Tag Archives: Obamacare

10 Quotes that Haunt Barack Obama

Politico has a fun re-cap of quotes from President Obama that have dogged him throughout this re-election process and may well get a rehearing in Wednesday’s debate:

[A]s the president and his team well know, Obama in Denver on Wednesday will be defending a first-term record that looks strikingly different than the one he imagined when he took office in January 2009. Obama’s own words, and those of his closest aides, culled from his first campaign and the early phase of his presidency, tell the story. Cumulatively, the quotations are an anthology of lofty aspirations that fell to earth, and boastful predictions that didn’t come true. All presidents have plans that don’t work out. But many of Obama’s off-the-mark quotes echo because—as a president with a short history in Washington and no previous executive experience—he faced an especially jarring collision between his confident assumptions about how he would govern and the reality of what was possible.

“Washington is broken. My whole campaign has been premised from the start on the idea that we have to fundamentally change how Washington works.”

In retrospect, Obama’s exaggerated belief in his own capacity to transform Washington—not to mention his own wavering self-discipline in resisting nakedly partisan politics—looks like his most naïve miscalculation about his own power.

“I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director.”

Obama biographers and even friends have noted his tendency from a young age to sometimes to let self-confidence curdle into excessive self-regard—a trait he will try to suppress in Denver. But the main problem with Obama’s quote was not that it was immodest but that it was inaccurate. Obama has not presided over an especially skilled political operation. Relations with key members of Congress and with key political figures in states have been frayed, driven by complaints that Obama does not do enough outreach and political fence-tending.

“If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”

In this quote, from a February 2009 interview on NBC’s “Today” show and widely repeated this year by taunting Republicans, Obama was referring to the pace of economic recovery. Obama’s explanation, of course, is that his policies, including the $787 billion stimulus package, averted depression and made possible a slow but still incomplete comeback. But the words haunt Obama because they were a reminder of how profoundly he and his economic team misunderstood the long-term nature of the crisis that confronted them upon taking office.

Read More »

State of the Race: Nevada

Nevada is a strange nut to fully understand.  A solid majority of voters come from Clark County (home to Las Vegas) which is solidly Democrat whereas the rest of the state is Republican.  The difference in each election is simply how each campaign “minds the gap” shrinking or expanding its margins across these two realities. There is a non-existent state GOP party (which is how you end up with Sharon Angle as your Senate candidate in 2010) that got overrun by Ron Paul zealots (and I mean zealots)  such that the Romney campaign and RNC joined forces to form a fully funded shadow party Team Nevada run by some of the refugees from the hollowed out state party.  At the same time Romney is still licking his wounds from telling the economic truth that the housing market needs to bottom before it can rebound. This was a bit of hard truth Nevadans didn’t (and still don’t) want to hear since much of their prosperity was based on the excesses of the housing bubble and they are still wading through its aftermath. Despite all this the race is still a dead-heat.  Obama’s lead in the polls is much like his lead elsewhere, predicated on a Democrat turnout unlikely to be seen in 2012. Team Obama also got a boost when a the powerful culinary union backed off its threat to sit out the election and will now send its troops to support Obama although at a 20% reduced level than 2008. But the reality is, like many of the Battleground States, while are open to changing the resident in the White House Nevada is still waiting for Mitt Romney to “make the sale” and win their vote:

If there’s anywhere President Obama should be deep in a hole, it’s here in Nevada, which has been flattened by the Great Recession like few other places. The state suffers the highest unemployment rate in the country and for many months led the nation in home foreclosures and personal bankruptcies as well.  But with just over six weeks left until the election, the president holds a small but steady lead in this Western battleground.

The economy

The economy and its lackluster performance is the overriding issue this election: Countless polls and other voter surveys have made that abundantly clear. But for many there is no straight line from disappointment on that front to a vote for Romney or, conversely, any assurance that those feeling better off are ready to support Obama…The economy remains a big concern in Nevada. At 12.1%, joblessness is 4 percentage points higher than the national rate. And, while there are incipient signs of a housing recovery, with foreclosures down and even some improvement in home values, experts say it may be decades before the state’s devastated real estate market and construction industry fully mend.

