Romney Responds to Supreme Court Ruling: “HELP US defeat Obamacare.” (VIDEO)

A landmark day… It’s a tax!

Moments ago, speaking from Constitution Ave in Washington D.C., Governor Mitt Romney spoke out against the Supreme Court’s ruling today on the Affordable Health Care Act better known as Obamacare:

Transcript:

As you might imagine I disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision, and I agree with the dissent, what the court did not do on its last day in session, I will do on my first day if elected President of t he United States, and that is I will act to repel Obama Care. Lets be clear about what the court did and did not do. The court said that Obama care does not violate the Constitution. What they did not do was say Obama-care was a good law or its good policy, Obama care is bad policy yesterday, its bad policy today.

Obama care was bad law yesterday, it’s bad law today. Let me tell why I said that, Obama care raises taxes on the American people by approximately 500 billion dollars, Obamacare cuts medicare, cuts medicare by approximately 500 billion dollars and even with those cuts and tax increases, Obama care raises billions to our national debt and pushes obligation the oncoming generations. Obamacare also means for up to 20 million Americans they will lose the insurance they currently have, the insurance that they like and want to keep.

Obamacare is a job killer, businesses across the country have been asked what they think of Obama care, 3 quarters of those survived by the chamber of commerce said Obamacare makes it less likely for them to hire people. And perhaps most troubling of all, Obamacare puts you between the Federal government and your doctor. For all those reasons its important for us to repeal and replace Obamacare. What are some of the things we will keep in place? And must be in place for a reform, a real reform of the healthcare system. One we have to make sure people who want to keep their current insurance will be able to do so. Having 20 million people, up to that number of people, lose the insurance they want is simply unacceptable.

Number two, we’ve got to make sure that those people who have preexisting conditions know that they will be able to be insured. And they will not lose their insurance. We also have to assure that we do our very best to help each state in their efforts to assure that every American has access to affordable health care. And something that Obamacare does not do that must be done in real reform is helping lower the cost of health care and health insurance. It’s becoming prohibitively expensive.

And so this is now a time for the American people to make a choice. You can choose whether you want to have a larger and larger government more and more intrusive in your life. Separating you and your doctor. Whether you’re comfortable with more deficits. Higher debt that will be passed onto the coming generations. Whether you’re willing to have the government put in place a plan that potentially causes you to lose the insurance that you like.

Or whether instead you want to return to a time when the American people will have their own choice in health care. Where consumers will be able to make their choices as to what kind of health insurance they want. This is a time of choice for the American people. Our mission is clear. If we want to get rid of Obamacare, we’re going to have to replace President Obama.

My mission is to make sure that we do exactly that. That we return to the American people the privilege they’ve always had that lived their lives that they feel most appropriate. Where we don’t pass onto coming generations massive deficits and debt. Where we don’t have a setting where jobs are lost.

If we want good jobs and bright economic future for ourselves and for our kids, we must replace Obamacare. That is my mission. That is our work. And I’m asking the people of America to join me. If you don’t want the course that President Obama has put us on, if you want instead a course that the founders envisioned, then join me in this effort. Help us. Help us defeat Obamacare. Help us defeat the liberal agenda that makes government too big, too intrusive and is killing jobs across this country. Thank you very much.”

From The Washington Times:

The real losers today are the current members of the younger generation whose votes the Democrats continue to court even as they pile massive quantities of debt on them, assuring a dismal future. Younger voters, whether they understand it or not, will be paying for a vast governmental expansion whether they want to or not. On top of being unemployed, unable to buy a house, and unable to pay back their massive student loans, the future doesn’t look to bright for these young, idealistic voters who massively supported The One in 2008. One wonders how many of them understand the truth and the consequences of that vote. I not, they’ll be finding out shortly.

