ObamaCare Survives…Obama & Democrats Now Own The Largest Middle-Class Tax Hike In History!



Remember that? Obama telling us all that ObamaCare is NOT a tax. But according to the deciding vote in the Supreme Court decision today, it IS a tax and the act is upheld.

Chief Justice Roberts opinion is that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause but since he believes it is a tax, and that it was within Congresses power to tax, the violation of the Commerce Clause doesn’t matter.

Welcome to Canada folks, and the ever increasing tax rates.

From the dissent:

If Congress can reach out and command even those furthest removed from an interstate market to participate in the market, then the Commerce Clause becomes a font of unlimited power, or in Hamilton’s words, “the hideous monster whose devouring jaws . . . spare neither sex nor age, nor high nor low, nor sacred nor profane.” The Federalist No. 33, p. 202 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).

Barack Obama and the Democrats now own the LARGEST MIDDLE-CLASS TAX INCREASE IN HISTORY!

Don’t forget these words. They OWN it now.

Some liberal court watcher’s are urging caution:

The rejection of the Commerce Clause and Nec. and Proper Clause should be understood as a major blow to Congress’s authority to pass social welfare laws. Using the tax code — especially in the current political environment — to promote social welfare is going to be a very chancy proposition.

In other words, Randy Barnett, David Rivkin, and the other lawyers who argued that the individual mandate was an unprecedented expansion of the Commerce Clause’s power were right. They may have lost the battle on Obamacare, but they now have some weaponry to win future battles on this issue. In a major case, the court has found the Commerce Clause indeed has some limits in a major case, and that really hasn’t happened since the New Deal court basically abandoned the traditional Constitutional reading of that clause in 1937.

Which would be good news on future cases, but not so good news now.

Either way, it moves on to Congress and repeal. The fight isn’t over by a long shot. Now taking the Senate and the White House is even more important than ever, if not than I really fear for this Republic.

Either way, ObamaCare will not work…ever:


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Roberts decided to change the definition of tax.
It now includes you being forced to buy something from a commercial entity rather then send revenue to the government. Not to mention if you fit a certain profile, you may or may not be forced to buy it. A tax? Hardly.

Larry, I know liberals like yourself need others to tell you how to think, but Conservatives aren’t like you. People like myself were against a mandate when Clinton was in office, and still are against it to this day. We don’t care what the Heritage foundation promoted or believed. They don’t speak for us, but you know that. Just another one of your elitest strawmen.

And larry, “RomneyCare” has not bent costs downwards. I know you know this. It wasn’t that long ago you were claiming it wasn’t designed or advertised to help cut costs because it had failed to do so! Telling the same lie over and over does not make it the truth.



Mitt Romney’s Death Spiral of RomneyCare

Hi Hard Right,

I don’t lie on these blogs. Sometimes I make a mistake, but I don’t lie. With regard to RomneyCare bending cost curve downward:



With regard to the Heritage Foundation, they may not be “real conservatives,” but if “real conservatives” are only those to the Right of the Heritage Foundation, conservatism is a very small tent, indeed. At least, I hope that you can concede that the Heritage Foundation doesn’t hold “socialist” or “Marxist” economic principles.

P.S. I read the two links you provided, purporting to show that RomneyCare has increased costs. They show nothing at all of the kind. Compare and contrast the quality of “data” in your two links with those in mine and there’s no comparison. Your links merely show that MA health care costs have risen, along with those in the rest of the nation. But MA had the highest health care costs in the nation before RomneyCare and now they are only 7th highest in the nation. The rate of rise in health care costs has slowed in Massachusetts, relative to pre-RomneyCare. That’s what it means to “bend the curve downward.”

RomneyCare was designed (and sold to the voters) primarily as a means to solve the problem of the uninsured. It’s succeeded spectacularly on this measure. It’s also bent the rising health care cost curve downward and it’s popular with voters, doctors, hospitals, and employers alike.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

Ummm yes, you did lie. You claimed it bent the costs downward. It did no such thing. You liberals really don’t understand economics, do you?
The rate of increase may have slowed, but costs have not gone down. THAT is bending costs downward. Again, I know you know that. Yet you accuse us of politics.
Not to mention the economy going south may have had something to do with the decrease in the rate of increase. In fact, frum’s story acknowledged such a fact. Really though, citing such disreputable sources doesn’t help your case.

Sorry larry. It didn’t bend costs down and doesn’t seem like a success at even slowing the rate of increase.


The arguments over the Constitutionality of Obamacare are not ones I care to wade into, admittedly because those more schooled on the Constitution have come down on both sides. I have a ton of respect for what Justice Roberts did today. Partly, it was self-serving: his legacy was on the line with this ruling. But he deserves all the credit in the world for showing restraint, for being the umpire he claimed to aspire toward. It’s striking to see him break ranks with his ideological allies only days after one of his colleagues disgraced himself and destroyed his own legacy with a blatant display of hacky political partisanship.

As a person who believes in personal responsibility, has worked his entire life and played by the rules, I applaud the personal mandate. But the reason I support this legislation is that I fundamentally believe a civilized society takes care of its least fortunate when they’re at their most vulnerable. Providing an avenue to health insurance to those who otherwise would have no plausible access seems to me to be a no brainer. And I really don’t have a problem with how it’s paid for. I like to think I’ve never been miserly or crass in regards to contributing my fair share to making this a better county to live in. I really wonder what magical pampered milieus they hail from, those who turn a blind eye to the concept that unaccountable suffering is the result of millions being without health care coverage. I think about people I’ve known, a man very close to me who worked his entire life, mostly without insurance, and died too young from an aortic embolism that almost certainly would have been detected in a routine annual physical. Or the electrician who was laid off and suffered a massive stroke because he couldn’t afford to see a doctor after he’d fallen on a patch of ice and broken his shoulder, and two weeks later a blood clot went to his brain. Two senseless deaths, two of millions.

First I need to correct myself. The “Titles” referenced by the dissenting opinion judges reference the Titles in the legislation, not US Code. So let me repeat what the dissenting judges noted that render any hunt/peck search by the majority opinion – in the attempt to give Congress the benefit of the doubt that it may be viewed as a tax alternatively – as moot to the constitutionality.

From pg 150 of the opinion, or about 23 pages into the dissenting opinion section:

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.

