Romney Spokesperson Touts Massachusetts’ Individual Mandate

By Igor Volsky/Think Progress

Mitt Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul appeared on Fox News Wednesday morning to criticize a controversial Priorities USA ad, which implies that the former Bain Capital executive is to blame for a woman’s death after her husband was laid off by the company. But in absolving Romney of responsibility, Saul awkwardly embraced the individual mandate and other provisions in the Massachusetts health care law that Romney has pledged to repeal for the nation as part of his attack on Obamacare.

Saul insisted that Romney was not in charge of Bain when the woman lost her job and employer-sponsored health insurance coverage — and died from cancer years later — but suggested that she would have been eligible for government-subsidized insurance under Romneycare:

SAUL: To that point, you know, if people had been in Massachusetts under Governor Romney’s health care plan, they would have had health care. There are a lot of people losing their jobs and their health care in President Obama’s economy.

Fox Bashes Insurance Mandate As Middle-Class Tax Hike -- Despite Years Of Demanding Tax Hikes On Working Americans

From Media Matters Research Department:

Fox News has spent years complaining that roughly half of all Americans "don't pay taxes" and calling for tax hikes on working Americans. Now Fox is decrying the insurance mandate in the Affordable Care Act as a tax hike on the middle class -- even though it will affect only a small amount of people.

First, Fox Deplored That Half Of Americans "Don't Pay Taxes"

Sean Hannity: "50 Percent Of Americans Don't Pay Taxes." Fox News host Sean Hannity claimed that 50 percent of Americans "don't pay taxes" while discussing tax breaks with his panel:

HANNITY: Fifty percent of Americans don't pay taxes. The 50 percent that do get a baseball bat from the head from liberals like Bob [Beckel]. [Fox News, Hannity, 7/18/11, via Media Matters]

Neil Cavuto: "More than Half Of American Households ... Do Not Pay Any Taxes At All." During the July 27 edition of Your World, host Neil Cavuto claimed that "the rich already pay a lot in taxes" and said that "more than half of American households ... do not pay any taxes at all." He then asked, "Is that fair?" [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 7/27/11, via Media Matters]

Brian Kilmeade: "51 Percent Of The Country Isn't Paying Any Taxes At All." On Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade claimed that "51 percent of the country isn't paying any taxes at all. And you have the people who are paying the bulk of the taxes being called out for not paying more than they're currently paying." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 7/26/11, via Media Matters]

For the truth about Fox's false claims that half of Americans don't pay any taxes at all, click here.

Then, Fox Repeatedly Demanded Tax Hikes For Working Americans

Steve Doocy: Are People "Who Don't Pay Taxes" Going To "Have To Pay Something?" Discussing percentage of overall taxes paid by Americans, Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy claimed it would be more fair if lower-income Americans saw their taxes increase:

DOOCY: The top 25 percent of people in this country income-wise, they pay 86 percent of all income taxes. And so, when the president of the United States says everybody's got to chip in, is he talking about all those people who don't pay taxes currently? Gretchen's absolutely right, 51 percent don't pay federal income tax. Sure, you might pay some different taxes, state taxes, payroll, Social Security, Medicare, stuff like that. But, 51 percent don't pay federal taxes. Going forward, if we're going to make things fairer, are people who currently don't pay taxes -- will they have to pay something? [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 8/3/11, via Media Matters]

Cavuto: Working Americans Should Put "More Skin In The Game." On his Fox News show, Neil Cavuto suggested that Americans that pay little in taxes need to put "more skin in the game":

CAVUTO: It's more than that. What bothers me most about this, maybe because, as I said, I am FOX's resident nerd and I cover this sort of stuff. I did cover Ronald Reagan and the tax revolution closely. I guess that bespeaks both my age and my nerdiness and how long track it is.

But one of the things that I cannot stress enough to folks is this is not a right or left issue to me. This is a right or wrong issue that Ronald Reagan trying to address the idea that everyone have skin in the game, and that if you were either very poor and trying to dodge taxes or you were very rich and trying to dodge taxes, there should be nothing in our tax code that would allow that to happen.

And that is what he wanted to eradicate in 1985 and 1986. Now, I think it is worth pointing out that this president has not pointed out that talking about putting more skin in the game, half the filers in this country are not filing at all, because they don't owe any federal income taxes at all. [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 4/12/12, via Nexis]

Doocy: "Shared Sacrifice" Means Expanding Taxpayer Base To Those Who Don't Pay "Federal Taxes" Speaking to National Economic Council director Gene Sperling, Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy suggested that shared sacrifice really means expanding the taxpayer base so that lower-income Americans pay more:

DOOCY: But Mr. Sperling, 51 percent of the country doesn't pay any federal taxes. Maybe shared sacrifice is you make the taxpayer base expand a bit. [Fox News, Fox & Friends,8/1/11 via Media Matters]

Gretchen Carlson: Should Those Who Don't Pay Federal Income Tax "Start Paying At Least Something." While discussing President Obama's State of the Union address, Fox & Friends co-host Gretchen Carlson asked if being fair means that those not earning enough to pay federal income tax should pay more in taxes:

CARLSON: And by the way, with the fair-share argument. Forty-seven percent of Americans don't pay federal income tax.