Party ID dictates views

Still, more than three dozen random interviews with residents across the Reno area — the swing portion of a swing state — found that some things mattered more than dollars and cents to people weighing their votes. Party loyalty was a big factor, a thumb on the scale for Obama as aggressive organizing efforts and a feeble GOP have given Democrats a voter-registration advantage of more than 60,000 statewide. (For perspective, there were about 1 million votes cast in the presidential race in Nevada in 2008.) Democrats…praised Obama for tackling the tough situation he inherited. Republicans said Obama had been as bad, or worse, than they anticipated back in 2008…[lamenting] the “horrendous” debt that has grown dramatically under the president. For those less partisan — the independent and persuadable voters who will probably decide the election — there was less inclination to blame the president for the slow recovery and little faith that any politician, Democrat or Republican, could make a huge difference right away. So other issues came up.

Opening for Romney

[One voter] worries about the effect the president’s healthcare overhaul will have on her husband’s small construction business, which is finally picking up after several tough years. She wants to hear what Romney has to say in the debates before deciding whether to vote for the president again. Others, too, said they might back the former Massachusetts governor if they warmed up to him some and were convinced he could do a better job than Obama, especially in boosting the economy. But it’s not a given, even for those who have had it rough over the last few years.

More than the economy

The simple “are you better off” question worked brilliantly when Ronald Reagan posed it in 1980 as a campaign capper in his debate against Jimmy Carter. But even if most here were quick to say yes or no, their answers only scratched at the deeper calculations many are making as they decide how — and even whether — to vote.

Obamacare in One Sentence

Dr. Barbara Bellar Candidate for Illinois State Senate, District 18 sums up Obamacare in one sentence.

Romney Goes on the Offensive in Ohio

Although the economy has been and will continue to be THE issue in this campaign, Mitt Romney is making certain every wing of the Republican party knows he is there for them as he bounces around the Battlegrounds.  The Washington Post catches up with him in Ohio:

A feisty Mitt Romney returned to the campaign trail here Monday with sharp new attacks against President Obama over cuts to the defense budget and the stubborn unemployment rate in a deliberate effort to win over moderate voters.

With Obama opening a lead over Romney in the final two months of the long — and long-deadlocked — presidential race, Romney is trying at once to appeal to the nation’s moderate middle and to stir the passions of his more strident conservative base. On Friday, Romney campaigned alongside one of Washington’s most conservative firebrands, Rep. Steve King, in King’s staunchly evangelical Iowa district. The next day, Romney addressed a Virginia Beach rally just moments after Pat Robertson, the venerable and sometimes inflammatory televangelist, took a turn onstage. The Obama campaign said Romney was “pandering to the most extreme voices in his party.”

Yet there Romney was Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” praising Democratic former president Bill Clinton and sounding a softer, more conciliatory tone on the issue of health care. Although he said he would work to repeal “Obamacare,” Romney said there were aspects of Obama’s health-care overhaul that he would keep, such as ensuring that people with preexisting conditions have access to health insurance coverage.

And here in Ohio on Monday, Romney seized on the looming cuts to the nation’s defense budget — which he said would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and endanger national security — and on poor economic indicators, such as the unemployment rate and the rising number of Americans on food stamps, to sow doubts about Obama among undecided voters. Romney said Obama, who spoke extensively in his convention speech about what he has done to help middle-class families struggling through the economic recession, did not talk specifically about the unemployment rate, which stands at 8.1 percent, or the 47 million Americans now on food stamps.

Later, addressing an overflow crowd in Mansfield, Romney asked supporters, “You remember at his convention four years ago that [Obama] was going to slow the rise of the oceans and he was going to also heal the planet? Well, I’m here to heal the American people, to help the American people, to help them to get good jobs. . . . I want to help more people to fulfill their dreams and build great enterprises and put people to work. And I want to heal our economy.” Campaign advisers said Romney talked about defense cuts and economic data specifically to appeal to amenable voters.