What the dissenting judges are arguing is that Congress specifically intended the mandate/penalty NOT to be a tax, but a penalty because it was not contained within the section devoted to tax revenue.

Now, to @Larry above:

It wasn’t a “stealth tax.”

Yes… it was. It was promoted by Obama/Pelosi/Reid as a penalty, and *specifically* not as a tax. That’s one aspect of stealth… or perhaps outright lies to the American public. Unfortunately, politicians lying to the American public isn’t a criminal act that is codified. Nor do I think those that do the lying intend to create a criminal act for what they engage in regularly.

Secondly, as noted above, were it promoted as a tax legislatively, it would not have appeared the bill’s Title I, but in Title IX where the tax/revenue appears. Add to that Congress specifically rejected a prior version of the bill that distinctly named it a tax for this very reason.

So much for your claim this “wasn’t a ‘stealth tax'”.

It is possible to call the individual mandate incentive whatever you want: penalty/tax/lost tax credit, but it’s the net effect which is what’s important.

There is no “incentive” for an individual, Larry. For those that have (or had) employer group insurance, it’s business as usual save for the fact that the load shift to the taxpayers will be increasing due to the anticipated Medicaid expansion, and the employer group plans are (already) fleeing in droves, leaving their employees the only option but to run thru exchanges run by the various state governments.

Thanks for that “net effect”.

Then we go to the larger issue of constitutionality of the mandate/penalty/tax itself. Judge Roberts literally had to do judicial contortionist maneuvers in order to rescue Congress from itself, in that he deliberately ignore plain Congressional intent and dug up old precedents in order to figure out if there was some way the mandate lie within Congressional power…. since the Commerce Clause was clearly a no no.

He was successful at that, at least for himself. And since that was the swing vote… or we’d be having a different discussion… that rescue under viewing it as a tax increase vs penalty is now an ugly mark in history.

There is merit to the argument between the dissenting judges, including the usually more moderate Kennedy, that not only the violation of the constitutional authority should have been the end of it, but that the judicial branch has no duty or right to clean up the mess made by Congress, or deliberately ignore their stated intent in the legislation to do so. But it is what it is, and now we all have to live with it. And that includes the Dems and the Obama admin, who are now responsible for another overt lie about this supposed “not a tax” tax increase.

INRE Mass, I find it interesting that you studiously avoid the fiscal reality of increased premiums in Mass, plus their increased dependence upon federal dollars, in order to support your “important metrics”. One goal, getting more insured, was indeed accomplished. However the larger goal of curtailing the cost of healthcare did not happen. And in fact they are more dependent upon the nation’s taxpayers than ever.

Perhaps we view “success” differently… ‘cus I see that as a failure in all aspects. And unfortunately, my only choices for the next occupant of the Oval Office is Obama I or Obama II.

something’s wrong there, JUSTICE ROBERT HAS A FUNNY SMILE,
IS there a way to check if he’s on medication?
all the judge where wearing the faces of a JUDGE, EXCEPT JUDGE ROBERT,
he had a smile of one who had a few drinks before he start his work,
a kind of smile telling, what the heck let’s get that settle one way of another,
it’s going to be fun,
we never can tell if they are of sound mind,enough to judge very important case, specially this one ,
AND ARIZONA case, also very disappointing, for GOVERNOR BREWER, she was counting on them to decide on her favor,
same as the AMERICANS counting on them, are so disapointed,
is there a way to check if they are still in sound mind?
from time to time, to make sure they are up to the demands,
too much whine can blur the mind sometimes
no one can say they feel the brightest every day
of their life, and this job demand a lot of them,
if one is not interested fully on the case, he serve to not a good decision, but of course, they would not tell on each other,

Larry: The rate of rise in health care costs has slowed in Massachusetts, relative to pre-RomneyCare. That’s what it means to “bend the curve downward.”

uh… ahem. What did I say above that you would do? Oh yes…

Oh wait… you’ll argue they didn’t go up as much as they would have, right?

This parallel universe type mumbo jumbo has got to go, Larry. It’s just horse pucky at it’s finest.

Hi Hard Right,

Here’s what you said I said:

Ummm yes, you did lie. You claimed it bent the costs downward.

Here’s what I actually said (direct quote):

3. It has, indeed, bent the health care cost curve downward, and will continue to do this in the future.

Kindly name a single jurisdiction in the USA where health care costs have gone down in the past 8 years. Health care costs are exploding everywhere — only in Massachusetts they are exploding at a slower rate than they were exploding pre-RomneyCare and the position of Massachusetts, in terms of its ranking among the states in health care costs, has gone down.

I don’t think that you understand what economists mean by the term “bending the curve downward.” The “curve” has to do with the rate of rise of costs. Bending it downward means flattening the upward slope. It’s standard economic parlance.

Hi Mata, I’m going to the gym now. Maybe back at some future time.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA


Progressives, as you apparently are, always seem to have some heart string tugging story of someone who died simply because they could not afford a simple $75.00 office visit to a local physician. And then you back it up with being part of the “caring” segment of our society and you simply don’t want anyone to suffer because others are “miserly.” But here is what you progressives never seem to get around to mentioning in your sad tales of woe about people who cannot afford a routine office visit to a general practioner.

Did those men have cell phones, Tom? Or cable TV? Did they spend their money on cigarettes and beer? Did they manage to be able to buy large screen TVs or eat steaks when others funded their health care by eating hamburger? Are you trying to convince us that a working man could not afford $75.00 to visit the doctor or make arrangements to pay that doctor out in payments?

Now to your claim of never being “miserly.” Let me ask you, do you think you currently pay your fair share or do you support higher taxation for those in your income bracket? If you support higher taxation for those in your income bracket, do you send additional money to the IRS telling the IRS you are donating that extra money to them because you believe that is your “fair” share? Do you claim every deduction allowable to simply claim no deductions in order to pay a greater “fair” share?

Now, let me tell you a couple of stories: 80 years ago, there was no Medicare, no Medicaid. Many Americans didn’t have health care insurance, yet they still managed to get medical treatment. Now, how do you explain that? And before you claim that many died, that is true, but medical science has made massive advances in the last 80 years that has contributed to the reduced death rate, not because the government is now willing to take care of some of us. Doctors still made house calls, children were treated for diseases, and there was a little thing called “charity” where the wealthy supported their local hospitals and clinics.