The whole Obamacare wrangle was and is a mess of considerable proportion. It was monster legislation, rammed down the collective throats of the American people who have opposed it by a significant majority from the get-go, and still do. Obamacare is proof positive that, at least for now, the country is firmly in the hands of wealthy, dismissive elitists who fully intend to make the average American pay for their world view even as these elitists take care to exempt themselves from the consequences of their actions.

The markets may have smelled what was coming from Washington this morning as stocks tanked from the moment the starting bell was rung. This seems to offer at least anecdotal proof that inside traders knew what was coming before anyone else did and acted accordingly. Pros are well aware that this decision will lead to a continuing stagnation in hiring, which in the current economic climate is the worst thing of all. Smaller employers will cease to add jobs and grow, simply to be able to remain below the threshold where they’ll be forced to comply with the now officially constitutional Obamacare legislation.

The Supreme Court has awakened a sleeping giant. Support Governor Romney. Donate here.



Obamacare Ruling by The Supreme Court - A Preview of the Impact

The Supreme Court is set to rule on the constitutionality of Obamacare any day now, although most expect that ruling to happen sometime in the end of June.

Since the ruling could happen so soon, I wanted to explore what impact the court’s ruling might have on Obama’s (or Romney’s) support. Luckily, there are really only 3 general ways that the court will rule, so we don’t have to get too complicated here.

#1) If the Supreme Court strikes down ALL of Obamacare as unconstitutional . . . .

Republicans will rejoice and Obama will suffer a major defeat. That is it, plain and simple. One commentator summarized the effect this would have on Obama by saying: 

“There is undeniable danger in the optics of an election-year health care defeat, just as there was in early 2010 when the bill teetered. Obama simply can’t allow health care to be a Jimmy Carter-in-the-desert moment, proof that he recklessly, fecklessly pushed through a doomed law at the expense of focusing on the economy and jobs.

If the entire bill is struck down, the credibility of Obama to deliver on his promise of “hope and change” will disintegrate. The American people will ask themselves “How can I trust Obama to improve my situation if his biggest domestic accomplishment turns out to be unconstitutional? How could a former professor of constitutional law err so badly by passing a huge unconstitutional law?” Needless to say, if the Supreme Court struck down the whole bill, this would be a disaster for the president. Obama’s credibility to bring about real change in America will be severely crippled.

Of course Obama could try to pick up the pieces of the disaster by decrying a “purely partisan Supreme Court,” and how he is the only candidate to attempt bold, sweeping change in health care reform, but it wouldn’t be enough. His brand would be too badly damaged.

#2) If Obamacare is upheld in its entirety . . . . 

This ruling would be a mixed bag for the president. He could claim success in reforming healthcare, something no president has done for almost 50 years. He could claim that bold, sweeping innovations was what his presidency was all about and now he is fulfilling that promise. 

However, despite the advantages of such a ruling, Obama would then be forced to defend a deeply unpopular mandate that requires all Americans purchase health insurance. A ruling that upheld Obamacare would rally conservatives and opponents of the mandate like never before in a last ditch attempt to overturn the mandate by electing Republican Mitt Romney who has vowed to repeal it. In my opinion, even if the Supreme Court upholds Obamacare, the issue will be overall negative for the president simply because it will rally the opponents so powerfully.

#3) If part of the law is struck down . . . . 

Republicans will cheer but vow to repeal the rest. Obama will sustain a heavy blow but will claim a partial victory for fixing a broken health care system. Neither side will have a clear win on the issue but I believe the Republicans will have the advantage. Republicans will claim that they fought and partially dismantled major components of the unpopular law. Obama will still be too hesitant to tout the law for fear of siding with an overall unpopular bill. 

So all-in-all, there is a good chance that no matter what the outcome, the bill is a loser for Obama. 

Interestingly, during the Supreme Court hearings on Obamacare, Romney was vindicated in his assertion that an individual mandate is unconstitutional when passed by the federal government, but it is constitutional when passed by a state government. Paul Clement, the main lawyer who worked to get rid of Obamacare’s mandate, said the following about Romney’s statewide mandate:

Clement told the court, just as Romney has told Republican primary voters, that states have the power to enact individual mandates wheras the federal government has no such authority.