6 Minutes of Paul Ryan Eviscerating Obamacare

Note, a great many of the projections he identifies have already come to pass and Obamacare is expected to add $1.93 Trillion to the deficit, not be revenue neutral (or a cost saver) as Obama promised:

Obama’s Signature Achievement is Raising Taxes Says Obama

Following the Supreme Court’s determination that Obamacare was in fact  a tax on most Americans, the Obama campaign maintained, in the face of all facts to the contrary, that it was not a tax.  Apparently, they have changed their mind:

At a campaign speech this evening in Roanoke, Virginia, President Obama seemed to concede that his signature legislation, Obamacare, is in fact a “tax.”

“Six million young people who did not have health insurance can now stay on their parents’ plan and get health insurance,” President Obama said, touting Obamacare, according to a rush transcript. “Seniors are seeing their prescription drug costs go down and, by the way, if you have health insurance, you are not getting hit by a tax.”

The implication is obvious: Since those who “have health insurance … are not getting hit by a tax,” it seems to follow that those who do not have health insurance will get hit by a tax under Obamacare.  The central tenet of Obamacare is the individual mandate, which requires all Americans to have health insurance.

Last month the Supreme Court upheld most of Obamacare, and ruled that the individual mandate is a constitutional under Congress’s power to tax Americans. But, since the Supreme Court weighed in, President Obama and his team have mostly avoided calling Obamacare a tax, and suggest that it is instead a “penalty,” a semantic distinction that would allow President Obama, the thinking goes, to have kept his promise not to raise taxes on those earning under $250,000 per year.  So either tonight was a slip up by the president, or it’s a signal that he’s ready to begin calling Obamacare what it is–a tax.

What is the difference between RomneyCare and ObamaCare?

President Obama and Democrats regularly cite RomneyCare as the basis for dismissing Republican critiques of Obamacare. Substantive defenses of Obamacare are never made, only the fact that Mitt Romney passed his own version of healthcare reform when he was governor of Massachusetts.  Thankfully Ben Collins at Mitt Romney Central did some serious heavy lifting over two posts outlining the difference between the two healthcare laws. Nate G over at Race42012.com provides this incredible table and plenty of follow-up data for a more in-depth discussion:

It is often asserted that RomneyCare is the same thing as ObamaCare, but this is simply not true. It is important to note that Massachusetts, the state where Romneycare was founded, opposed Obamacare. In fact, Massachusetts opposed Obamacare so much that they elected Senator Scott Brown (R) in 2010 to be the deciding vote against Obamacare after Senator Ted Kennedy’s death. Why would the state where Romneycare was founded be opposed to Obamacare if the two laws were really the same? The answer is, of course, that they are not the same. While there are similarities between the two laws, there are also key differences.  Below is a table of differences between the Romney plan and the Obama plan.

