Even the Wall Street Journal this morning says that Romney "is squandering an historic opportunity" by his confused response to the health care ruling that it is a tax.
Romey tried to be clever -- and have it both ways. But people didn't seem to get it (like all his jokes; they are lame). He tried to finesse the issue by saying: Yes, I know it is a penalty; but the SCOTUS majority says it is a tax. So that makes it official. It is a tax.
Notice, he's not saying he has changed his mind; just says we have to accept SCOTUS's ruling. He was trying, apparently to avoid doing a flip-flop on this, but nobody sees it that way. The end result is that he and his campaign just look confused.
Whew. Is this the man we want to answer the red phone at 3:00 am? What do you think, Madame Secretary of State?
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Frankly, the news media seem to be egregiously playing up the confusion. Nobody is really confused about this.
ReplyDeleteHere's what I understand.
1. Obama and his campaign say that it is "a penalty administered through the tax code." That is right. The penalty will be part of your income tax return and paid to the IRS. If you do not pay it, it becomes part of what you owe the IRS. There are no criminal charges for not paying it.
It is not a tax in the sense that it is imposed on everyone. It sort of like the inverse of the ad valorum we pay on our cars: in this case we pay it when we refuse to buy something instead of when we do buy something.
But common sense does seem to favor calling it a penalty.
And the Obama team insists that it is a penalty, not a tax -- although the Solicitor General did agree, under insistent questioning from Scalia at the hearings, that it could be justified under the power of taxation in the constitution. But that was not the primary justification they used. They preferred to use the Commerce Clause.
2. I think Romney's position is essentially the same. He's trying not to call it a tax -- because then he has to differentiate if from his own mandate penalty in Massachusetts.
But at the same time, he wants to call it a tax so he can use it as a political weapon against Obama -- saying it's a tax increase. This is probably the reason the Obama team didn't want to call it a tax to start with: because it would be used as a political weapon.
Here's a time when it would really be helpful if the media would go for clarity instead of confusion and the blame game.