Krauthammer to Romney: Forget about intellectual honesty and call the mandate a tax

Krauthammer says it’s a mistake for Romney to try and square a circle that even Chief Justice Roberts couldn’t square and to just call it a tax, or whatever argument he needs at the time:

I think this attempt…to be consistent and logical on the issue is a mistake. Even Chief Justice Roberts in his opinion is totally twisted in trying to decide if it’s a tax or a penalty. … Don’t worry about getting into a twist over this and forget about consistency. Use whatever end of the argument you need at the time. It’s exactly what Democrats are doing.

This is a classic case where consistency and intellectually honesty is a mistake. Simply accept what the Supreme Court has said – it’s a tax. And forget about the attack on Massachusetts. People are going to decide on Obamacare and not on what happened in Massachusetts.

Watch his full comments below:

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

    This is just all so wrong. We are screwed.

    • PVG

      The only way we are screwed is if we do not fight. Our choice is to vote for Romney. It’s not a perfect, but we must play from the hand we are dealt. If we take it personally or quit because “our” candidate isn’t running, we will end up with BO and America is lost. That is too big a price to pay for standing on principle. IMHO.

      • keyesforpres

        Agreed. What good is one’s principles if he/she allows o back in and our country is destroyed?

      • B-Funk

        Amen! I feel more feisty than ever before over this. Whatever the Chief Justice was trying to accomplish, or not, I don’t even care. Elections have consequences, as Rush always says, and it’s time that the majority of Americans gets off their duffs and smack this gov’t down where it’s supposed to be. I sense amendments coming our way too. Balanced budget, limits on congressional power, maybe even a term limit on congressmen. Who knows…

  • c4pfan

    That was Roberts that squared a circle. I already knew that Mitt would put himself in this problem to begin with and that’s why I can’t support him. However, at least he knows this ruling is wrong! I can agree with him there.

  • d1carter

    I saw this live and it seemed as if he was saying two different things. C J Roberts did say both things so maybe that what he was doing as well…?

  • CPAguy

    Mitt Romney sucks.

    I was going to vote 3rd Party or for Obama (well I have thought about…but I probably just wouldn’t vote if it came down to pulling the lever for Obama) because I could not fathom giving positive feedback to the GOP establishment for getting behind such a weak candidate…despite the enthusiasm of the Tea Party movement.

    Unfortunately, the Supreme Court made a terrible decision, and I will have to support Romney because these are desperate times.

    I will fight like hell to defeat Romney in 2016…but that is a fight for another day. Today, we must stop the Progressives/Leftists by any means necessary!

    • PVG

      Welcome aboard my friend, let’s roll!!!

    • BSScoop

      It is the nature of evil to force you between 2 horrible choices that in reality aren’t that much different. All the while fooling you into believing you are choosing hope for a better future.

      I don’t vote for leftists and I don’t vote for non-Christians. Mitt Romney fails on both accounts and I don’t vote out of desparation or weakness.

      Don’t Tread On Me

    • You and the people that liked your comment is why we have Obama in office

      Dont think you are getting away without the blame

      • Cham4Cons

        Yes, my sentiment exactly. We will rally and get this job done.

  • KenInMontana

    It strikes me as ironically humorous that when the courts decide against one side or the other, the “losing” side always cries “judicial activism”, stomps their feet, rends their clothes, gnashes their teeth and then starts screaming for the judge’s head on a platter. Had the decision or opinion gone their way the judge is held aloft as a paragon of jurisprudence.

    I don’t believe that this opinion/decision was the greatest stroke of legal genius, however it has opened up several avenues of attack that make it much easier to bring the real monster to heel. People only need to look past the trees and see the forest.

    • CPAguy

      The tax monster is the biggest problem of all. It is the primary reason we broke away from England.

      The Commerce Clause wasn’t even limited. The justices seemed to stop short of reversing the wheat farmer case…as such…nothing has changed on that end.

      Additionally, since nobody joined Roberts’ opinion on the Commerce clause (though the dissent mentioned it and Justice Thomas went to the extreme of actually adding an additional dissent.) his writings regarding it haven’t set a precedent.