“I do think the States could pass this mandate,” Clement said today in response to a question from Justice Sonia Sotomayor. “[T]he States can do it because they have a police power, and that is a fundamental difference between the States on the one hand and the limited, enumerated Federal Government on the other.”

If the Supreme Court agrees that states can enact mandates, but rules that Obama’s mandate is an unconstitutional infringement on individual liberty, then Romney will have a solid rebuttal.

Because the federal government is granted limited/”enumerated” powers by the  constitution, it has no authority to pass an individual mandate. However, nobody is arguing that states don’t have the right to institute an individual mandate because states are granted much broader “policing” and regulating powers. 

Obama’s Latest Misstatement: Gaffe or Another Window to the Soul?

UPDATE:

On my way home from work tonight I heard the following exchange between Hannity and Ann Coulter, with Ms. Coulter arguing in part what I state below: judicial activism is not a court finding a law unconstitutional, but finding new rights or failing to enforce existing constitutional rights. Often she’s a bit extreme to be taken completely at face value, but I think she’s right to point out the judicial activism that concerns the right is not what apparently concerns the left:

ORIGINAL POST:

If you thought the open mic comment to new Russian President Medvedev was pretty bad, President Obama has created some competition for himself in the gaffe department. Or was it another window to his soul?

You may have heard that Monday President Obama appeared to warn the Supreme Court regarding its pending decision on Obamacare. His comments were as follows:

I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. And I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step.

Yahoo called the remark a “challenge” to the Court. Others weren’t so kind. Among other problems with the President’s statement, you may recall that whether Obamacare was passed by a “strong majority” can be called into question. It was a purely party-line vote. But I digress.

I’m willing to assume President Obama, as a constitutional scholar, understands the concept of judicial review, and that courts overturning unconstitutional laws is not “unprecedented.” As a liberal, he may even be among the first to re-affirm that Marbury v. Madison is still good law. But the tone and chosen wording of the President’s comments caused the White House to have to defend itself from some of those “unkind” remarks yesterday. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney (the guy distributing the Obama Kool-Aid) tried to make the case the President was “clearly” referring only to commerce clause cases, and with respect to those only those of the past 80 years. Neither qualification, of course, was actually included in the President’s initial comments. When pushed as to whether the president was clarifying his remarks, Carney said “Only because a handful of people didn’t understand what he was referring to.”

Here’s a link to the video should you care to watch. Today he added that the President had been speaking in “short-hand.” I hope that flexibility is accorded both sides in campaign season. We’ll see.

The president’s statement caused Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post to write:

Obama’s assault on “an unelected group of people” stopped me cold. Because, as the former constitutional law professor certainly understands, it is the essence of our governmental system to vest in the court the ultimate power to decide the meaning of the constitution. Even if, as the president said, it means overturning “a duly constituted and passed law.”

And she makes clear she’s on his side otherwise. Click here to continue reading

What’s at Stake Tuesday, Long and Short Term

The Romance of Delegate Math

If you’re like me you find yourself looking at polling data and calculating delegate counts in your head. If Mitt takes so many delegates in DC, Maryland and Wisconsin, that puts him at a new total of X, extending his lead over Santorum by Y, and making Rick need Z percent of the future delegates to win…. Okay, maybe you’re not like me.

It may sound boring to the uninitiated, but it’s the math behind propelling the most qualified candidate in the race to his party’s nomination, step one in replacing Barack Obama.

What’s at Stake Tuesday: Long View

What Obamacare teaches us. In case you don’t think replacing Barack Obama is a big deal, reflect back on the biggest political story of this week. Okay, not the open mic incident. I’m referring to our hearing our president’s Solicitor General argue to the Supreme Court why Obamacare’s Federal mandate is constitutional. The traditionally conservative justices asked for a rationale that could possibly limit Congress’ power under the commerce clause should they accept his argument. Meanwhile, the traditionally liberal justices tried their best to supply that rationale. Based on the impressions of those reporting, the decision appears headed for a familiar 5-4 vote against the law, with the four traditional conservatives on one side, the four traditional liberals on the other, and middle-of-the-road Justice Kennedy likely voting with the conservatives. But time will tell.