RomneyCare
ObamaCare
Overall Size and Scope
-Whole bill was 70 pages
-Romney vetoed significant sections of the bill including the employer penalty for not providing health insurance
-Romney favored an “opt out” provision from the mandate
-Romney favored no mandated benefits for health care coverage, catastrophic only
-No federal gov. insurance option
-Intended as a market driven solution to healthcare
-Whole bill was 2,074 pages
-Very broad regulation of the insurance industry including an employer penalty for not providing health insurance and no “opt out” provision
-Establishes a 15 member board of unelected bureaucrats with great control over health care benefits and risks rationing health care
-Leaves open the option of creating single-payer gov. insurance in the future
-Intended as a step toward gov. run insurance
Costs
-No new taxes!
-Romney balanced the state’s budget first, then passed healthcare law
-No cuts to Medicare benefits
-Modest cost to state (only added 1% to state budget)
-Increased taxes by $500 billion and taxes people who don’t buy insurance
-Despite massive federal gov. debt, Obama still passed Obamacare
-Cuts Medicare by $500 billion
-Overall costs unknown!
Popularity
-Very strong bipartisan support
-Strong special interest support
-Very popular among the public in Massachusetts
-Strong consensus of approval was built in the state to support the law
-Consensus was built to support an individual mandate
-Absolutely no bipartisan support
-Very controversial and divided special interest groups
-Unpopular in nation overall
-No consensus was built to support a mandate
Does Constitution Define it as a “Tax” or “Penalty/Fee”?
-Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts ruled state mandates are “penalties” because states have different authority and powers than the fed. gov.
-Mass. constitution never considered this a tax
-Supreme Court ruled that federal gov. only has the authority to enact this law by its ability “tax,” and does not meet the required standards to be considered a “penalty.”
-This tax breaks Obama’s promise that he would not raise taxes on the middle class
Federalism
-A state solution to a state problem
-Through collaboration and discussion, Massachusetts created a consensus among stake holders to support the new law
-Federal gov. “one-size-fits-all” plan
-Doesn’t take into account that each state is unique in important ways such as:
1)Vastly different debt levels between states (some states can’t afford new spending on health care)
2)Some states have three times the percentage of uninsured citizens (Much greater costs will be imposed on states with a larger percentage of uninusured citizens)
3)Conservative states will reject implementation of federal gov. plan.

As the above table illustrates, the plan Romney proposed was a much more conservative, business friendly law than what the Democrats passed under President Obama.

The Thrill Is Gone … for Obama in Iowa — Today’s Must Read

Jennifer Jacobs in USA Today takes a 1300+ word in-depth look at the souring coalition of voters that helped President Obama carry Iowa in 2008:

Some of the once-euphoric Iowans who helped inspire the nation to embrace Barack Obama in 2008 are experiencing a deep-seated buyer’s remorse over their role in delivering the White House to a candidate they think has let them down. Take longtime Democrat Debbie Smith. Four years ago, she wore the Obama T-shirts, went to his rallies, made her first campaign contribution and caucused for the first time. “I wish to have my vote back,” said Smith, 51, a small business owner from Clive. “I feel completely responsible, and I feel like I need to tell people this.” A sense of betrayal shows up in Iowa polling conducted by rival Mitt Romney’s campaign, said its pollster, Neil Newhouse. It’s a discomfiting hurdle for Obama in a state he professes to have strong emotional ties with, that he won by a landslide four years ago, and that could prove pivotal this year for him or for Romney. In an attempt to hold Iowa, Team Obama has launched an advertising assault that’s unprecedented here for its price tag and early start. On Tuesday, Obama parachutes into Iowa for the fourth time this year. He’s erecting a hefty infrastructure here, with 14 offices open now and Iowa’s biggest field organization yet, Democrats say.

Romney campaign optimism in a dead heat race

It’s a fusillade of campaigning in a state that was not high on team Romney’s target list for the general election just a few months ago. After all, Obama won Iowa in 2008 by a decisive 9.54 percentage points. Today, the race in Iowa is too close to call, a rolling average of polls compiled by RealClearPolitics.com shows. When polling showed Obama struggling here, and when his re-election campaign started dumping money and its top stars into the Hawkeye State, the Republican campaign didn’t need any more clues that Iowa is up for grabs. “We know how to hunt where the ducks are,” said Romney political director Rich Beeson. “I feel good about the path to victory in Iowa.” That path has been opened, in part, by voter disappointment in Obama, Romney’s polling found. “We see some of that in other states, but not to that extent,” said Newhouse, Romney’s pollster. “That’s what makes Iowa kind of special — makes it stand out.”

Obama voters  defect over unemployment, healthcare, divisiveness and on and on and on

Last week, The Des Moines Register interviewed 23 Republican and independent Iowa Poll respondents who helped carry Obama in the caucuses and general election in Iowa in 2008. Eighteen of them said they definitely would not vote for Obama this year. One explanation for their dearth of enthusiasm can be summed up by the news on the first Friday morning of each month: the unemployment report. Each lackluster economic report, like the one two days ago that pinpointed the jobless rate unchanged at 8.2 percent, reinforces the sense among Iowans that the country is on the wrong track. But each former Obama voter interviewed by the Register offered a different take on what bugs them.