But all that changed with the passing of laws that said the federal government could tax us because we might one day get sick, especially in our old age, and would need medical care. So the wealthy, that the left loves to complain about, kept their money and quit contributing to charity that took care of not only the sick, but the old and the poor. The government became the new “religion” that had seen other religions, such as the Catholic Church, run the hospitals, the orphanages and the old age homes.

Now, you explain to me why my wealth will have to be taxed, and redistributed, to those who assume absolutely no personal responsibility for providing for themselves, including health insurance. Explain to me why you think we can achieve financial parity by a redistribution of wealth, and explain to me why you think the federal government can manage our health care better than we can. I want to hear your reasoning.


You are absolutely correct Mossomo. According to the Constitution, ALL tax bills have to originate from the house to be valid.

If only the Constitution mattered!

Did those men have cell phones, Tom? Or cable TV? Did they spend their money on cigarettes and beer? Did they manage to be able to buy large screen TVs or eat steaks when others funded their health care by eating hamburger? Are you trying to convince us that a working man could not afford $75.00 to visit the doctor or make arrangements to pay that doctor out in payments?

You are correct on all accounts. You obviously know them better than I do (did). So judge away! It’s what you’re good at, right? Can I add to your tale? They were also both involved (out of wedlock!) with “welfare mothers”. You know, the BLACK KIND! And as for “ne’er do welling”, they were nonpareil. They knew how to lazily suck at society’s teat, which your wizened excuse for one must have taken very personally. They were just like you think they were. So please don’t awaken whatever passes for a vestige of human decency in the empty ravaged shell of your self-righteousness. Your bluster is a sad little tent covering an angry, barren, bitter life, but at least it makes me laugh.


Wow. I had not bothered reading the rest of your post after your unforgivable insults. How idiotic. You bring up “the good ole days” when people died of polio and paid doctors in livestock and compare them favorably to today? Does your doctor take visa, mastercard and chickens? You talk about $75 doctors visits (!) without acknowledging that anything coming out of those visits could run into the tens and hundreds of thousands. “Thanks doc. Good to know I need a lung transplant. Does that cost $75 too?”. You talk about lack of personal responsibility when you’re against asking people to responsibly pay their own way by purchasing insurance (which would finally be available) rather than just show up at the emergency room. Thank you for wasting my time with this drivel.

Larry, this article also shows the claims that Romneycare was responsible for any decrease to be weak at best.


Larry: Health care costs are exploding everywhere — only in Massachusetts they are exploding at a slower rate than they were exploding pre-RomneyCare and the position of Massachusetts, in terms of its ranking among the states in health care costs, has gone down.

I’ve tried to tell you this before, Larry. When the population on Medicaid and government subsidized programs increases, effectively lowering the amount of those on private programs, the false “lower health care costs” will give the illusion of a curve down because those programs don’t payout 100% or more like the private industry is forced to do. And MA has huge enrollment increases on Medicare following Romneycare (surprise surprise)

When you get back from your work out and eventually return, you might want to read this Feb 2006 article in the Boston Globe about the $385 million in Medicaid funds that the feds agreed to continue to pay over two years for MA’s “universal healthcare plan” back at it’s passage… or aka, “the Waiver”. It’s up to $350 mil annually now…

The official Medicaid site for Mass statistics conveniently only shows from 2006 to 2008… ain’t that interesting? But even there the upward trend in the MA Medicaid rolls, prior to the economic decline, was a hefty increase. Here’s the same data for all states. Compare that to Medicaid enrollment stats and trends to the other more populous states like FL, TX, PA, dang, even CA.

Welcome to Romneycare… an increase of State funded medical service, subsidized by the feds and the nation’s taxpayers.

As of June of this year, the HHS has given MA $5 bil in Medicaid grants/stimulus funds for health care, health info technology, research and some other related social services, making them the 6th highest paid recipient of Medicaid health related stimulus funds in the nation. They came in behind NY, FL, TX, CA and PA.

As of the 2010 census, they were the 14th most populous state, and those eight larger states still don’t get the Medicaid/health related cash that MA does.

Nationwide, exacerbated by the persistent high unemployment, Medicaid enrollment shot up 5.5& in 2011, and the total Medicaid spending increase by 7.3%.

So on who’s backs is the MA universal health care funded? The nation’s taxpayers, of course. And with consumer spending – the mainstay of the US economy – down, and anticipated staying down, the boomers advancing, both Medicare and Medicaid are only positioned to get loaded down more, and again thrown on the backs of the taxpayers.

This is a vicious circle, Larry. Health care isn’t affordable, and just funding it via state nanny programs, funded by already fiscally drained taxpayers, isn’t going to cure that. MA is living proof that they are a black hole of federal funds due to their healthcare experiment. Bad enough we’re subsiding the state, let along trying to make this a national model.


Tell me, Tom, why is it whenever progressives, like yourself, cannot argue the reality of facts, you throw in the race card? But the trouble is that I am a conservative, and I understand that personal responsibility is color blind. You automatically made the assumption that I am “racist” (they were just like you think they were) when you have absolutely no knowledge of my skin color or heritage.

Yes, I bring up the “good old days” when people died of polio. But polio was not eradicated because people had health care insurance. Polio was eradicated because medical technology advanced to the point where the Salk vaccine was developed. And you see, not all people will be responsible for paying for their health care insurance through the ACA. Some, those who whine how they can’t afford it, will be given vouchers while the rest of us have to pick up their tab. Please, provide me with the part of the U.S. Constitution that says it is proper to steal from one man, at the point of the IRS gun, to give to another. Charity is not charity when it is forced. It is Marxist redistribution.

I noticed that you didn’t answer my questions about paying your “fair” share and if you claim every exemption on your taxes that you can to reduce your own tax burden. But then, I never met a progressive that didn’t. So you would be an exception, not the rule, if you don’t. And you never answered if you send the IRS more than you are legally required to do just so you will never be considered “miserly.”

If you want to pay for other’s health insurance, there is no shortage of people you can find at the welfare office who would be happy to let you do that. But keep your hand out of my pocket.

As to my doctor taking chickens, no he doesn’t take chickens, but he has been known to take heifers. And he often trades his services for the services of others like having his living room painted or having a deck built. You see, contrary to your belief, there are still doctors that practice because they want to help people, not get rich like Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.