      • KenInMontana

        What Roberts did, once you sift through all the chaff, is throw this monstrosity squarely back in the laps of those who are constitutionally able to do something about it, Congress. He included a gift, it only takes a simple majority of 51 votes in the Senate now to kill each and every one of the taxes imposed by it.

        • keyesforpres

          That is definitely the positive side and we must be determined to overturn this monster.

    • opinionatedhermit

      On another note: Firefighters should really never put themselves into the position of burning down the house in order to prove that a better smoke alarm was needed.

      I mean, all that smoke alarm stuff is good and all. Please, do not get me wrong. But, when push comes to shove: “You kinda’ hope that the firemen are there only to put the fire out. All that other stuff isn’t really the issue at the moment.”

      Too bad, John Roberts never got Fire Fighter training…

  • NJK

    I agree with him. MA is a non issue now, and it needs to be called what it is, a tax.

    • Cham4Cons

      Obamcare is a mandate from the commerce clause which is unconstit by 5 judges. roberts is not a legislator. It is still unconstitutional.

      (Tax is really a side issue here.)

  • anyonebutbarry2012

    This time I agree 100% with Krauthammer

    • Cham4Cons

      Why agree with him? 5 judges found Obamcare mandate on commerce clause unconstit. It was primarily legislated as a mandate under the commerce clause. They did not primarily legislate it as a tax. Roberts is not a legislator.

      The bill still is unconstitutional even though the tax part is partially true.

  • opinionatedhermit

    “Don’t worry about getting into a twist over this and forget about consistency. Use whatever end of the argument you need at the time. It’s exactly what Democrats are doing.” – Charles Krauthammer

    That is exactly the wrong advice.

    Life rarely requires you to answer a question if you don’t want to. You can even do better and answer in a way that continues to advance your position.

    But, not caring about the truth and veracity of your own statement – is exactly the wrong thing to do. Any time. Any where.


  • brendawatkins

    I’m with Krauthammer.. It was passed based on it being a TAX! If it isn’t a tax then Robert’s decision should be VOID!

    • Cham4Cons

      It was passed as a mandate by the commerce clause which was found unconstit by 5 justices. Roberts is not a legislator.

      • brendawatkins

        I guess Roberts didn’t get the memo.

  • BSScoop

    Play politics now. Forget the Constitution. The democrats do it, so should republicans. Who cares how much power congress has to tax? Be grateful of the 4 month advantage on your political opponents.

    The century long experiment with Marxian ideology must end. CK wants us to just live with it and play by their rules.

    Don’t Tread On Me

    • StrangernFiction

      Who cares how much power congress has to tax?

      I’m not sure you meant this as a question, but I’ll respond to it as it’s written — as CJ Roberts should have done.

      I care.

  • Boxofteabags

    Kruthammer, you just need to tell Romney to go set in a cornner,and be quiet, so we can carry his sorry butt.

  • A tax is a penalty on economic activity. Not all penalties are taxes (when you actually do something wrong)., mind you But all taxes are penalties.
    Politicians and their legal teams have decided on different names for taxes so they can claim it’s not a tax . Their sole purpose is to get taxes passed without an uproar from the masses.
    Taxes are a penalty, they are not gifts to you. They aren’t praise , they arent’ to better your life

    The diffence with this mandate is , it taxes you despite no economic activity and claims you will in the future so the will tax you now
    It should never made it into law, but it did because Levin and others are stuck in their made up notions of taxation

  • Conservative_Hippie

    I agree with Chuck!

  • valmak

    Forgive me if I’m late to the party, but what I heard the SC say (correct me if I’m wrong) was that as a Commerce Dept mandate it was dead in the water.. the only way it could be upheld was as a tax… Even though Obama’s lawyers said it was a tax, everyone is now denying it is a tax.. so if it’s a mandate, it’s DEAD. Make up your mind!!!