Read More »

“Obamacare Hurts Seniors and the Middle Class” — Columbus (OH) Dispatch Editorial

In a hit to the Obama campaign, the very influential Columbus Dispatch in Ohio comes out highly critical of Obamacare and its tax increases:

Since Chief Justice John Roberts has officially deemed the individual mandate in the federal health-care overhaul a tax, it bears re-examining what the true costs of the law will be. Sold to the American people as a bill that would benefit everyone by providing better health coverage at lower cost, it’s proving to be anything but. Several studies already have debunked President Barack Obama’s claim that the law would “bend the cost curve” of health care. Data also show that the average American family has seen its insurance premiums go up, not down, since the bill’s passage two years ago.

But there are still many largely hidden costs to the legislation that haven’t been highlighted. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision to uphold the law, Washington-based Americans for Tax Reform has compiled a list of them. The mandate, which imposes a tax penalty on individuals who fail to buy health insurance and on employers who fail to provide it to employees, is projected to raise $65 billion in the first 10 years after it goes into effect in 2014. But this is just a small part of an estimated $500 billion in new taxes the law will impose.

What follows is a partial list of these new or higher taxes, with revenue projections. For a full list, including references to page numbers in the health-care law, go to [Americans for Tax Reform].

  • $13.2 billion generated by a cap on flexible-spending accounts for health care. Using these accounts, families can set aside pre-tax income to pay health-care expenses. The new contribution cap of only $2,500 will mean higher income taxes for any family that previously has put more than that aside in these tax-free accounts. This provision is expected to particularly hurt families with special-needs children, who often use these tax-free accounts to pay for special education.
  • $5 billion raised by prohibiting Americans from using pre-tax dollars in health-savings accounts and flexible-spending accounts to buy non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines.
  • $4.5 billion from the elimination of the tax deduction for employer-provided prescription drug coverage for retirees in coordination with Medicare Part D.
  • $60.1 billion in new taxes on health insurers; based on health-insurance premiums collected, this tax will be phased in over several years starting in 2014.
  • $20 billion from a new 2.3 percent tax on medical devices and equipment. Some manufacturers already have laid off workers ahead of this tax taking effect; others warn that they will have to shift production and investment overseas. This tax also will raise the cost of health care and be passed along to those who buy health insurance.
  • $123 billion from a new 3.8 percent surtax on investment income for households making at least $250,000, or single-filers making $200,000 or more. This will result in a much higher top tax rate on capital gains and dividends, which could discourage investment by upper-middle class and wealthy Americans. That, in turn, would hurt the overall economy.

The irony of the list is that the president and his allies frequently claim that it is Republicans whose policies hurt seniors and the middle class. The health-care overhaul does all of this and more.

Battleground State Snapshots: Florida, Ohio, Virginia and Nevada

The Washington Post takes a look at four Battleground states and the driving factors in each that may determine its outcome in this election:

Between red states and blue states, the debate rages:

  • Has the government grown so big that it smothers us, or is it too small a raft to keep the most vulnerable from drowning?
  • Should we be more worried about the care and security promised our parents, or the debt we are leaving our children?
  • And in a nation built by wave after wave of mostly European immigrants, who should get to be an American? That issue has returned to the fore at a moment when the country has rounded a demographic corner: Whites no longer account for a majority of births.

This year’s election could very well turn on those questions — though it is not likely to settle them.

Most of the electoral battle will be fought in about a dozen swing states. Four of them — Florida, Ohio, Virginia and Nevada — also are the settings of intense Senate races. They will help determine control of that chamber and, with it, how much leverage the next president will have. Obama won these four states in 2008. But they now have Republican governors, all elected in the past four years, showing how unsettled their electoral landscapes are. They are being bombarded with political advertising, much of it negative, from the presidential campaigns and from outside groups. Here is what their emerging political contours look like.

