Gov.

Romney CBS Interview - Health Care Excerpt

https://nycowa2.timeinc.com/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id...

Gov. Romney CBS Interview - Health Care Excerpt

Amanda Henneberg [AHenneberg@mittromney.com]
Sent:Wednesday, July 04, 2012 2:53 PM To: Amanda Henneberg [AHenneberg@mittromney.com]

Good$A&ernoon$and$Happy$4th! $ Just$wanted$to$make$sure$you$saw$the$below$health$care$excerpt$from$Gov.$Romneys$taped$interview$with CBS$today.$The$interview$will$air$on$CBS$tonight$and$tomorrow$morning. $ Ive$also$included$the$excerpt$of$Chief$JusHce$Roberts$opinion$that$Gov.$Romney$menHons$in$the$interview$for your$background$informaHon. $ Thanks, Amanda $ Gov.%Romney%CBS%Interview%%Health%Care%Excerpt $ JAN$CRAWFORD:$Lets$talk$about$the$law$and$whether$the$mandate$is$a$tax$because,$of$course,$the$court$said it$was$a$tax.$Congress$could$pass$this$as$part$of$its$taxing$power.$The$President$disagrees$with$that.$He$said that$its$a$penalty,$its$not$a$tax.$Republicans$across$the$country$have$seized$on$this$saying$hes$secretly$trying to$raise$taxes.$Your$senior$adviser$said$that$you$believe$that$its$not$a$tax;$that$you$agree$with$the$President that$the$mandate$is$just$a$penalty.$Why$dont$you$think$the$mandate$is$a$tax? $ GOV.$ROMNEY:$Well,$the$Supreme$Court$has$the$nal$word$and$their$nal$word$is$that$Obamacare$is$a$tax.$So its$a$tax.$They$decided$it$was$consHtuHonal.$So$it$is$a$tax$and$its$consHtuHonal.$Thats$the$nal$wordthats what$it$is.$Now,$I$agreed$with$the$dissent.$I$would$have$taken$a$dierent$course,$but$the$dissent$wasnt$the majority.$The$majority$has$rule$and$their$rule$is$nal.$It$is$a$tax. $ CRAWFORD:$So$you$believe$thatyou$would$say$that$the$mandate$now$is$a$tax? $ ROMNEY:$Well,$that$the$law$of$the$land.$The$Supreme$Court$is$the$highest$court$in$the$naHon$and$it$said$that its$a$tax,$so$its$a$tax.$Thats$what$it$is.$And$what$Id$like$to$hear$is$how$President$Obama$can$say$he$doesnt think$its$a$tax.$He$disagrees$with$the$court.$He$thinks$the$court$is$inaccurate.$If$thats$the$case,$then$he$must think$the$bill$is$unconsHtuHonal$because,$in$order$to$nd$it$consHtuHonal,$they$had$to$nd$it$a$tax.$And$by$the way,$dont$forget,$it$was$his$Solicitor$General$that$went$into$the$court$and$argued$it$was$a$tax.$And$the conclusion$of$the$court$that$its$consHtuHonal $ CRAWFORD:$Are$you$[inaudible]? $ ROMNEY:$the$conclusion$of$the$court$was$in$order$for$them$to$nd$it$consHtuHonal,$they$had$to$nd$it$was a$tax.$So$it$is$a$tax. $ CRAWFORD:$Have$you$changed$your$views$on$this?$I$mean,$do$you$now$believe$that$it$is$a$tax,$at$the$federal

1 of 3

7/4/12 6:22 PM

Gov. Romney CBS Interview - Health Care Excerpt

https://nycowa2.timeinc.com/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id...

