WH gets unexpected backup: Romney camp says it's a penalty, not a tax

Politico ^ | 7-2-12 | DONOVAN SLACK

[TexasCajun]

Obamah's position is the Supreme Court got it wrong, the bill is not a tax!!

Where have you heard Obamah or his minons call the bill a tax?

Show me.

They don't! ...and now Romney agrees and they both will call it a 'penalty' and Romney has lost a campaign talking point about it being a tax increase.

Romney just lost a big political advantage by agreeing with Obamah that it is NOT a tax.

Do you not agree?

[LibLieSlayer]

We no longer have any say... just the illusion of them listening to us. They hate Conservatives more than they hate obama... they just want obama's power for themselves. They want us to shut up, give up our $$$$$... and just go away and vote like they demand that we vote.

LLS

[TexasCajun]

I see The Washington Times agress 100% with my take:

While Congressional Republicans have seized on the Supreme Court’s ruling that President Obama’s health care overhaul is constitutional as a tax, presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s top campaign strategist undercut that line of argument Monday, saying that the governor agrees with Mr. Obama that the law is not a tax.

[dead]

Where have you heard Obamah or his minons call the bill a tax?

Do you have trouble reading what I wrote?

I stated, "Obama's position is that the Supreme Court got it right. But they still don't want to call it a tax for political reasons, so they just won't."

I clearly stated that Obama and his people will not refer to it as a tax. Why would you ask me to prove that he does?

[reaganaut]

ROMNEY PROMISES TO REPEAL THE LAW! That’s all I need to know.

- - - - - -
What you need to know is Romney is lying. He won’t do a damn thing to repeal Obamacare.

Sorry, KG, but you are the shill.

[TexasCajun]

We're on the same page. P> Obamah & Romney might not want to call it a tax, but that's exactly what the hightest court in the land ruled.

The point being that Romney & Obamah agree that just because the SC ruled it's a tax doesn't mean it's a tax.

[dead]

Hours after the decision was announced, Romney stated he agreed with the minority opinion in the case, signed by Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Kennedy.

Almost every conservative in the country also claims to agree with that dissenting opinion.

You can argue with the political savvy of somebody on Romney's team highlighting that agreement, but Romney stated very clearly that he agrees with the minority opinion and the minority opinion clearly states that they do not agree that the penalty is a tax. Here is the relevant section:

Against the mountain of evidence that the minimum coverage requirement is what the statute calls it—a requirement—and that the penalty for its violation is what the statute calls it—a penalty—the Government brings forward the flimsiest of indications to the contrary. It notes that “[t]he minimum coverage provision amends theInternal Revenue Code to provide that a non-exempted individual . . . will owe a monetary penalty, in addition to the income tax itself,” and that “[t]he [Internal RevenueService (IRS)] will assess and collect the penalty in the same manner as assessable penalties under the Internal Revenue Code.” The manner of collection could perhaps suggest a tax if IRS penalty-collection were unheard-of or rare. It is not.

The last of the feeble arguments in favor of petitioners that we will address is the contention that what this statute repeatedly calls a penalty is in fact a tax because it contains no scienter requirement. The presence of such a requirement suggests a penalty—though one can imagine a tax imposed only on willful action; but the absence of such a requirement does not suggest a tax. Penalties for absolute-liability offenses are commonplace. And where a statute is silent as to scienter, we traditionally presume a mens rea requirement if the statute imposes a “severe penalty.” Staples v. United States, 511 U. S. 600, 618 (1994). Since we have an entire jurisprudence addressing when it is that a scienter requirement should be inferred from a penalty, it is quite illogical to suggest that a penalty is not a penalty for want of an express scienter requirement.

And the nail in the coffin is that the mandate and penalty are located in Title I of the Act, its operative core, rather than where a tax would be found—in Title IX, containing the Act’s “Revenue Provisions.” In sum, “the terms of [the] act rende[r] it unavoidable,” Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448 (1830), that Congress imposed a regulatory penalty, not a tax.

For all these reasons, to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling. Taxes have never been popular, see, e.g., Stamp Actof 1765, and in part for that reason, the Constitution requires tax increases to originate in the House of Representatives.

Obama wants to claim he agrees with the decision that declared it constitutional because it is a tax, while simultaneously insisting it is not a tax.

You can't logically simultaneously hold the position that the decision was both right and wrong on whether the penalty is a tax. Obama does, Romney doesn't.

[KansasGirl]

Who do you thin is more likely to sign a repeal passed by a Republican Congress? Obama or Romney? Those are the only choices.

I can’t wait until the day Romney signs the repeal. I am taking names of the the FReepers who can thank the rest of us for getting it done. Some prefer to help get Obama re-elected

[reaganaut]

Those are the only choices.

I can’t wait until the day Romney signs the repeal. I am taking names of the the FReepers who can thank the rest of us for getting it done. Some prefer to help get Obama re-elected

- - - - - -
No, there is another choice, vote against Both.

Don’t hold your breath, because Romney will NEVER sign a repeal - you are delusional. Romney is a ‘white and delightsome’ (to use a Book of Mormon phrase) Obama.

I’m not helping EITHER of those idiots get elected. I’m a Conservative, not a Republican. The GOP has shown REAL conservatives the door by nominating that liberal RINO, Mitt.

[xzins]

There are numerous hurdles to cross before Romney would ever even get a bill to sign to repeal ObamaCare.

Just saying “I’ll repeal the 1st day on the job!” or some such nonsense is pure sound bite, thoughtless BS. I understand the desire on Mitt’s part to have such a soundbite, but I’m just tired of that crap.

I’d prefer a politician who looked me in the eye and said, “There are a lot of pieces to fall into place to repeal any law.” That’s the truth.

First, Romney has to win. Then he has to gain a rino-proof majority in both House and Senate. After that they have to meet the requirements for a bill to be considered under reconciliation (5, I think...maybe called the “Byrd Rules” after former Sen Byrd, and they deal with proving certain facts about the economy and effects on the economy.)

Then they have to actually write a “repeal” law that isn’t really an “improvement” law, since political pressure will be great to retain things like kids can stay on parent’s policy until the kids are grandparents, that they can be covered even when on life support, and babies can be aborted up to their 3rd year of existence.

Next, it has to move through the process without being derailed by rinos, media, or liberals.

Finally, it has to signed by the flip-flopper himself.

So, who will actually sign it first: Obama or Romney? Illogical question because Obama would never sign away his own legislation. I would say, Romney, but see all the points above.

[Eye of Unk]

I have a feeling as well that the promise of absolute power that Obamataxcare offers its too tempting to repeal.

What politician would willingly walk away from the greatest opportunity of all time, to absolutely control over 300 million people, to in effect become a god.

Now if Romney had a surgical capsule of C4 placed in his skull with the condition it won’t go bang if he promises to absolutely repeal Obamataxcare then I would feel better.

Romney has all the indicators of lunging at Obamas folly for his own devices.