Nevada: Economics and demographics

Nevada leads the nation in unemployment, though it showed some improvement in May, and has been one of the states hit hardest by housing foreclosures. The state is also seeing a demographic shift: Hispanics made up 3 percent of Nevada voters in 1996, but they accounted for 15 percent in 2008. Mormons make up about 7 percent of Nevada’s population but vote in large numbers. Polls showed that about a quarter of the participants in Nevada’s February GOP caucuses were Mormons, and Romney won them handily. He also won the caucuses.

Read More »

Obamacare Impacts Battleground States

We previously wrote about the potential voting implications of the recent Obamacare ruling, but CBS looks at Battleground states that are opting out of compliance and those that are embracing the law:

  • COLORADO - It’s “full speed ahead” for health insurance expansion, reads a Denver Post article, which predicts the court’s ruling will “speed insurance expansions to nearly all Coloradans, while opponents regroup for future fights, state officials and health experts said. The state will redouble efforts to prepare for 2014′s growth in Medicaid enrollment, and a consumer ‘exchange’ where other individuals should find affordable, uniform benefits, proponents said.”
  • FLORIDA - Gov. Rick Scott, R-Fla., needs time to decide how he’ll deal with the court’s ruling, the Tampa Bay Times reports. However, it reads, if “the state decides to move forward, lawmakers already have placed a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would prohibit individuals or employers from being forced to obtain health insurance or from being penalized for not doing so. The ballot initiative, which needs 60 percent support to pass, is unlikely to have any real impact, however, because federal law supersedes state law. But it could bring the state and federal governments back together in a courtroom, a battle that Senate President Mike Haridopolos welcomes.” UPDATE: Rick Scott says Florida will opt out.
  • IOWA- Republicans and Democrats in Iowa are trying to avoid having to call a special legislative session by finding a time and place to informally determine how to implement the newly upheld health care law, reports the Des Moines Register. “State Sen. Jack Hatch, D-Des Moines, said he and Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad’s chief of staff Jeff Boeyink have talked about a summit with others interested in health care. It would hopefully take place in the next two to four weeks, organized by a neutral group such as a hospital, he said. The main topic: hash over details of a state health-insurance exchange.”
  • NEVADA - Facing a possible $60 million price tag from increased Medicaid enrollment over the next two years, Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval may opt out of the law’s expanded Medicaid options, the Nevada Appeal reports: “Sandoval’s office said the state Health and Human Services Department expects an additional 49,000 Nevadans to enroll in Medicaid as a result of the mandate to have insurance. Those are individuals not currently in the program even though eligible. Sandoval said that would cost the state about $60 million over the next biennium.”
  • NEW HAMPSHIRE – With regards to the Supreme Court’s decision, “New Hampshire’s congressional delegation is reacting largely along party lines,” the Associated Press reports, “with Republicans vowing to amend the law and Democrats praising the decision.” Democratic Gov. John Lynch said in a statement: “As a state, we have been preparing to implement the Affordable Care Act and will continue doing so in a way that best fits New Hampshire.”
  • Read More »

Who Hates the Obamacare Ruling? Florida … and Kansas … and even California

We already talked about how 66% of Ohio voters (in a pro-union turnout) voted against Obamacare. Now  Suvery USA polled voters in a Republican state, a Battleground state, and a Democrat state asking whether they approved of the Obamacare ruling. Nowhere was a majority in favor of the ruling:

Kansas:

  • Kansas comes down this way: 38% support the ruling, 52% oppose, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted exclusively for KWCH-TV in Wichita.
  • 55% in Kansas say they expect the cost of health care to go up as a result of the decision.
  • 48% in Kansas say they expect the quality of their health care coverage to get worse as a result of the decision.

Florida:

  • Florida comes down this way: 39% support the ruling, 50% oppose, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted exclusively for WFLA-TV in Tampa.
  • 51% in Florida say they expect the cost of health care to go up as a result of the decision.
  • 47% in Florida say they expect the quality of their health care coverage to get worse as a result of the decision.

