Romney told Obama to support Individual Mandate... in 2009

One of the biggest red flags here is the fact that Mitt Romney's 2009 Op-ed for the USA Today is now unavailable, except for approximately the first half of it on the Wayback Machine internet archive. Thanks to Buzzfeed, we now have access to it and it ain't kind to Governor Romney's current position about Obamacare being unconstitutional. The piece was practically written as an advice column to Barack Obama.

That advice?

Well, embrace the most unconstitutional part of Obamacare; embrace the individual mandate.

Here's the relevant excerpt of Romney's piece, h/t Red State:

Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn't have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn't cost the government a single dollar. Second, we helped pay for our new program by ending an old one — something government should do more often. The federal government sends an estimated $42 billion to hospitals that care for the poor: Use those funds instead to help the poor buy private insurance, as we did.

Again, the single most defining issue of Barack Obama's agenda in his first term was Obamacare. Romney's debate quiver will be out of arrows on this issue. Not only was his state's health care plan the blueprint for Obamacare but whenever the issue comes up, Obama will be able to snarkily say, "Tell me again, Mitt, why is my health care law unconstitutional?" Regardless of Mitt's answer, Obama can whip out the aforementioned paragraph each time Romney attempts to say it's unconstitutional. If Mitt stands by the position, Obama will be able to assert that Romneycare is unconstitutional, save for the tenth amendment argument.

Even then, Romney advocated Obama go against the Constitution... in 2009 (assuming his position now is that Obamacare is unconstitutional).

As the proverbial cherry on top, check out this montage of Mitt Romney over the last few years. Stick with it though and take note of how he says during a 2008 campaign debate that he supports mandates. Then candidate Fred Thompson calls Romney on it and said, "I didn't think you'd admit that."

h/t Hot Air:

2008 Video: Newt Insists Individual Mandate is Necessary

If there are two words that became radioactive in 2009-2010, 'individual mandate' fits the bill. It was a different story in 2008, which might help explain why Newt Gingrich gave a speech, in which he expressed a view that said everyone should be required to pay for health insurance (that's individual mandate).

At first blush, this might sound like a cogent argument. Such things are Newt's strength. People are more willing to pay their credit card bills than they are to pay for health insurance. The reason for this is that we have a culture that is being taken advantage of because people know there will be no real consequences for failing to pay for health insurance. There ARE consequences if you have a poor credit rating (mortgage crisis notwithstanding).

However, that's not the point or the solution. It's called creating a bigger problem through misdiagnosis and treating a symptom instead of the illness. The point is that the government should not have to force its citizens to buy anything. The biggest part of the problem with healthcare has been government meddling, regulation, and illegal immigration. In every case, government IS the problem, either through egregious actions (over-regulation) or inexplicable inaction (illegal immigration). What Newt is advocating for in this speech is more government intervention when the answer is less (except in the case of immigration).

Forcing people to pay for insurance is like mandating everyone pay income tax. We'll get to a point where not everyone pays while still mandating law-abiding citizens continue to do so, when they were already paying in the first place. Half of this country already doesn't pay income tax. The other half has to deal with the IRS every year, an undertaking that will become even more difficult with the implementation of an individual mandate - except for the people who already don't pay taxes.

This idea should never see the light of day. The two things that should be done right off the bat are to seal the borders and allow insurance companies to do business across state lines. This will reduce the insurance pool, increase competition and efficiency, and thereby make it more affordable for people to buy health insurance. Yeah, some government bureaucrats will have to be fired and earn a living in the real world but how is that a bad thing? They can start contributing to economy instead of living off the taxpayers while making it more difficult for those taxpayers to do so.

It might sound reasonable, Newt, but more government is NOT the answer.



Here is a memo penned by Newt in 2006 that echoes the same sentiment.

h/t Daily Caller

OBAMACARE: PAY OR GO TO JAIL

You read that one right. There's also a handwritten letter (one simple page) from Chief of staff for the Joint Committee on Taxation, Thomas Barthold, to Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.)who was seeking clarity on the matter. At issue was whether or not, under Obamacare, the IRS would be able to go after citizens who do not have healthcare coverage.

Made available on Friday the 25th, was a handwritten ONE PAGE note from Barthold to Ensign that confirmed Ensign's inquiry about. This one page says far more than the 1300 pages in HR 3200 in my opinion. Almost makes you wish that every bill passed be no more than one page and handwritten, doesn't it?


CLICK HERE to view an entire pdf, which includes additional notes at bottom of letter.

THE POLITICO reported on Thursday that Barthold had some pretty bold words for Ensign, who was calling this "individual mandate" a tax.

The remarks Thursday from the committee's chief of staff, Thomas Barthold, seems to further weaken President Barack Obama's contention last week that the individual mandate penalty, which could go as high as $1,900, is not a tax increase.

Under questioning from Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), Barthold said the IRS would "take you to court and undertake normal collection proceedings."

It would seem to me that if the IRS is going after someone for not paying them, it's a tax. If you talk to the left, to include Obama, the individual mandate is not a tax.

Now, contrast what you know to be true based on Barthold's letter with what Barack Obama said to George Stephanopolous just last week. If you don't have time to watch the entire five-plus minutes, fast forward to the three minute mark for the direct contradiction from Obama, who says the individual mandate is not a tax.



What do you call something that the IRS can throw you into jail and fine you for not paying?

George, can you hand me that dictionary?

h/t to GP for the image of the letter.

VIDEO: OBAMA HAS A JOE THE PLUMBER MOMENT

I had to watch the part in question twice just to make sure I got it right. The money lines come toward the end when Obama dismisses Merriam-Webster's definition of a word that he apparently thinks means something else - that word is, "tax". But start paying close attention at the 1:00 mark.

The underlying theme of this exchange is what I found interesting. George Stephanopoulos' question is about whether or not mandating that every person get health insurance would be a tax. In "Obama-speak", a tax is something you do but rarely admit to, which may be why he expresses disagreement with Merriam-Webster when he's calling for one.

In defense of his insistence that everyone should have health insurance, Obama says,

"We're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you."

Uh, whatever happened to,

"When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody"?

It would seem a bit inconsistent until you peel back enough layers. Obama told Joe the Plumber he wanted income redistribution. What he told Stephanopoulous is that he doesn't want income re-distribution while advocating a mandate that says everyone will have to pay into the system. The only thing missing there is the distribution part.

Obviously, he's learning that the majority of the American public sides with the fundamental belief expressed by JTP last year. Instead of heeding that advice, he appears to be trying to leverage it in order to impose the individual mandate (tax) while championing individual accountability.

On its face, Obama's analogy using car insurance is valid (everyone is required to have auto insurance so everyone should be required to have health insurance). However, two facts render it invalid.

One: he's saying that if you can't afford health insurance, you won't be penalized because it would be "piling on". As that relates to his auto insurance analogy, people who can't afford to insure their vehicle would still be allowed to drive.

Two: At least for now, the auto insurance industry is a private sector animal. You either buy insurance and drive or you don't. To use that industry in a comparison when you're arguring for a government option is apples and oranges.

The implication here is that everyone needs to be accountable not to themselves but to the government.

Be sure to watch all the way to the end as Obama gives Merriam-Webster the big smackdown. Oh, and if you run the Merriam-Webster website, don't be surprised if you get a call about the verbiage you use in your definitions.



h/t to GATEWAY PUNDIT