    • PapaLouie

      Obama, Pelosi, and Reid said it was not a tax to get it to pass. They knew they couldn’t get enough votes if they called it a tax increase. But after it passed, Obama’s lawyers claimed it was a tax in arguments before the court. Roberts ruled that it is not a tax in one instance but is a tax in another. He used twisted logic to achieve a political end. In doing so, he is saying that it’s okay for politicians to deceive the public and congress to get a bill passed. He is also saying that the original intent and meaning of a bill doesn’t matter. That is the most dangerous part of this ruling in the long term. It means they don’t have to make up their mind. They can believe two contradictory things at once and the Court has just ruled that it’s okay to do that. We are no longer a nation of “fixed laws”. The President and the courts can now redefine a law after the fact to mean anything they want it to.

  • PapaLouie

    “Use whatever end of the argument you need at the time. It’s exactly what Democrats are doing.”

    Krauthammer wants Romney to act just like a Democrat, which means adopting the Alinsky doctrine of the “ends justify the means”. That is exactly the wrong thing to do. Either he is leading Romney into a trap or he has learned to believe “six impossible things before breakfast.” What right would we have to criticize Democrats if we do the same contradictory things they do?

    If you agree with Roberts that the mandate is a tax, then you are also agreeing with Roberts that Obamacare is constitutional. Why do that? Four conservative justices disagree with Roberts, so why can’t Romney disagree with his ruling? Should Romney also agree that an unwritten right to privacy allows for abortion on demand because 5 justices said so in Roe V. Wade?

    • TJinNJ

      It’s a TAX cause Roberts said it was and for no other reason because anyone who followed the constitution (4 Supremes) would have thrown it out. DoorMitt doesn’t want to say TAX cause then Barry would hit him as being a BIG TAXER. DoorMitt is a Bilderberg RINO like Bush but that’s all we got…

      • PapaLouie

        Roberts can’t say it’s a tax without violating the Constitution where it says that taxes must originate in the House. The Supreme Court does not have the power to tax. To this day the Democrats in the House who passed the bill claim it is not a tax; therefore it is not a tax under the Constitution. Roberts cannot rewrite the bill to change the original intent of legislators. That violates his oath to uphold the Constitution, and for that he should be impeached. Neither we nor Romney should legitimize this unconstitutional decision by agreeing with Roberts and calling it a tax.

        • TJinNJ

          Your’re right and wrong. He violated the constitution by calling it a tax. He didn’t rewrite the bill, he changed his view. It’s just that simple. So it’s a tax because he said it was. Doesn’t matter, it’s tyranny.

  • Romney knows he’s toast on this issue. He should have known that right from the start and not tried to “buy” his way into the White House.

    I’ve been saying for months and months this won’t work with Obama and the GOP should NOT have given us such a clown like milquetoast Romney.

    WE DO still have a choice and the convention will settle it. People were either not paying attention or had their head up their butt. Lies have a way of coming back to bite you and Willard will take it hard and expose him for the kind of person he really is. The GOP will pay for this if WE demand it. Washington has to be cleaned up and the “old order” has to be thrown out. Government is evil on BOTH sides of the aisle.

    People who have “blindly” followed Fox News and lapped up everything they were telling them are guilty of listening to the “establishment.”

    Rupert Murdoch was exactly right when he said that Romney likely would NOT win. The GOP and FOX News are leading the people down the primrose path of falling off the cliff. A lot of people, myself included, have been working behind the scenes to try and get this corrected. That’s all I’m going to say.

    The RNC/GOP has violated some rules during this election and some people are calling them out on it.

    • Cham4Cons

      Murdoch said that cause they are threatening to go after him for the phone hacking. Romney will win the election.

  • CalCoolidge

    Intellectual honesty? A mandate is a mandate. The penalty for not complying with the mandate is supposedly the tax.

    • PapaLouie

      Yes, but the House did not call it a tax, they called it a penalty. Only they have the power to create a tax. Roberts and the Court do not have that authority. They should have struck down the bill as unconstitutional and sent it back to the House to pass it again as a tax. The Court cannot rewrite the bill or impose a tax under the Constitution. For doing that they should be impeached.

      • Cham4Cons

        Yes it was passed as a mandate through the commerce clause which was found unconst by 5 justices. The tax part is irrelevant. Roberts is not a legislator. It is really unconstitutional.