Shape of the Court to come. As someone concerned about finding real limits to Congress’ power (history proving we need limits to preserve our freedom), and knowing the general police power was intended to be reserved to the states (making the difference between Federal Obamacare and state Romneycare night and day), I thank my lucky stars we had presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush to appoint the four conservative justices currently on the court. The liberal justices? Two from Clinton, two from Obama. By way of preview, the next president may have a chance to replace not only the lead conservative on the court in Scalia (currently 76 years old) and a staunch liberal on the court in Ginsburg (79), but iconic swing justice Kennedy, who has made the difference in many 5-4 decisions (currently 75 years old). In other words, who the president is matters, a lot, not just in signing and vetoing laws, but in appointing justices to the court who can protect the Constitution for a generation to come (a combined half-century now for Scalia and Kennedy).

MORE REGARDING THE SUPREME COURT AND AN ESTIMATE OF DELEGATES AWARDED TUESDAY BELOW! Click here to continue reading

Santorum & Dems Continue Claim that Romney Supported National HC Mandate, FactCheckers: Not So

This issue has been hashed over time and again. Yet Rick Santorum and the Democrats continue to state that Romney supported a health care mandate for the whole country. Rick Santorum has even gone so far as to say that “there is no difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney,” and that “if the choice was between Mitt Romney or President Obama, we might as well stay with President Obama.”

These claims about Romney’s stance on health care by Rick Santorum and the Democrats are demonstrably false. Many independent and non-partisan groups called “fact-checkers” have recently researched the truthfulness of these claims and found that Rick Santorum and the Democrats are knowingly repeating falsehoods.

Lets first talk about what the FactCheckers at the Washington Post have written recently about Santorum’s claim that “Romney supported a health care mandate for the whole country.”

The Washington Post’s main fact-checker, Glenn Kessler, concludes

In other words, it is ridiculous to claim that Romney ever supported a national mandate when he ran for president in 2008.

Mr. Kessler gave the statement “four pinocchios” which the worst rating a statement can get, a true “whopper” of a lie.

Josh Hicks of the Washington Post comes to the same conclusion when analyzing Rick Santorum’s frequent statements that Romney “supported a mandate for the whole country” saying:

There does not appear to be a single example of Romney saying “we need to force the nation to buy insurance” or anything along that line. In fact, he has said as far back as 2007 that states should decide for themselves what types of health-care policies to implement.

In addition, a 2007 New York Times article explaining Romney’s health-care plan used the headline “Romney to Pitch a State-by-State Health Insurance Plan,” noting that his approach “departs significantly from the universal health care measure that he helped forge as governor of Massachusetts.” And his campaign literature from 2008 made clear that he wanted a “federalist” approach to universal health care.

Rick Santorum needs to recognize the truth that is so obviously before him and stop repeating what is known to be untrue. Even though Santorum is in a tough spot these days by being so far behind in the delegate count, he needs to exemplify some of that “strong moral character” that he talks about so frequently and admit when he’s wrong.

[Editor’s Note: Here would be a good place to plug our RomneyCare info page. Ben (author of this post) poured many weeks of research, writing and editing into the extremely informative page. Since Santorum and others continue to (incorrectly) fault Romney for various aspects of RomneyCare we urge you to review the facts and become informed on the details.
Find it —> HERE]

Obama’s Unemployment Albatross / Romney Best as Health-care Expert / TRENDS

NOTE: See “Feelings about Mitt Romney” below the fold, at the end of this post.

Chris Wallace is one of my favorite political interviewers. He is tough and will generally stay with a line of questioning until he gets answers. Yesterday he interviewed David Plouffe, one of Obama’s senior advisers. The interview spanned a number of topics, the most important being unemployment and gasoline prices.