Larry: Now that is has been found to be constitutional, the Heritage Foundation has no basis for disclaiming ownership of both RomneyCare and its direct progeny – ObamaCare.

Gosh darn.. hope you’re not holding your breath, Larry. Robert Alt, Heritage Foundation’s Director of Rule of Law Programs, has already weighed in with his SCOTUSblog brief analysis, “Twisting a statute is better than twisting the Constitution”. In addition to what solace felt from a large majority of the High Court, mercifully still recognizing that Congress has no business playing power games with the Commerce Clause, the Roberts’ contortionist “twisting” of taxes vs penalties is certainly not meeting that Heritage legal beagle’s approval.

Treating the penalty for failing to purchase insurance as a tax literally flips the statutory scheme on its head, to make it so that the cart (penalty—er, I mean tax) is the driving constitutional justification for the horse (mandate). Indeed, it is difficult to use that tax to constitutionally authorize the mandate, when the mandate applies to individuals who are not subject to the tax.

Roberts concludes that “[o]ur precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in §5000A under the taxing power, and that §5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. That is sufficient to sustain it.” In other words: good enough for government work.

Indeed, it was embarrassing for Congress with the brief starting out with a substantial opinion brief finger wagging for even daring to assume the Commerce Clause allowed them such power. But it also became further embarrassing that Roberts ending up salvaging their 3rd rate legislative construct by, as Alt puts it, “twisting a statute” into what I already described as contortionist manuevers.

As to Heritage and your above quip: I’ve told you this before… more than once… and apparently I’m going to have to remind you again. The original Heritage’s white paper lending support for a mandate came from an economist, looking at it from a dollars/sense solution, not a Constitutionality perspective. Arguing that position further is as foolish as you telling me to get a second opinion on your oncology report by wandering over to my local grocery butcher.

Hi Mata,

You are being a bit self-contradictory (I’ll get there in a moment), but, for now, I’ll happily accept your acknowledgment that ObamaCare is based on sound conservative economic principles (or, at least, non-socialist economic principles), as you acknowledge that it originated in the economic wing of the solidly conservative Heritage Foundation, and was, presumably, approved by the Heritage Foundation as a whole, until their plan was appropriated by the Obama administration, when they scurried to disown it on the basis of alleged unconstitutionality.

So the Heritage Foundation (and you) don’t accept the constitutionality of ObamaCare, despite the official determination of the Supreme Court that it was, indeed, constitutional. It would seem that a bedrock principle of the Constitution is that we all must accept the decision of the Court, when the constitutionality of a law is adjudicated.

Your position is analogous to me arguing that George W Bush was not a legitimate President, because Bush v Gore was wrongly adjudicated on a 5-4 vote.

ObamaCare IS constitutional, because SCOTUS declared that it was and SCOTUS is the official adjudicator of what is constitutional and what is not.

Or do you disagree?

To repeat: there is currently no fig leaf existing for the Heritage Foundation to deny that it was the architect of ObamaCare.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Rachel Maddow’s post-decision analysis. What America has gained, and Mitt Romney’s Obamacare problem.

Hi Greg,

My favorite video commentary thus far was that of ex-Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, on her Current TV “War Room” show:


– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

Larry, SCOTUS can declare what it wants, but it doesn’t mean they were right to do so. Do we have to live with the decision? Yes.
By your logic, the SC was right to declare blacks less of a person than a white person. So tell me, was that right and constitutional?

Larry:…. I’ll happily accept your acknowledgment that ObamaCare is based on sound conservative economic principles (or, at least, non-socialist economic principles), a…. snip… To repeat: there is currently no fig leaf existing for the Heritage Foundation to deny that it was the architect of ObamaCare.

Of course it’s a sound economic principle. Insurance risk management is widely practiced in the private world of capitalism daily. Why on earth would anyone apologize for a sound fiscal policy.

However the difference is they aren’t forcing people to buy a product… it’s voluntary participation. Thus the mandate. As SCOTUS plainly stated in more than a few pages beginning their opinion, Congress cannot force a mandate on the nation to purchase a product. But they can tax us. Altho I have to say I agree with the three dissenting judges that it’s a whole new ballgame when they can tax us on what we don’t buy… won’t that be a pile of fun in the future?

So the Heritage Foundation (and you) don’t accept the constitutionality of ObamaCare, despite the official determination of the Supreme Court that it was, indeed, constitutional.

Where did I say that? I’m just trying to straighten out your simplistic conclusions on things. And there’s no dearth of those.

First, the only aspects of the entire law addressed in today’s SCOTUS decision were four individual elements… did SCOTUS have jurisdiction, was there severability, was the individual mandate constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and was the Medicaid Expansion constitutional. In case you haven’t heard the news, it was a partial affirm and partial reversal of the lower courts:

1: No, the mandate was ruled NOT constitutional under the Commerce Clause… .which was the original argument in the lower courts. Ironically, not one of the lower courts even considered imposing their judicial remedy of fixing that problem by calling it a tax when Congress clearly did not intend it as a tax.

However because the majority decided to do that, using Robert’s old citations that “when a law can be interpreted two ways, and one of them is unconstitutional….” bit, I’ll accept their decision that the mandate is now a tax that is within Congressional power (and fear for the future when I’m taxed because I don’t buy an electric car or some other nanny green mandate). I’ll also be happy that the Commerce Clause is now pretty much off limits for this crap, at least this pig is exposed for the pig it is… sans lipstick. It’s a tax, and Pelosi/Reid/Obama raised taxes on those who could least afford it during (as he so loves to tell us) the worst economic recession since the Great Depression.

Brilliant economic leadership we’re seeing here… LOL

This, of course, returns us to the fact that is was a stealth tax and a baldfaced lie perpetrated upon the nation by a POTUS and his Congress. They outright rejected a prior bill that labeled it a tax, sold it to the public not as a tax but a penalty, wrote the legislation not as a tax but as a penalty, discussed in the back rooms that using the word “tax” was something to be avoided… then found themselves having to change their mind when the courts started giving them the heads up that they didn’t have the Commerce Clause powers they thought.

So they are not only economic dunderheads, they’re unapologetic liars without morals. Go no… who woulda thunk it.

2: No, the federal coercive action of withholding federal funds to the states is not constitutional either. Again, Roberts took the unprecedented step to advise them how to fix that. So again I accept their decision.