level,$that$the$Supreme$Court$has$said$it$is$a$tax,$so$it$is$a$tax. $ ROMNEY:$Well,$I$said$that$I$agreed$with$the$dissent$and$the$dissent$made$it$very$clear$that$they$felt$it$was unconsHtuHonal,$but$the$dissent$lost.$Its$in$the$minority.$And$so$now,$the$Supreme$Court$has$spoken,$and, while$I$agreed$with$the$dissent,$thats$taken$over$by$the$fact$that$the$majority$of$the$court$said$its$a$tax$and, therefore,$it$is$a$tax.$They$have$spoken.$Theres$no$way$around$that.$You$can$try$and$say$you$wished$they$had decided$a$dierent$way,$but$they$didnt.$They$concluded$it$was$a$tax.$Thats$what$it$is$and$the$American people$know$that$President$Obama$has$broken$the$pledge$he$made.$He$said$he$wouldnt$raise$taxes$on middlebincome$Americans.$Not$only$did$he$raise$the$$500$billion$that$was$already$in$the$bill,$its$now$clear$that his$mandate$as$described$by$the$Supreme$Court$is$a$tax. $ CRAWFORD:$But$does$that$mean$that$the$mandate$in$the$state$of$Massachusefs$under$your$health$care$law also$is$a$tax?$I$mean,$you$raised$taxes$as$governor. $ ROMNEY:$Actually$the$chief$jusHce$in$his$opinion$made$it$very$clear$that$at$the$state$level,$states$have$the power$to$put$in$place$mandates.$They$dont$need$to$require$them$to$be$called$taxes$in$order$for$them$to$be consHtuHonal.$And$as$a$result,$Massachusefs$mandate$was$a$mandate,$was$a$penalty,$was$described$that way$by$the$legislature$and$by$me,$and$so$it$stays$as$it$was. $ CRAWFORD:$So$at$the$state$level$because$of$$youre$saying$the$Supreme$Court$says$thats$dierent,$that$the federal$government$$the$powers$are$dierent$between$the$states$and$the$federal$government?$Does$that make$sense$to$you? $ ROMNEY:$Just$take$a$read$of$the$opinion.$The$chief$jusHce$said$that$states$have$whats$known$as$police power,$and$states$can$implement$penalHes$and$mandates$and$so$forth$under$their$consHtuHons,$which$is what$Massachusefs$did.$But$the$federal$government$does$not$have$those$powers,$and$therefore$for$the Supreme$Court$to$reach$the$conclusion$it$did$$that$the$law$was$consHtuHonal$$they$had$to$nd$it$was$a$tax, and$they$did.$And$therefore$Obamacares$a$tax.$Like$it$or$not,$its$a$tax. $ $ On%Background:%Chief%JusEce%Roberts%Opinion % NFIB%v.%Sebelius,$Slip$Opinion$at$3b4$(Roberts,$C.J.): $ And$when$the$Bill$of$Rights$was$raHed,$it$made$express$what$the$enumeraHon$of$powers$necessarily implied:$The$powers$not$delegated$to$the$United$States$by$the$ConsHtuHon$.$.$.$are$reserved$to$the$States respecHvely,$or$to$the$people.$U.$S.$Const.,$Amdt.$10.$The$Federal$Government$has$expanded$dramaHcally over$the$past$two$centuries,$but$it$sHll$must$show$that$a$consHtuHonal$grant$of$power$authorizes$each$of$its acHons.$See,$e.g.,%United%States%v.$Comstock,$560$U.$S.$___$(2010). The%same%does%not%apply%to%the%States,%because%the%ConsEtuEon%is%not%the%source%of%their%power.%The ConsEtuEon%may%restrict%state%governmentsas%it%does,%for%example,%by%forbidding%them%to%deny%any person%the%equal%protecEon%of%the%laws.%But%where%such%prohibiEons%do%not%apply,%state%governments%do not%need%consEtuEonal%authorizaEon%to%act.%The%States%thus%can%and%do%perform%many%of%the%vital%funcEons of % modern % governmentpunishing % street % crime, % running % public % schools, % and % zoning % property % for

2 of 3

7/4/12 6:22 PM

Gov. Romney CBS Interview - Health Care Excerpt

https://nycowa2.timeinc.com/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id...

development,%to%name%but%a%feweven%though%the%ConsEtuEons%text%does%not%authorize%any%government to%do%so.%Our%cases%refer%to%this%general%power%of%governing,%possessed%by%the%States%but%not%by%the%Federal Government,%as%the%police%power.%See,$e.g.,%United%States%v.$Morrison,$529$U.$S.$598,$618619$(2000). State$sovereignty$is$not$just$an$end$in$itself:$Rather,$federalism$secures$to$ciHzens$the$liberHes$that$derive from $ the $ diusion $ of $ sovereign $ power. $ New % York % v. $ United % States, $ 505 $ U. $ S. $ 144, $ 181 $ (1992) $ (internal quotaHon$marks$omifed).$Because$the$police$power$is$controlled$by50$dierent$States$instead$of$one$naHonal sovereign,$the$facets$of$governing$that$touch$on$ciHzens$daily$lives$are$normally$administered$by$smaller governments$closer$to$the$governed.$The$Framers$thus$ensured$that$powers$which$in$the$ordinary$course$of aairs,$concern$the$lives,$liberHes,$and$properHes$of$the$people$were$held$by$governments$more$local$and more $ accountable $ than $ a $ distant $ federal $ bureaucracy. $ The $ Federalist $ No. $ 45, $ at $ 293 $ (J. $ Madison). $ The independent$power$of$the$States$also$serves$as$a$check$on$the$power$of$the$Federal$Government:$By$denying any$one$government$complete$jurisdicHon$over$all$the$concerns$of$public$life,$federalism$protects$the$liberty of$the$individual$from$arbitrary$power.$Bond%v.$United%States,$564$U.$S.$___,$___$(2011)$(slip$op.,$at$910). This$case$concerns$two$powers$that$the$ConsHtuHon$does$grant$the$Federal$Government,$but$which$must be$read$carefully$to$avoid$creaHng$a$general$federal$authority$akin$to$the$police$power.$The$ConsHtuHon authorizes$Congress$to$regulate$Commerce$with$foreign$NaHons,$and$among$the$several$States,$and$with$the Indian$Tribes.$Art.$I,$8,$cl.$3.$Our$precedents$read$that$to$mean$that$Congress$may$regulate$the$channels$of interstate$commerce,$persons$or$things$in$interstate$commerce,$and$those$acHviHes$that$substanHally aect$interstate$commerce.$Morrison,$supra,$at$609$(internal$quotaHon$marks$omifed).$The$power$over acHviHes$that$substanHally$aect$interstate$commerce$can$be$expansive.$That$power$has$been$held$to authorize$federal$regulaHon$of$such$seemingly$local$mafers$as$a$farmers$decision$to$grow$wheat$for$himself and$his$livestock,$and$a$loan$sharks$extorHonate$collecHons$from$a$neighborhood$butcher$shop.$See$Wickard v.$Filburn,$317$U.$S.$111$(1942);$Perez%v.$United%States,$402$U.$S.$146$(1971). % ###

3 of 3

7/4/12 6:22 PM