This video clip is over 14 minutes, but at 13 minutes, five seconds, Wallace put up a chart that shows the unemployment rate at the time three incumbent presidents lost an election “seeking another term” over the last 36 years. The implication of course being that a key reason each of these one-term-only presidents lost reelection was due to the unusually high unemployment rate.

The unemployment rate today is 8.3 percent, not including those who want to work, but who stopped looking — that the government stopped counting. Following were the unemployment rates at the time of the presidential elections:

  • Gerald Ford — 7.8%
  • Jimmy Carter — 7.5%
  • George H. W. Bush — 7.4%

The future does not look good for Mr. Obama if history is any indication!

Of course, many things factor into the ability of any incumbent president to win reelection, but the unemployment rate is a very important number and Obama knows it. You can tell by Plouffe’s demeanor and answer that the Obama Administration knows it. Top that off with high and rising gasoline prices and we have a current political climate that is worse than that of President Carter when Governor Reagan beat him with a mandate. We have seen both Gingrich and Santorum become desperate in their rhetoric; I will venture a guess that their desperation will pale in comparison to Obama’s in October and November.

Kimberly A. Strassel WSJ Op-Ed

Many editorials have emerged these past two weeks basically advising Gov. Romney to get out ahead of the opposition and provide more details to illustrate how his Massachusetts health-care plan is different from ObamaCare. In my opinion, the differences are many and very important — but I believe Gov. Romney’s lack of focus on healthcare in his speeches right now is a good strategy. He is succeeding without it and the risks associated with bringing it up are not worth it right now.

That said, Ms. Strassel makes some valid points in her Op-Ed. The first half of the piece discusses how she feels Gov. Romney’s lack of clarity in describing/defending his health-care plan against charges from Santorum and others has hurt him, but then she ends the piece by arguing Romney can turn it to his benefit (see Paul Johnson’s excellent article below to compliment this point). Strassel: Click here to continue reading

Politico Op Ed: Romneycare is an Asset, not Liability

An interesting op ed piece appeared on Politico today from Paul Goldman and Mark J. Rozell, posing the question whether “Romneycare” is an asset or liability for Mitt. They conclude the former.

The traditional analysis, which has become the sole remaining justification for a Rick Santorum candidacy, is that Mitt Romney’s being the author of Romneycare somehow disqualifies him from pointing out the flaws in Obamacare in the general election. But the op ed authors take exception to the traditional analysis:

This conservative faith is wrong, however. To the extent that attacks on President Barack Obama’s health care reform are good politics, the candidate best able to make them is Mitt Romney.

Since he orchestrated and then signed the Massachusetts health care law, Romney is uniquely qualified to lead the GOP attacks against the federal health care reform bill.

Why would Mitt be uniquely qualified?

He would be the first GOP nominee in nearly 50 years with a proven track record on health care who has been praised by Democrats — including the president — as fair and compassionate. He can’t be demonized as an out-of-touch, uncompassionate, hard-right ideologue on this issue.

Americans have been telling pollsters since 1965 that they favor Democrats over Republicans when asked whom they trust on health care issues. That was when President Lyndon B. Johnson and congressional Democrats passed the historic Medicare program — over the objections of many high-profile Republican opponents, including future President Ronald Reagan.

This political landscape meant GOP presidential nominees have regularly been put on the defensive, sometimes even demonized, on health care issues. Rick Santorum and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich are typical in this regard.

Romney is the exception.

Click here to continue reading

Illinois, Let’s Do It!

Illinois, you know the future of the country is in your hands.