This makes O’healthcare, the entire bill, “constitutional” in your mind? That’s not the way the SCOTUS works, Larry. They address only the merits of the argument and specifics before them, and they only addressed the four issues in this lawsuit.

Surely you don’t think this is the only lawsuit headed towards SCOTUS INRE O’healthcare? Where ya been?

Sorry… nope. There’s a pack of them already pending in the federal courts, ranging from the IPAB to the religion/contraceptive issues.

How is it Betty Davis said it? “Fasten your seatbelts… it’s gonna be a bumpy ride.”

Now—after all the expert opinions on judicial and constitutional rulings—back to the original topic suggested by the title of the article: “ObamaCare Survives…Obama & Democrats Now Own The Largest Middle-Class Tax Hike In History!”



@Liberal1 (objectivity): back to the original topic suggested by the title of the article: “ObamaCare Survives…Obama & Democrats Now Own The Largest Middle-Class Tax Hike In History!”


So we’re back to “the meaning of “is”… is” arguments now, libzero? The problem with the ThinkProgress analysis is that it is deliberately narrow in scope – only addressing individual tax revenue contributions from those who opt to pay the penalty instead of obtaining insurance. While, for the purposes of specific debate, that can be true under that tunnel vision.. ignoring the fact that the High Court majority opinion was only referencing the revenue related to the individual mandate, and not the entire fiscal impacts of the entire bill in their decision… it is a deliberate mischaracterization in the larger context that the entire bill – and all it’s provisions – are nothing more than a huge tax hike on the middle class.

i.e. it’s continued legitimacy as a bill, in full, strikes at the heart of smaller employers.

Additionally, the legislation, as constructed, has proven to even large corporations that is is more fiscally sound to drop employer plans and pay the penalties instead. This will push those who have those plans elsewhere. Other possible ramifications in the future? With less demand for employer group plans from private insurers, there will be less business for private insurers… which can cause anything from employee layoffs to shuttering the doors.

With continued high unemployment, including even more if the insurers starting shuttering or laying off, the Medicaid rolls will expand, just as they did astronomically in MA following RomneyCare. Thus the reason for the Medicaid Expansion in the bill. The Congressional Dems and the WH knew this would be a result.

And who pays for Medicaid? The federal government, of course. And who funds the federal government? The taxpayers.

Therefore, considering not only the entire bill’s impact on businesses of all sizes, fewer employer demand for group plans from private insurers, and the additional tax burden to support the Medicaid expenses this law will cause, it is unarguably true that this is, bar none, the largest tax increase since the other two entitlement programs were passed.

I know you mean well Mata, but you’re trying to explain how the free market if affected by taxes and regulations to a liberal. If they understood the free market, we would not be having a discussion about Obamacare; there would be no Obamacare. They believe congress has spoken, and now corporations should bend over and take it. They don’t understand that this is just no going to happen, and when corporations drop their plans in favor of the penalty, they will scratch their heads in wonder. But that is what they want anyway, for everyone to move to the government exchanges. Even though we were promised, “if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan.”

Mitt Romney Racks Up 47,000 Donations Totaling Over $4.6 Million In 24 Hours After CbamaCare Decision Announced.

Allow me to paraphrase: People who don’t like ObamaCare donate over $4.6 Million in 24 hours to the man who helped invent it. Brilliant.



And you don’t understand it still, RomneyCare impacted only one State. Healthcare law is a State Right’s Issue, and even Mass is in the 26 some state Lawsuit going against TaxCare the Democrats shoved onto a Nation already burdened economicaly.

@Greg: Please provide evidence that Romney worked in conjuction with Obama to develop this tax bill.

another vet, while Romney, himself, did not work closely with this administration, two of his advisors, plus Jon Gruber (who ran economic models based on Romney’s plan) did indeed help construct O’healthcare.

What does Romney say about this?

Romney also worked closely with the late Sen. Ted Kennedy on the Massachusetts health care plan and Kennedy was the lead author of the national legislation. Kennedy had said that the Romney plan was a model for the national one.

The Romney campaign responded by pointing to comments the former governor made to Fox News’ Sean Hannity in June in which he said his plan met a state need unlike the Obama plan.

“And if I get the chance to debate President Obama, I’m looking forward to saying, ‘Thank you, Mr. President, for all the compliments you send my way. I know what they are intended to do,'” he said. “‘But I want one question for you, Mr. President. Why didn’t you call me? Why didn’t you ask me whether the Massachusetts plan was working or not? … Because I know this, Obamacare would bankrupt the nation. And Obamacare will severely impact the quality of health care for the American people. And it will be repealed.'”

So is this Romney, saying that the Mass plan is *not* working, their healthcare quality is deteriorating, and is bankrupting the State? So fuzzy.

When the GOP points fingers at Obama for raising taxes for O’healthcare, the left can legitimately point fingers at Romney doing the same exact thing in Massachusetts. Whether it’s a State or not, the only difference is the amount of jurisdiction over which he controlled.

If Romney now intends to run a campaign that admits it was a fiscal error… and it did add tons of Medicaid recipients to the MA healthcare rolls at a much higher rate that the other top Medicare recipient States, reaping them lots of federal cash paid by the rest of the nation’s taxpayers… that revelation is not going to play well for him either since it goes to the heart as to whether he was an effective and successful governor.

If Romney’s smart, he’ll just dodge the entire issue and focus on the economy (tho I fail to see how you can separate the two…). The point is, Romney has no high moral ground on this issue. In this instance, Greg is right on the money. Unfortunately, this is the guy that had the cash and support of the GOP hierarchy. And they’ve left the conservatives wide open and vulnerable to this very valid charge. I, for one, won’t be attempting to defend what I consider indefensible. It didn’t reduce the costs of healthcare in Mass, anymore than it’s national counter part will reduce the costs in the nation. But it sure was a federal money magnet.

I’m still waiting for someone in Massachussetts to figure out that Romney just got them double taxed – State and Feds – if they prefer to pay the tax instead of the insurance premium.


Whether it’s a State or not, the only difference is the amount of jurisdiction over which he controlled.

This is not completely true Mata. While I agree with you on Romney being stuck with the stigma fathering O’care, there is more of a difference than just “amount of jurisdiction.”
If a State enacts a law that you just cannot live with, you can move to another State and remain a US citizen. When the feds do it, there is nowhere to run. It is also much easier to repeal State laws. If something is not working in a State, the people can move to repeal it rather easily. No so much once a federal law has been enacted and the funding kicks in. That money is going to remain in Washington’s control forever.

