WSJ - Romney's Tax Confusion

[suzzer99]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...pinion_LEADTop

Romney's Tax Confusion

The candidate's response on the ObamaCare mandate reveals larger campaign problems.

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.

Mr. Romney should use the Supreme Court opinion as an opening to say that now that the mandate is defined as a tax for the purposes of the law, he will work to repeal it. This would let Mr. Romney show voters that Mr. Obama's spending ambitions are so vast that they can't be financed solely by the wealthy but will inevitably hit the middle class.

Democrats would point to the Massachusetts record, but Mr. Romney could reply that was before the Supreme Court had spoken, that he had promised Bay Staters not to raise taxes, and so now the right policy is to repeal the tax along with the rest of ObamaCare. The tragedy is that for the sake of not abandoning his faulty health-care legacy in Massachusetts, Mr. Romney is jeopardizing his chance at becoming President.

Perhaps Mr. Romney is slowly figuring this out, because in a July 4 interview he stated himself that the penalty now is a "tax" after all. But he offered no elaboration, and so the campaign looks confused in addition to being politically dumb.

This latest mistake is of a piece with the campaign's insular staff and strategy that are slowly squandering an historic opportunity. Mr. Obama is being hurt by an economic recovery that is weakening for the third time in three years. But Mr. Romney hasn't been able to take advantage, and if anything he is losing ground.

The Romney campaign thinks it can play it safe and coast to the White House by saying the economy stinks and it's Mr. Obama's fault. We're on its email list and the main daily message from the campaign is that "Obama isn't working." Thanks, guys, but Americans already know that. What they want to hear from the challenger is some understanding of why the President's policies aren't working and how Mr. Romney's policies will do better.

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign is assailing Mr. Romney as an out-of-touch rich man, and the rich man obliged by vacationing this week at his lake-side home with a jet-ski cameo. Team Obama is pounding him for Bain Capital, and until a recent ad in Ohio the Romney campaign has been slow to respond.

Team Obama is now opening up a new assault on Mr. Romney as a job outsourcer with foreign bank accounts, and if the Boston boys let that one go unanswered, they ought to be fired for malpractice.
***

All of these attacks were predictable, in particular because they go to the heart of Mr. Romney's main campaign theme—that he can create jobs as President because he is a successful businessman and manager. But candidates who live by biography typically lose by it. See President John Kerry.

The biography that voters care about is their own, and they want to know how a candidate is going to improve their future. That means offering a larger economic narrative and vision than Mr. Romney has so far provided. It means pointing out the differences with specificity on higher taxes, government-run health care, punitive regulation, and the waste of politically-driven government spending.

Mr. Romney promised Republicans he was the best man to make the case against President Obama, whom they desperately want to defeat. So far Mr. Romney is letting them down.

Ouch. When the WSJ editorial page is laying into you, and you're a conservative, that's not a good sign.

[patteeu]

For unimportant news alerts about ephemeral issues, suzzer99 is your man.

[FD]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

Yes mr Donger. And the obats think that is somehow really important

I think you might be losing touch a little if you think the WSJ editorial page are "obats."

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

And?

And as POTUS, he represents ALL of our states, not just a highly-liberal one. Sorry, I thought that was clear.

There's also a massive difference between forcing a form of socialized medicine upon every state in the union, many who don't want it, and giving it to the one state which actually wanted it that he represented as governor.

[blaise]

suzzer's another one of these clowns that claims he's "middle of the road" for some reason, but does nothing but post spastic left wing stuff.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Donger

And as POTUS, he represents ALL of our states, not just a highly-liberal one. Sorry, I thought that was clear.

There's also a massive difference between forcing a form of socialized medicine upon every state in the union, many who don't want it, and giving it to the one state which actually wanted it that he represented as governor.

Well then congrats, you've invalidated most governor's economic records when they run for the Presidency.

Romneycare, by the way, was not Romney getting backed into a corner. It was a nearly year-long slog that he had a large hand in crafting.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Well then congrats, you've invalidated most governor's economic records when they run for the Presidency.

No I haven't.

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Romneycare, by the way, was not Romney getting backed into a corner. It was a nearly year-long slog that he had a large hand in crafting.

I know. Like I said, he gave the people of MA what they wanted. Most Americans don't want Obamacare, but Obama and the Democracts forced it on them. Which is better, eh?