The GOP All Agree: It’s Time to Replace Barack Obama

The GOP nearly unanimously agrees that our four year experiment with an inexperienced Senator at the helm has been a disaster. I read yesterday an article at Politico whose headline was “CBO: Exploding debt under Obama policies.” That article says public debt is expected (under CBO rules of prognostication) to increase from $10.1 trillion in 2011 to $18.8 trillion in 2022. For the current fiscal year:

…CBO is now projecting a shortfall of $1.3 trillion. In fiscal 2013, the deficit will still hover near the $1 trillion mark — about $977 billion. And while it will fall to 2.5 percent of GDP by 2017, it then begins to grow again to 3 percent of GDP by 2022.

With 5 more years of Barack Obama, without threat of losing a re-election bid, one can imagine how bad it could get. How long has it been since the Senate proposed a budget? How much time do we have to repeal Obamacare before the contraception controversy becomes par for the course, and the Federal government begins telling religious institutions what it must buy for its employees?

And this doesn’t even consider foreign policy.

Picking the Replacement

So our choices to replace Barack Obama are now clear. Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney.

Ron Paul.

While there’s much of Ron Paul’s philosophy on the appropriate constitutional size of government I find appealing, he won’t win an election against Barack Obama. The last two elections in which the GOP nominee was elected were decided by the slimmest of margins. I don’t believe that American citizens are ready to make the radical changes Ron Paul would advocate. And I’m not ready for his approach to foreign policy.

Newt Gingrich.

I’ve written before that while Newt Gingrich seems to be an idea machine, he doesn’t know the difference between a good one and a bad one, which is not a good trait for a president. As an attorney for executives, I have observed that some people actually get things done, and others like to pontificate and tell others what to do. I see Newt in the latter role: wanting to be the professor and tell everyone else what they should do rather than actually getting it done. That is not what I’m looking for in an commander-in-chief.

Rick Santorum.

As for Rick Santorum, there’s a lot about his conservative social stands that I like. But I disagree that Rick draws a sharper conservative contrast with Obama than Mitt Romney, that Rick is the “true conservative” in the race, or that Mitt’s having endorsed health care reform in Massachusetts is a handicap. David Axelrod, Obama’s Communications Director, doesn’t hesitate to point out the many differences between Mitt and Obama. Saying Mitt is in any way like Obama is clearly misleading. Santorum calling himself the “true conservative” is also misleading. There are serious arguments to be made that Santorum is not a fiscal conservative at all. And while he attacks Mitt on social issues (principally abortion and Romneycare), Santorum is just as much a convert to the pro-life movement as Mitt is, and Mitt has made it very, very clear that he is both pro-life and intends to repeal Obamacare. When Santorum claims he “never supported the individual mandate,” that’s not true. He supported Mitt Romney as the “true conservative” candidate in 2008, after Romneycare was adopted. Rick’s conversion on health care reform came very recently, and very opportunistically. And we should not forget that Santorum’s endorsement of liberal Arlen Specter is what allowed Obamacare to pass in the first place, since Specter cast the deciding vote. Rick’s habit of compromising his principles has already harmed our country enough.

Mitt Romney.

Meanwhile, in my mind, Mitt has a number of strengths that make him the compelling choice.

Turnaround experience.

Mitt has decades of true executive experience, something unmatched in any other candidate. Mitt has been a governor. He has been a CEO. He led the Olympic games. Mitt’s executive experience has also often been leading organizations needing a turnaround. He’s credited with saving the 2002 Olympics. He’s credited with saving Bain Consulting. He’s credited with balancing the budget in Massachusetts without raising tax rates.

Click here to continue reading

A Response to the Current Buzz Over Romney’s 2009 Op-ed on Health Care - A Liberal Buzzkill

Liberal websites like Talking Points Memo, Huffington Post have been buzzing recently about a 2009 op-ed written by Romney in USA Today. In the USA Today op-ed, Romney’s detractors allege that “Romney advocated a federal/nationwide mandate requiring citizens to buy health insurance.”

This claim has been brought up again and again by Romney’s opponents, and while we here at Mitt Romney Central are certainly grateful for the increased traffic these websites and bloggers have brought to our site, we certainly feel it necessary to set the record straight.

For those interested in reading the op-ed in question, be my guest, but before you do, you may want to read the op-ed Romney wrote for Newsweek magazine just two months prior where Romney explains much more clearly his proposals on health care.

In the Newsweek op-ed, Romney provides a much more detailed explanation about his health care plans as well as what he meant when he said “penalties” would help people purchase health insurance. The Newsweek op-ed, aptly entitled Health Care: The Answer is Unleashing Markets – Not Government, states:

The right answer for health care is to apply more market force, not less. Here’s how:

1. Get everyone insured. Help low-income households retain or purchase private insurance with a tax credit, voucher or coinsurance. Use the tens of billions we now give hospitals for free care to instead help people buy and keep their own private insurance. For the uninsured who can afford insurance but expect to be given free care at the hospital, require them to either pay for their own care or buy insurance; if they do neither, they would forgo the tax credit or lose a deduction. No more “free riders.”

Notice that Romney states quite directly what he means by “using penalties to encourage people to buy health insurance.” What Romney is saying is that those who don’t purchase health insurance lose the opportunity to gain a “tax credit” or “deduction.” In much the same way, homeowners get a tax deduction for the interest paid on their house payments, or how students can get a tax credit on certain student loans. Romney is not advocating a “mandate” of the type Obama used where people are fined for not purchasing insurance, and Romney is certainly not advocating a FEDERAL mandate of any kind if you read the next paragraph of the Newsweek op-ed which states:

6. Center reforms at the state level. Open the door to state plans designed to meet the various needs of their citizens. Before imposing a one-size-fits-all federal program, let the states serve as “the laboratories of democracy.”

How much clearer can Romney be? This op-ed, written just two months before the op-ed in question, shows that Romney wanted health care reform to be at the state level, and for states to enact tax deductions or credits as incentives for people to purchase health insurance. (Just for the record, this is exactly the same plan Ronald Reagan was looking into).

Fact-Checkers Also Support Romney

Click here to continue reading

Romney vs. Obama on Healthcare: Obama won’t know what hit him.

Our beloved MittRomneyCentral.com website is receiving lots of traffic now from several sites linking to an old Op-Ed and selectively quoting two parts of it and reading between the lines that Romney wanted a mandate to purchase health insurance at the federal level. This is patently false. I just want to link back to some posts I wrote several months back about RomneyCare in case any readers click over here to our homepage.

In Part 2 of the three part series I wrote on the issue (Part 1 and Part 3 links) I suggested how Romney could smoke Obama in a debate when ObamaCare/RomneyCare came up with the following words/ideas.

Mr. President, when we reformed Health Care in Massachusetts we spent two years working toward a consensus. We had overwhelming public opinion support, input from the entire political spectrum (From The Heritage Foundation to Ted Kennedy), and finally passed a 72 page bill with a vote of 198-2 in the state legislature . . . getting whopping majorities from Republican, Democratic, and Independent lawmakers.

Contrast that to the bill you rammed through Congress in a matter of a few weeks and foisted upon the American people . . . a 2,700 page monstrosity that we were told would have to be passed before we could know what’s in it. A bill that squeaked through Congress by the slimmest of margins (219-212; meaning that it would have failed if only four Representatives had voted differently) only after well-documented strong-arming and promised political favors (“Louisiana Purchase” and “Cornhusker Kickaback”) . . . all this with not a single Republican voting in favor of it and 34 members of your own party voting against it. A bill that is a ugly stain on the fabric of our nation both for the ends that it aims to achieve AND the means by which it became law.

Mr President, based on the current unpopularity of your bill, and, in light of the 2010 repudiation of your party at the ballot box, I think it’s clear which type of leadership the American people prefer. Leadership that is deliberate and wise, that is not in a rush to score a political victory no matter the cost, that respects their voices and works for THEIR best interests. Wouldn’t you agree?

Make sure to check them out … and, of course, check out our site’s comprehensive and accessible page on healthcare, written up by Ben.