[...]

CARLSON: But that is also part of the fair share. So, if we're going to be fair to everyone, should those people then start paying at least something?

DOOCY: Kick in a buck. Kick in something. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 1/25/12 via Media Matters]

Now, Fox Feigns Outrage Over A "Massive New Tax"

Todd Starnes: Supreme Court Ruling "Will Force A Massive New Tax On The American People." During the June 28 edition of his "Fox News and Commentary" radio segment, Fox News Radio's Todd Starnes claimed that the Supreme Court ruling "jeopardizes religious liberty" and "will force a massive new tax on the American people." [FoxNews.com, 6/28/12]

Jim Pinkerton: ACA Is "The Biggest Tax Increase In The History Of The Universe." On the June 30 edition of Fox News Watch, Fox guest James Pinkerton cited right-wing columnists to claim Chief Justice John Roberts "has now declared this to be the giant -- the biggest tax increase in the history of the universe, and Obama has to wear it." [Fox News, Fox News Watch, 6/30/12, via Media Matters]

Kimberly Guilfoyle: Health Care Law Is A "Tremendous Tax Burden" On The Middle Class. On Hannity, co-host of Fox News show The Five Kimberly Guilfoyle claimed that the penalty for not having insurance would be a "tremendous tax burden":

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE: [Obama] is not even listening or responding to the will of the people. He doesn't seem to care at all that, in fact, it is going to be a tax. The high court said it's a tax, and that it's going to be a tremendous tax burden on [the] middle class of America. [Fox News, Hannity, 7/6/12, via Media Matters]

But Very Few Would Actually Face A Fine For Not Having Health Insurance

Urban Institute: Individual Mandate Would Not Affect 94 Percent Of Americans. A March 2012 report by the nonpartisan Urban Institute found that 94 percent of Americans "would not face a requirement to newly purchase insurance or pay a fine." From Urban Institute's report:

The "individual mandate" -- the requirement that individuals either have health insurance coverage or pay a fine -- is both the best known and the least popular component of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). That people know about the mandate -- and may even worry about it -- is not surprising, given both the heated political controversy and the constitutional challenge surrounding this provision of the law. What may be surprising, however, is that if the ACA were in effect today, 94 percent of the total population (93 percent of the nonelderly population) or 250.3 million people out of 268.8 million nonelderly people -- would not face a requirement to newly purchase insurance or pay a fine. [Urban Institute, March 2012]

CBO: 4 Million People Will Face Fine For Not Having Insurance In 2016. An April 2010 Congressional Budget Office report estimated that only 4 million people would pay the penalty for not having insurance:

Of the remaining 7 million to 8 million uninsured, some individuals will be granted exemptions from the penalty because of hardship, and others will be exempted from the mandate on the basis of their religious beliefs. Among the uninsured who do not obtain an exemption, many will vol-untarily report on their tax returns that they are uninsured and pay the amount owed. However, other individuals will try to avoid making payments. Therefore, the estimates presented here account for likely compliance rates, as well as the ability of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to administer and collect the penalty. After accounting for all of those factors, CBO and JCT estimate that about 4 million people will pay a penalty because they will be uninsured in 2016 (a figure that includes uninsured dependents who have the penalty paid on their behalf). [CBO, 4/30/12]

And The Penalty Is Not The "Biggest Tax Increase In The History Of The Universe"

Ezra Klein: The Affordable Care Act Is "Not Even The Biggest Tax Hike In The Past 60 Years." In a July 2 post on The Washington Post's Wonkblog, Ezra Klein noted, "[T]he Affordable Care Act isn't the "biggest tax hike in history." It's not even the biggest tax hike in the past 60 years. Or 50 years. Or 30 years. Or 20 years." The post included the following chart, made by economist Austin Frakt:

[The Washington Post, WonkBlog, 7/2/12]

PolitiFact: "Health Care Law Is Not The Largest Tax Ever." In a June 28 post, PolitiFact called the claim that the Affordable Care Act is the "largest tax increase ever" a "pants on fire" lie. The post pointed out that although the law does generate revenue, the amount is significantly smaller than previous revenue-generating provisions passed in other administrations. From PolitiFact:

Depending on your rounding, that would mean the tax increases resulting from the health care law would be about the size of tax increases proposed and passed in 1980 by President Jimmy Carter, in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush and in 1993 by President Bill Clinton.

The health care-related tax increases are smaller than the tax increase signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1982 and a temporary tax signed into law in 1968 by President Lyndon B. Johnson. And they are significantly smaller than two tax increases passed during World War II and a tax increase passed in 1961. [PolitiFact, 6/28/12]

VIDEO: Fox News Tests A New GOP Talking Point

 BEN DIMIERO & OLIVER WILLIS/Media Matters

Fox News anchor Bret Baier predicted last week that Republicans "on the stump in races across the country" would seize on the "tax" language contained in the Supreme Court's ruling upholding the health care mandate. "You could see Republicans really jumping on this," Baier concluded.