And, what do you think Obama is going to run on?

[Amnorix]

I just wanted to focus on this one sentence:

The Romney campaign thinks it can play it safe and coast to the White House by saying the economy stinks and it's Mr. Obama's fault. We're on its email list and the main daily message from the campaign is that "Obama isn't working." Thanks, guys, but Americans already know that. What they want to hear from the challenger is some understanding of why the President's policies aren't working and how Mr. Romney's policies will do better.

I wonder if Romney's campaign staff thinks they can follow Obama's playbook from 2008 -- just pound the current office holder (even though he wasn't running for reelection in 2008) and not clearly delineate your own positions.

That won't work for Romney, IMHO. By 2008 everyone was REALLY sick of Republicans and Bush running the show. The 2006 elections were a massive disaster for them, and those bad feelings continued through 2008.

I don't think there's nearly as much dissastifaction with Obama. I think Romney needs to have an affirmative message and explain why people should vote FOR Him, and not just AGAINST Obama.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

Its not an issue to the voter. Talk about misreading an issue. Obama dives on the spear regardless

Wow. You post new threads about things that aren't issues to most voters about 3 times a day.

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by FD

I think you might be losing touch a little if you think the WSJ editorial page are "obats."

No. I did not say they are. But the sky is full of them here. WSJ has always allowed for differing pov so this certainly is not proof the wsj sees this as terribly important

[mikey23545]

Originally Posted by Donger

And as POTUS, he represents ALL of our states, not just a highly-liberal one. Sorry, I thought that was clear.

There's also a massive difference between forcing a form of socialized medicine upon every state in the union, many who don't want it, and giving it to the one state which actually wanted it that he represented as governor.

You saying all 57 of them?

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Wow. You post new threads about things that aren't issues to most voters about 3 times a day.

Perhaps. I tend to post things i find of interest. I dont mind that others may not be intetested. Some people seem to get something from them. Others never have amy comment of value or they just do the old attack the poster with no dialog on the actual post

In this thread some of us were discussing the post and the issue and merits

What was your point?

[mikey23545]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

I just wanted to focus on this one sentence:



I wonder if Romney's campaign staff thinks they can follow Obama's playbook from 2008 -- just pound the current office holder (even though he wasn't running for reelection in 2008) and not clearly delineate your own positions.

That won't work for Romney, IMHO. By 2008 everyone was REALLY sick of Republicans and Bush running the show. The 2006 elections were a massive disaster for them, and those bad feelings continued through 2008.

I don't think there's nearly as much dissastifaction with Obama. I think Romney needs to have an affirmative message and explain why people should vote FOR Him, and not just AGAINST Obama.

How were those feelings in 2010, you know, the most recent national elections?

[suzzer99]

Originally Posted by blaise

suzzer's another one of these clowns that claims he's "middle of the road" for some reason, but does nothing but post spastic left wing stuff.

And yet in other venues I get in arguments all the time with liberals about stuff like public sector unions, food stamps, the bullet train to nowhere, etc. Just because I can call a spade a spade and say this current crop of republicans have gone completely around the bend doesn't mean I'm some knee jerk liberal. It's just there's no liberals to argue with on this forum. Well maybe one or two but you all bully them right off the front page.

This forum is just to the left of stormfront.org. You tolerate racists. 90% of the threads are just silly Obama bashing/seething rage about some issue that you wouldn't give a shit about if the right-wing echo chamber didn't decide to play it up. If you all would ever stop watching pure propaganda disguised as news you would see how completely full of shit the republicans are these days. Then maybe the country could come back into reality-land and get something done.

[suzzer99]

Originally Posted by Donger

Do you have ANY evidence that this wasn't merely a mistake?

If you have so little control over your operations that your aides fell free to say the complete opposite of a position you supposedly hold - that's just gross incompetence. Do you really believe the aide didn't get clearance from Romney first? Again - if so you aren't living in any kind of reality.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

If you have so little control over your operations that your aides fell free to say the complete opposite of a position you supposedly hold - that's just gross incompetence. Do you really believe the aide didn't get clearance from Romney first? Again - if so you aren't living in any kind of reality.

I take it that's a "No, Donger, I don't have any evidence this was anything more than a mistake." I'd suggest that you be more careful throwing around the reality insult in the future.