Aqua, I’m aware of the benefits of sovereignty and the infinite wisdom of the Founding Fathers to emphasize the import of that sovereignty. The point about Romney not having any high moral ground is not to diminish anyone’s remedy of moving to another state, but to note that Romney preferred and imposed the same policies of health care taxation over all jurisdiction he had governance. It’s the act of supporting the soundness of the policy, not the level at which it was imposed.

I don’t buy that the policy is any more sound and effective at the State level than it is at the national level. But that is what Romney is peddling as his defense, and some are buying. As I said, Romney would be wise to completely dodge the issue. Bad policy is bad policy… no matter what level of government. It will not be to his benefit to defend it in any way.

@MataHarley: My main issue with this is that Obama pushed for and signed Obamatax, not Romney. Romneycare may have been bad, but it was a state issue. The election is a national one therefore it is about Obamatax and not Romneycare. It’s unpopular so rather than taking responsibility, Obama is blaming someone else. His continual blame game is getting quite old.

another vet, while I agree that Obama is the largest whining fingerpointer to occupy the Oval Office, in this case Obama isn’t “blaming” Romney. He’s merely pointing out, and justifiably so, a similar “tax” policy implemented by his election opponent. Certainly it’s your right and choice to give Romney a pass for Romneytax because it was a State and not the central government. I choose not to. Didn’t in 2008, and certainly won’t now. Nor is that the end of my distaste for Mitt. Personal choices and all that jazz.

This leaves me without a POTUS choice this year. No biggie. Oregon is all Obama’s anyway. Won’t effect the EC count one iota.. just the irrelevant “popular vote”.

Obama was actually pretty passive during the entire Affordable Care Act debate and negotiations. Romney was at least as active in promoting RomneyCare as Obama was in promoting ObamaCare, and probably more so. Most people give Pelosi the largest share of credit (or blame, if you prefer).

Romney had an interesting comment on whether or not the mandate is a true tax:


I think it’s interesting the way that all conservatives are obediently falling in line and talking point messaging “tax,” “tax,” “tax.”

I’d personally call it a tax — which can be avoided by securing health insurance coverage. What do you call it when the state accesses a fine for driving a car without liability insurance? Is that a tax? You can be fined again and again, for repeat violations. Can you be repeatedly fined/taxed on a yearly basis under the ACA mandate? I’d presume so, but, as I write this, I don’t know for sure.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

Larry: I’d personally call it a tax — which can be avoided by securing health insurance coverage. What do you call it when the state accesses a fine for driving a car without liability insurance? Is that a tax?

Nope… that’s a penalty. A penalty is a “punishment” for doing an unlawful act, which differs from a tax. Been there, done that in the opinion, Larry.

@MataHarley: Romney was not my first choice or even second or third. He is what we have as an alternative although I have looked at Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate (it wouldn’t be the first time I voted for them). Right now, although not perfect, Romney seems the best choice. If he dumps Obamatax, keeping the few parts that make sense, that’s all that matters. If Obama stays, we get the whole mess along with economic policies (of which this is one) that have given us an average growth rate of around 2% and a sustained unemployment rate of over 8% not to mention all the divisiveness and disregard for our laws and Constitution. I regard Romney as stop gap measure so to speak. His sign will most likely be in my front yard, not because of him so much but because of Obama. Like you, my state’s electoral votes are going to Obama anyway.

Oh well. Back to dealing with the power failure!

another vet
hope you have the power back, I guess you where in that terrible bad weather,
it is sad to think of what you and other are going through,

@ilovebeeswarzone: Thanks. It came back on at 3 in the morning. It’s going to be close to 100 the rest of the week so perfect timing.

another vet
good to know thank you,
I just heard still 500,000 people still out of it,

I’m no apologist for Romney and his Massachusetts Mistake; but there is a big difference between State laws and Federal laws. The mandate is not a winning issue for Romney, but the State’s rights issue is. I agree with you, he needs to move this from a debate on health care itself and shift the focus to State’s rights.

So, what do you guys make of this (below)? (really, just curious). Were any of you in charge of the Romney campaign, would you go along with the number one talking point of all the sub-Presidential GOP candidates and hammer away at the “biggest middle class tax increase in history?” But that puts Romney on the spot, because the RomneyCare mandate “tax” was twice as large as the ObamaCare “tax.”

A lot of conservatives (including Gingrich) warned of this. They said that ObamaCare would be the most potent campaign weapon against the President, but the Romney would single-handedly neutralize this as a campaign issue. So what should be Romney’s strategy regarding ObamaCare? He’s running away from ObamaCare as a tax increase.


TODD: It sounds like Gov. Romney though agrees that it’s not a tax. So what you just said is that Gov. Romney agrees that it’s not a tax. You guys called it a tax?

FEHRNSTROM: The governor disagreed with the ruling of the court. He agreed with the dissent written by Justice [Antonin] Scalia, which very clearly stated that the mandate was not a tax.

TODD: Okay…I think we’re talking around each other. The governor does not believe the mandate is a tax? That is what you’re saying?

FEHRNSTROM: The governor believes that 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.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Larry: So what should be Romney’s strategy regarding ObamaCare?

Follow Obama’s general campaign strategy and governance style… shuck, jive, dodge and fingerpoint, attempting to fool the masses. i.e. “Ignore than man behind the curtain!” As we have seen, it’s a well used strategy perpetrated on the masses with a high success rate. I don’t believe the liberals hold a monopoly on that tactic.

In the long run, the SCOTUS decision won’t make much of a difference in votes. The ABO group will still vote for a stale potato chip over Obama. The O’faithful will stick with their guy. So will the extreme left anti-war, socialists, Marxists and Communists. The only ones genuinely up for grabs are the former O’devotees (likely Independents) dissatisfied with his economic performance.. which may include the tax repercussions of the PPACA in it’s entirety – mandate aside.

So it’s the same ol’, same ol’ swing voters located in swing States that hold the power.