Republicans are definitely "really jumping on this," and many of them work with Baier at Fox. 

Speaking in unison with the GOP, Fox News has spent the last few days yelling about taxes in health care reform, with people on the network suggesting that the mandate penalty in the bill is a tax that is "going to hit everybody." In fact, far from affecting "everybody," the fine will apply only to a small number of people that refuse to buy insurance. And contrary to Fox News' talking points, health care reform is not even close to the "largest tax increase in the history of the universe."

Fox personalities are doing their best to say "tax" as much as possible when discussing health care reform. Here's a small sample

Romney calls mandate a penalty, not a tax

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Five Health Care Mandates Republicans Support

By Annie-Rose Strasser/Think Progress

Republicans are in complete upheaval over Obamacare, fired up by the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the law yesterday. They have continuously claimed that the government is ramming this legislation down the throats of the American people, and now they are calling it an unwanted financial burden on everyday Americans. In fact, the individual mandate — the portion of the law that Republicans most vociferously oppose — wouldn’t even affect most Americans.

It might be time for Republicans to take a look back at their own record of health care legislation that they did like — and that forced American people, particularly women, into a lot of things:

Forcing women to get transvaginal ultrasounds: Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnellwanted to force every woman seeking an abortion to go through the extremely uncomfortable and medically unnecessary procedure of a transvaginal ultrasound — sticking a medical wand far into a woman’s vagina to get a clearer ultrasound image.

Ordering women to cremate and bury their miscarried fetus: A huge abortion omnibus bill in Michigan could force women who miscarry to cremate the miscarried fetuses. This comes at no small expense to the woman: cremation of a fetus costs hundreds of dollars, and interment can be additional thousands. The bill has been passed by the Michigan House, and is awaiting a vote by the Michigan Senate.

Requiring doctors to lie to female patients: In Kansas, Republicans tried to force doctors to tell women that they faced risk of cancer from having an abortion. That is patently untrue, and making doctors say that it was true would be, in effect, requiring them to lie to their patients.

Making a dying woman consult two doctors before she can get a life-saving abortion: The New Hampshire legislature just overrode a veto by the Governor, forcing through a law that bans “partial birth” abortions. The law only reinforces federal law, but has the additional requirement that any woman who is exempt from the abortion ban because her life is at risk must visit not one but two doctors before she can get the procedure to save her life. For many rural women, especially those facing life-threatening conditions, this is near impossible.

Mandating people pay extra to give medical device companies a tax break: Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-MN) worked so hard to protect medical device companies from having to pay, that he has instead passed their costs onto the consumer — regular Americans — by increasing the cost of health coverage.

Why The Individual Mandate Is Not A ‘Massive Tax Hike’ On The Middle Class

By Travis Waldron/Think Progress

The Supreme Court ruled today that the Affordable Care Act, the comprehensive health care reform package signed by President Obama in 2010, is constitutional. The Court upheld the law’s most controversial provision, the individual mandate, ruling that it is constitutional under the government’s authority to levy and collect taxes.

Republicans have falsely claimed the mandate was the “biggest tax increase ever in American history,” so of course, conservatives immediately jumped on the idea that the individual mandate was a massive tax hike on the middle class, reviving an argument Republicans have made since the law passed more than two years ago:

WISCONSIN GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R) declared that it was a “massive tax increase.”

INDIANA SEN. DAN COATS (R) said “Right now we have something with a big tax and the American people who rejected that in 2010 are going to have a chance to break the tie in 2012.”

LOUISIANA GOV. BOBBY JINDAL (R) said “Ironically, the Supreme Court has decided to be far more honest about Obamacare than Obama was. They rightly have called it a tax. Today’s decision is a blow to our freedoms.”

IDAHO SEN. MIKE CRAPO (R) touted that the mandate was ruled a tax. “Now, we’re back into that argument,” he said.

Watch Coates:

The mandate can indeed be characterized as a tax, as the Court found. But it is not a massive tax hike on the middle class, much less the biggest tax hike in American history. The tax imposed by the individual mandate amounts to either $695 or 2.5 percent of household income for those who don’t have insurance and are not exempt based on income levels. By comparison, the payroll tax cut extension Republicans repeatedly blocked earlier this year would have added 3.1 percentage points to the tax and cost the average family $1,500 a year.

The mandate, meanwhile, would hit a small amount of Americans — somewhere between 2 and 5 percent — according to a study from the Urban Institute. The number could be even lower depending on the law’s success: in Massachusetts, the only state with an insurance mandate, less than 1 percent of the state’s residents paid the penalty in 2009.

The majority of the Affordable Care Act’s other taxes, such as a payroll tax increase and a tax on high-cost health plans, are aimed at upper-income Americans. In exchange, millions of jobs will be created as new people enter the health care system and millions of people will gain access to affordable, quality insurance that they otherwise would not have. And, as we detailed earlier today, the Court’s decision to uphold the entirety of the law will have significant benefits for the nation’s economy.

Tell Congress that you stand with Obamacare by adding your name here.

UPDATE

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) characterized the mandate as a “middle class tax increase,” claiming that millions of Americans are going to have “an IRS problem.” Watch it: