Ferhnstrom: Romney Agrees With Obama, Mandate Not A Tax
Just a couple of posts below, John Marzan complained about the advice Romney was getting from Eric "Etch-a-Sketch" Fehrnstrom. This after Rupert Murdoch said that Romney needed to shake up his campaign if he wants to win. This exchange from MSNBC this morning would seem to bolster their argument:
TODD: The governor does not believe the mandate is a tax — that’s what you’re saying?
FEHRNSTROM: The governor believes what we put in place in Massachusetts was a penalty and he disagrees with the Court’s ruling that the mandate was a tax. [...]
TODD: But he agrees with the president that it is not — and he believes that you should not call the tax penalty a tax, you should call it a penalty or a fee or a fine?
FEHRNSTROM: That’s correct. But the president also needs to be held accountable for his contradictory statements. He has described it variously as a penalty and as a tax. He needs to reconcile those two very different statements.
Well, that will convince voters of the two candidates' differences, right? You can watch the whole painful thing here:
- Comment (37)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Re: Ferhnstrom: Romney Agrees With Obama, Mandate Not A Tax
Does the opinion of either matter at this point after the Supreme Court ruled it a tax?
The next step is to wait for IRS regulations which will tell accountants how they may handle the expense on tax returns.
Good luck guessing when those will come out.
Re: Ferhnstrom: Romney Agrees With Obama, Mandate Not A Tax
Well, if the Republican Party is campaigning against the largest tax increase in American history and the presidential candidate for the same party is denying it's a tax, that could be a problem. At least it points to why some people were concerned that Romney, of all Republicans, would be the standard bearer during this time in history.
Re: Ferhnstrom: Romney Agrees With Obama, Mandate Not A Tax
I just don't see how Obama can say it isn't a tax at this point. Didn't the Supreme Court just rule that it is?
This being a tax is now Romney's best talking point. Fehrnstrom seems out of step.
But maybe there is a bigger picture which really disqualifies Romney as our leader on this:
Suppose now that people paying the RomneyCare penalty in Massachusettes are also deemed to be paying a tax, not a penalty. Penalties are not deductible against Federal taxes. State taxes are deductible.
Suddenly the feds lose an amount of revenue equal to what people in Mass are paying in RomneyTax.
Jan '11
Re: Ferhnstrom: Romney Agrees With Obama, Mandate Not A Tax
We don't work on the assumption that ObamaCare's supporters plan to respect the Court's definition. All that matters is that they won. I doubt they have any intention of abiding by the labels designated by the Court.
Nowhere does it say that the executive branch must abide by the terms of the Court's ruling, once the decision is issued. If the Court doesn't expressly stop them, it doesn't matter.
And as I've said elsewhere, the Commerce Clause isn't dead. It'll be used again.
Edited on July 2, 2012 at 5:06pmRe: Ferhnstrom: Romney Agrees With Obama, Mandate Not A Tax
I'd like to see every journalist ask Obama and his spokespersons if he intends upon defying the Supreme Court by refusing to treat this as a tax.
Let's get the Constitutional crisis started.
Nov '11
Re: Ferhnstrom: Romney Agrees With Obama, Mandate Not A Tax
I don't know. Politically, I want them to hit on the tax increase, and at least he and the RNC should probably coordinate their talking points.
But it might be part of the price of Romneycare. He's defended a state-level mandate as opposed to a federal, but a state-level tax increase might be harder. I believe Romney is serious about campaigning against Obamacare, but he is going to have to do it differently than we might like in some ways. That's where we are... we have to make the best of it.
Second, on the legal merits, is it a tax? If we want to denounce Roberts for effectively rewriting the law in order to make it a tax, can we consistently attack it as a tax in the same breath?
Mar '11
Re: Ferhnstrom: Romney Agrees With Obama, Mandate Not A Tax
You never let a serious crisis go to waste. Somebody told me that.
Mar '12
Re: Ferhnstrom: Romney Agrees With Obama, Mandate Not A Tax
Mollie, you're not allowed to start off Monday's with a post like this. It's not uplifting at all. Looks like Rupert Murdoch was right!
Sep '11
Re: Ferhnstrom: Romney Agrees With Obama, Mandate Not A Tax
Ahem.
Uncle Rupert's name is spelled "Murdoch," not "Murdock."
Yours, on behalf of the Ricochet Ad Hoc Steering Committee on Properly Spelling Scots Names,
John
Mar '12
Re: Ferhnstrom: Romney Agrees With Obama, Mandate Not A Tax
As a Scot myself, I appreciate the correction. Thanks!
Re: Ferhnstrom: Romney Agrees With Obama, Mandate Not A Tax
John Murdoch: Ahem.