@openid.aol.com/runnswim: This election will come down to the economy and thus, that is where Romney’s main focus should be. Obamacare is just another reason that will increase turn out against Obama regardless if people view it as a tax or an unconstitutional mandate. Romneycare will have little impact because the election is a referendum on Obama, not Romney. This was a lose/lose situation for him. If it was struck down, he would have nothing to show for his “legacy” and will have wasted his first three years in office. If it was upheld, it would intensify the opposition like 2010. He has energized people to vote for Romney who may have otherwise stayed home because he is not conservative enough for them. For what is considered a victory for him, he sure doesn’t want to talk about it much because it is either the largest middle class tax in history or an unconstitutional mandate. He’s screwed either way.

No, ‘Obamacare’ isn’t ‘the largest tax increase in the history of the world’ (in one chart)

Name one bigger? Ronald Reagan’s tax increase of 1982, for one. The George H. W. Bush tax increase of 1990 is another. Each one increased taxes by a larger percentage of the GDP than the Affordable Health Care Act–which, btw, it is projected will reduce the deficit over the next decade by over $1 trillion.

Obama & Democrats Now Own The Largest Middle-Class Tax Hike In History is a flat out lie. As tax increases go, since 1951, Obamacare comes in at 10th place.

@Jason, fail on common sense but an A+ in passing on unoriginal talking points.

Ezra Klein, a chief apologist for O’healthcare, stole that talking point and graph from The Incidental Economist.

The Incidental Economist stole the same talking point and graph from Kevin Drum at Mother Jones.

Kevin Drum stole it from Josh Marshall at The Talking Points Memo.

Do any of you folks have an original thought? LOL

As for TPM’s Josh, he thinks he originated that talking point for “the Memo”. His problem is he is regurgitating Think Progress’ Travis Waldron from two days earlier.

How embarrassing….

But of course, since none of you seem to possess the skill of originality, but appear to have your ventriloquist dummy act perfected, LibZero above beat you to the punch in passing on the progressive quip of the day.

I patiently explained that this is as bogus as the day is long in my comment #74…. That data was further documented by an earlier discussion with our lib pal, Larry W (who actually can have an original thought) in my comment #64.

Here’s the summary… SCOTUS addressed *only* the revenue raised related to the individual mandate, not the entire legislation. Because that’s what SCOTUS does… they only rule on the merits of the arguments before them that are related to that specific lawsuit. That happened to include only four elements:

1: Does SCOTUS have jurisdiction
2: Are the elements they are addressing severable from the legislation
3: Is the individual mandate constitutional under the Commerce Clause
4: Is blackmailing the States over the Medicaid Expansion constitutional

What’s missing? All the tax increases on small businesses scattered throughout the rest of the legislation that is part of the “largest middle class tax hike”, but not part of the SCOTUS decision nor your graphs. How convenient is that? Very, if you’re looking for the dumb and gullible. Nor does it take into consideration all of the further debt that will be incurred on the nation for the astronomical increase in the Medicaid rolls (hence the reason they expanded it… duh). And the future of that debt as to increased taxation in order to deal with the debt the legislation is adding. Had the SCOTUS been able to evaluate the fiscal repercussions of the entire bill in that ruling, and not just the four elements, it never would have passed the taxation so onerous a burden as to destroy test.

The “meaning of ‘is”… is” type arguments may have worked for Bill Clinton, but they are not appropriate here. You and your progressive buds will have to find a dumber audience to pull off that old hat trick. I believe you’ll find kindred spirits in the “gossip game” path of sites I linked above, if you’re feeling lonely. I’m sure the DailyKOs mentality functions at that low level of curiosity and research as well. Have at it…

So much for Obama “owning the largest middle class tax hike in history:”


If Mitt Romney loses his run for the White House, a turning point will have been his decision Monday to absolve President Obama of raising taxes on the middle class. He is managing to turn the only possible silver lining in Chief Justice John Roberts’s ObamaCare salvage operation—that the mandate to buy insurance or pay a penalty is really a tax—into a second political defeat.

Appearing on MSNBC, close Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom was asked by host Chuck Todd if Mr. Romney “agrees with the president” and “believes that you shouldn’t call the tax penalty a tax, you should call it a penalty or a fee or a fine?”

“That’s correct,” Mr. Fehrnstrom replied, before attempting some hapless spin suggesting that Mr. Obama must be “held accountable” for his own “contradictory” statements on whether it is a penalty or tax. Predictably, the Obama campaign and the media blew past Mr. Fehrnstrom’s point, jumped on the tax-policy concession, and declared the health-care tax debate closed.

Assistant editorial page editor James Freeman on the GOP’s muddled message over whether the individual mandate constitutes a tax. Photo: Associated Press

For conservative optimists who think Mr. Fehrnstrom misspoke or is merely dense, his tax absolution gift to Mr. Obama was confirmed by campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul, who tried the same lame jujitsu spin. In any event, Mr. Fehrnstrom is part of the Boston coterie who are closest to Mr. Romney, and he wouldn’t say such a thing without the candidate’s approval.

In a stroke, the Romney campaign contradicted Republicans throughout the country who had used the Chief Justice’s opinion to declare accurately that Mr. Obama had raised taxes on the middle class. Three-quarters of those who will pay the mandate tax will make less than $120,000 a year, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The Romney high command has muddied the tax issue in a way that will help Mr. Obama’s claims that he is merely taxing rich folks like Mr. Romney. And it has made it that much harder for Republicans to again turn ObamaCare into the winning issue it was in 2010.

Why make such an unforced error? Because it fits with Mr. Romney’s fear of being labeled a flip-flopper, as if that is worse than confusing voters about the tax and health-care issues. Mr. Romney favored the individual mandate as part of his reform in Massachusetts, and as we’ve said from the beginning of his candidacy his failure to admit that mistake makes him less able to carry the anti-ObamaCare case to voters.

Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

Larry, been there, done that with you. The mandate tax is not the only tax in the entire legislation. The mandate tax is the only tax addressed in the four elements that SCOTUS ruled on.

You cannot ignore all the rest of the taxes, including the debt incurred on the nation for the expansion on to the Medicare rolls, for talking points purposes. But there is no denying that Romney has a problem on this issue.

Hi Mata,

What I’d like to discuss with you is the topic of “talking points.”

Firstly, this particular blog post is the mother of all talking points. “The largest middle class tax cut in history!” It’s everywhere — since the SCOTUS decision. Out of the mouth of every GOP politician and pundit. AND, the very title of the blog post on which I commented.

As a direct response to this, I thought the Wall Street Journal op-ed was very relevant. Single-handedly, Romney took the air out of the sails of this talking point.

The blog post on which I commented was specifically related to the SCOTUS decision. My own linked op-ed was directly on point to the topic of the blog post.

Along the way, you decided to expand the blog post to other issues. Expansion of Medicaid (you said “Medicare rolls,” but this was just a random typo, of the type I myself make all the time). “All the rest of the taxes.”

But I wasn’t addressing your points. It’s way too broad and nebulous. There is no agreement among professional economists, what the ultimate cost of this will be. Additionally, I have a fundamental disagreement with you concerning what’s really important about the Affordable Care Act. I think it’s WORTH increasing taxes to expand health care to the uninsured. I don’t think that you do think it’s worth it. So it’s a matter of philosophy, and I don’t want to debate philosophy. I respect your philosophy; I just don’t agree with it.

My other comment was that I really don’t like it when people avoid the argument brought forward by simply dismissing the argument as “drinking the Kool-Aid” or “you are just regurgitating talking points.”

I don’t intentionally regurgitate talking points and neither do you. And I haven’t drunk any Kool-Aid in decades.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

Larry, it will be the largest tax hike, and at the worst possible economic moment in time. And yes, that’s also a “talking point”, which I’ll get to in a minute. But my response to you was not “too broad” or “too nebulous” because the subject of the tax hike IS the fiscal impact of the PPACA in total. The rosy numbers originally given, passed on with the other lies about it being a penalty within their Commerce Clause powers, has been surfacing with some pretty ugly stuff since all this transpired. And it’s going to get worse because they based their projections on an economic recovery that isn’t happening, and won’t be happening at the rate they wanted. Time for reality… no more Commerce Clause/penalty/paid for crap smoke and mirrors.

Therefore I didn’t dismiss your argument. What I pointed out is that you are passing along the talking points… and I don’t disagree that the Republicans also have their own, such as this… without thinking about what they are portraying. You can’t play the tax numbers game using just the mandate figures save on the perpetually stupid. Because the mandate wasn’t likely to be severable from the bill, upholding the mandate as a tax left in place the entire bill and all it’s fiscal repercussions. *That* is the Republican “talking point” of the largest tax hike on the middle class”.

I’m not going to buy this spin about it being just about the mandate tax, and I’m not going to let anyone I see, attempting to play the same bogus card, do it either. The nation has already just lived thru the largest pack of lies from a sitting POTUS and Congress, and we and our grandchildren are going to be paying dearly for trusting the elected ones in Congress and the Oval Office to have integrity. There’s a reason that O’healthcare is unpopular, Larry… and that’s because it’s a fiscal nightmare.

INRE phrases. I don’t use the “kool aid” phrase.. never will. A bit too fraternity sounding for my tastes. But I don’t place “talking points” in the same category. That is just a term to describe key phrases people use as shorthand to pass along the party message. My suggestion is you separate the two in your mind, otherwise you will go mad. You simply can’t wander in here and say the same things all the media is using, and pretend you aren’t using their shorthand or talking points. If I throw the “kool aid” phrase at you, feel free to call me out on it. But “talking points” isn’t a dirty word. And I’m sure you think it’s far preferable to me telling you that you are parroting the party line’s message…. i.e. using talking points.

Lastly, Medicare rolls… as in enrollment. I’ve provided the MA increase statistics to you about their explosive trend in increased Medicaid since RomneyCare’s passage. I’ve also provided you with the same site that let you compare even more populous states that don’t have RomneyTax/RomneyCare, and how their Medicaid growth is no where close. There is a reason that Congress put in Medicaid Expansion, and attempted blackmailing the States… because they know it will load down Medicaid, just like it did in Massachusetts.

And who pays for Medicaid, Larry? Where does that cash come from?

We can’t afford Medicare. We won’t be able to afford social security soon enough. And we darn sure can’t afford the mass enrollment in Medicaid coming our way. Especially with the employment/jobs prospects looking bleak for quite some time. What boomers aren’t on Medicare, the unemployed will be on Medicaid. Just where do you think the cash is supposed to come from, since it’s not going to rein in the cost of providing medical one iota?

This link has the CBO estimates for who is going to pay the taxes.


This link has the taxes.


The middle class is being hit with a tax increase no matter how this gets spun. Obama broke his promise of not raising taxes on the middle class plain and simple. Further proof he is not some godlike person who was going to rid us of all evil but rather a typical politician who is an opportunist and not to be believed.

INRE Romney, Larry. Quite a few of us, including you, already had that discussion in comments #80 thru #94, remember? Since he’s got no high moral ground here, of course he’d like the discussion to go away. Thus sucking the wind out of the sails was an act of self preservation and diversion.

Unfortunately, that got the dander up from the GOP hierarchy, who wants to push the fiscal impact of PPACA as a campaign point. Bad news for them is they’ve got the wrong guy running to play that game.

Does any of this surprise you? Not me. I think Romney’s squirming, trying to find the middle ground because he knows he’s vulnerable to the tax accusations and dumping people on the federal health rolls himself. And the GOP hierarchy is utterly clueless to the fact they’re setting up Romney with an emblazoned bullseye on his neat, buttoned down shirt. Despite that risk, the legislation needs to be addressed as an economic issue this season… even to Romney’s possible detriment.

The GOP running Romney, in this race, at this time, and a vote in the months following a SCOTUS opinion of the mandate, could go down as one of the dumbest things in history that they’ve done as a political party. Talk about wasted opportunities and bad choices… geez. They should have been recruiting and grooming a strong economic candidate, sans the health care baggage, from the end of 2009 on.

@MataHarley: Romney will have a lot more difficult time arguing against Obamawhatever, however this it what the election will be about:


Another poll released last week showed that healthcare was the top issue for just 6% of the population. Romney himself doesn’t have to make the case for the middle class tax increase and Obama’s broken promise, others will do it for him allowing him to focus on the dismal recovery which at best has stagnated.

As for Romney and alternatives, my first choice was Perry even though he is more socially conservative than I am because I believe he had the best resume to be President. The other potential candidates out there who decided not to run leads one to ask how effective they would have been given they didn’t step up to the plate because they felt Obama was a shoo in for reelection. I’d have reservations about voting for any of them in the future should Obama win because they failed to meet the challenge this time around when they were needed.