Uncle Rupert's name is spelled "Murdoch," not "Murdock."
Yours, on behalf of the Ricochet Ad Hoc Steering Committee on Properly Spelling Scots Names,
John · 17 minutes ago
Whoopsie! Fixed. Thank you.
Sep '10
Re: Ferhnstrom: Romney Agrees With Obama, Mandate Not A Tax
Starting to think I'll not vote for prez this fall. These idiots!
May '10
Re: Ferhnstrom: Romney Agrees With Obama, Mandate Not A Tax
Can someone explain to me why this man still has a job? Or at the very least, has a job that doesn't involve speaking to the media?
Nov '11
Re: Ferhnstrom: Romney Agrees With Obama, Mandate Not A Tax
Isn't Ferhnstrom simply agreeing with the dissenting Justices?
If Obama wants to keep arguing that it's a mandate, let him. In that case five justices voted that it's unconstitutional by his reasoning. Let him explain that one.
Edited on July 2, 2012 at 6:56pmMay '10
Re: Ferhnstrom: Romney Agrees With Obama, Mandate Not A Tax
OK, I was going to write that what Ferhnstrom stated makes no sense, but upon reflection, I'm not sure what to think, other than for Romney to consider it a tax would (1) make Obamacare Constitutional; and (2) Romneycare a tax. However, I believe Romney vetoed the penalty/tax aspect of Romneycare.
As you will recall, during the primaries, I argued that there's no real difference between (in an attempt use a neutral word) a "levy" that's a tax+a tax credit, and a penalty-connected mandate.
At this point, I feel somewhat vindicated (unfortunately?), and dizzy. But now I must ask: if Obamacare is not a mandate, what is a mandate? Does such an animal actually exist? Do you have to be thrown in jail for non-compliance for something to be a mandate?
(I will read the dissent as soon as the psycho-nausea+vertigo I have abates)
Edited on July 2, 2012 at 6:55pmOct '10
Re: Ferhnstrom: Romney Agrees With Obama, Mandate Not A Tax
<sigh> Another example of Republicans trying their best to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Mar '11
Re: Ferhnstrom: Romney Agrees With Obama, Mandate Not A Tax
DISCLAIMER: I'm going to vote for whoever the Republican nominee is--presumably Romney--no matter what. Having said that . . .
The problem the Romney camp is having is that they're learning that it's equally good to call it both a penalty and a tax depending on the circumstances, just as the Obama Administration has learned.
It's great for Romney to call it a "penalty" because he can then deny he ever raised taxes in Massachusetts. How do I know this? The above transcript is a non sequitir. They're talking about Obamacare for about a minute and then out of nowhere Fehrnstrom mentions Romneycare. Why would he mention it right then? Subconsciously I think they know Romney and Obamacare are similar.
However, I'm sure Romney wants to call it a tax because he knows politically the term, "tax," scares more people than "penalty." I mean, that's the very reason he wants to get it out there that Romneycare had a penalty, not a tax.
So, essentially, what it comes down to for Romney is this: It's a penalty if you wanna mention Romneycare. And it's a tax if you don't.
Edited on July 2, 2012 at 7:53pmFeb '12
Re: Ferhnstrom: Romney Agrees With Obama, Mandate Not A Tax
I didn't follow all of the arguments before the court as closely as some others did so I have a question. Did the Obama legal team argue at all that the mandate should be considered as a tax or did they put all of their weight behind trying to justify it under the Commerce Clause? Maybe it was some of the liberal justices who added that during questioning.
May '12
Re: Ferhnstrom: Romney Agrees With Obama, Mandate Not A Tax
I don't think the "largest tax increase in history" angle is really going to play. Not very many people are going to have to pay the mandate penalty, so when you tell most people that Obama just raised their taxes but they don't actually have to pay anything extra, they will think you're demagoguing, which you actually are. And I don't think conservatives can say that Roberts decision is garbage but then reinforce the ruling by running on the mandate as a tax increase. It's awfully inconsistent.
I do think the the bald-faced duplicity by Obama, claiming up and down that the mandate penalty wasn't a tax and then arguing before the courts that it was, is best way to make lemonade of the lemons this decision has handed us.
Edited on July 2, 2012 at 8:28pmMay '12
Re: Ferhnstrom: Romney Agrees With Obama, Mandate Not A Tax
They argued both. Their main argument was that Obamacare was constitutional under the commerce clause, the secondary argument involved the "necessary and proper" clause. The third argument, completely independent of the other two, is that the law was justified by the taxing power. No one paid much attention to the last argument, though, since no one really believed the penalty was a tax the way the law was written and the way the administration had sworn publicly that it wasn't a tax.