California:

  • California splits: 44% support the ruling, 45% oppose, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted exclusively for KABC-TV Los Angeles, KPIX-TV San Francisco, KFSN-TV Fresno, and KGTV-TV San Diego.
  • 48% in California say they expect the cost of health care to go up as a result of the decision.
  • 38% in California say they expect the quality of their health care coverage to get worse as a result of the decision; 34% say it will stay about the same.

Who Hates Obamacare? Ohio Does

Plenty of press attention was paid to the 2011 repeal of Ohio’s law restricting the collective bargaining rights of unions.  Rarely mentioned on that same ballot was a referendum against Obamacare. In a very pro-union turnout, Obamacare was rejected by 66% of Ohio voters:

Partisans and pundits heralded the 2011 Ohio election as a bellwether indicator of the 2012 election to come. Ohio voters may have thrown the pundits a bit of a surprise. On election night, Ohio voters threw out Issue 2, a collective bargaining reform bill, but at the same time issued a resounding rebuke to Obamacare.

Issue 3 was a constitutional amendment placed on the ballot by citizen petition. It was a referendum on Obamacare seeking to exempt Ohioans from mandatory nationalized health care. Granted, this is a symbolic approach given that federal law trumps state laws, and Ohio is not exactly a bastion of states’ rights advocacy. The fact that the measure passed is remarkable in such a pro-union-turnout model, especially since the pro-Issue 3 campaign had no money to spend. That Issue 3 passed with a higher majority (66 percent for) than the defeat of Issue 2 (61 percent) is even more substantive. In other words, there was a 5 percent greater animosity toward Obamacare in the Ohio electorate than the animus toward Gov. John Kasich’s collective bargaining reforms. In this off-election year, where union turnout dominated the day, Issue 3 passed in all 88 Ohio counties.

Said another way, 34 percent of Ohio voters favored Obamacare while 39 percent of Ohioans favored the collective bargaining reforms. Thus, the pro-union, anti-Kasich turnout on Nov. 8 is even more distrusting of the current nationalized health care plan than collective bargaining reforms. Gov. Kasich and his allies got their clocks cleaned on Issue 2 on Nov. 8. If this election is an indicator of things to come, however, the 2012 election may actually become a referendum on Obamacare. Not even the pro-union crowd in Ohio seems to like that idea.

Even today, Obamacare threatens to choke off a budding recovery in Ohio:

Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor serves as state insurance director, has frequently criticized the overhaul, while saying the state needed more information for the federal government on the exchange plans. Taylor said Ohio’s leadership doesn’t see an advantage to a state-run exchange program, nor where needed funding for exchange costs and for additional coverages — such as $369 million more in state matching funds for Medicaid in 2014 — will come from. “We are concerned that this will cripple the recovery in Ohio,” Taylor told reporters. She also said higher state costs could lead to cuts in state Medicaid services. She said the state is still studying other implications of the ruling.

Battleground State Reaction to Supreme Court Ruling: Iowa

Plenty of lengthy replies from Iowa‘s elected officials. Below are some excerpts:

  • Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad: Today, the Supreme Court handed down a disastrous decision to uphold President Obama’s destructive health care law, which means a future of higher costs, higher taxes, and increasing debt for Iowans.”
  • Iowa Lt. Gov. Kim Reynolds: America needs real health care reform and we need Governor Romney in Washington. Gov. Romney will enact real reforms to ensure that the future of Iowa and America as a whole can replace Obamacare with solutions that put Iowans in control of their own health care and preserve the economic future of Iowa’s next generation.
  • Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller: The decision today means that: Tens of millions of Americans without health care can secure it; Hundreds of millions of Americans who have or get in the future a pre-existing condition will not lose their health care; Millions of young people under 26 now covered by their parents’ policies will not lose coverage.
  • Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen: “The federal health care law is plain and simple, the government takeover of health care and a massive tax increase on all Iowans. The Supreme Court’s decision today makes it harder for Iowa’s small businesses to hire workers, operate their businesses and grow our state.
  • House Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer: “Iowans are perfectly capable of making health care decisions on their own; they don’t need Washington, D.C. telling them what to do. This law creates trillions in new government spending that we cannot afford and it ensures Iowans will have limited choices and freedoms.
  • State Sen. Jack Hatch: “The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today is a major victory for all Iowans, both those with health insurance and those without. Now, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, the health care of every Iowan will improve and become more secure while costs for consumers and businesses are reduced.
  • State Rep. Nick Wagner, via Twitter: “Now we know what’s in the bill… Massive Tax increases!! ‪#Obamacare”
  • Americans for Prosperity Iowa Director Mark Lucas: “Iowans recognize that this law is a threat to our liberty. While the Supreme Court has ruled government health care constitutional, taxpayers understand this is bad policy. We won’t stand idly by while this law spends $1.75 trillion dollars and places bureaucrats between you and your doctor.
  • AFSCME Iowa Council 61 President Danny Homan: “Today’s historic U.S. Supreme Court’s decision affirming the constitutionality of Obamacare is a victory for middle class families. “Thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision, Obamacare will continue to ensure that children in Iowa cannot be denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions, seniors will pay less for prescription drugs and students and young adults can remain on their parents’ plans.

The Battleground State Ad that Writes Itself

Obamacare Ruling Impact on 2012 Battleground States

First and foremost, the ruling on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) is a major victory for President Obama.  No political spin can or should take away from that fact.  This was a thoroughly litigated case with some of the best legal minds weighing in on all angles in an attempt to invalidate this law.  They failed and Obama deserves his victory lap.

He should, however, savor that victory lap because the President still has one more major hurdle to clear for validation of his law — the upcoming November elections. And today’s ruling may meaningfully impact his chances in unwelcome ways.

There is a genuine risk for President Obama that today’s victory could be an empty one. Fierce resistance to the original passage of Obamacare was one of the major drivers in the 2010 mid-term elections. In those elections Democrats at all levels were annihilated by the Republicans and the Tea Party. Antipathy towards Obamacare (and a weak economy) went far beyond headline victories like the Republican’s sixty-three seat gain in the House of Representatives and net seven-seat gain in the Senate.

Even greater gains were made at the state level across the country and most specifically among today’s battleground states.

In 2010, Republicans took eleven governorships from the Democrats, including 6 battleground states (Iowa, Ohio, Michigan, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Kansas, Oklahoma, Maine, Tennessee, and Wyoming) and one governorship in a battleground state previously held by an independent (in Florida).

Read More »

John Roberts’ Trojan Horse

To put it briefly, the Obama Administration won the battle today, but Chief Justice John Roberts’ Majority opinion (i.e. the law of the land) was an incredible Trojan Horse for the conservative legal movement.

Ezra Klein writes of the “political genius of John Roberts” decision:

The 5-4 language suggests that Roberts agreed with the liberals. But for the most part, he didn’t. If you read the opinions, he sided with the conservative bloc on every major legal question before the court. He voted with the conservatives to say the Commerce Clause did not justify the individual mandate. He voted with the conservatives to say the Necessary and Proper Clause did not justify the mandate. He voted with the conservatives to limit the federal government’s power to force states to carry out the planned expansion of Medicaid. ”He was on-board with the basic challenge,” said Orin Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University and a former clerk to Justice Kennedy. “He was on the conservative side of the controversial issues.”

Chief architect of the opposition to Obamacare, Randy Barnett, reacts:

“We won … All the arguments that the law professors said were frivolous were affirmed by a majority of the court today. A majority of the court endorsed our constitutional argument about the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Yet we end up with the opposite outcome. It’s just weird.”

Tom Socca in Slate writes that Roberts opinion and Kennedy’s dissent delivered the victory that mattered to conservatives:

By ruling that the individual mandate was permissible as a tax, he joined the Democratic appointees to uphold the law—while joining the Republican wing to gut the Commerce Clause (and push back against the necessary-and-proper clause as well). . . . Roberts’ genius was in pushing this health care decision through without attaching it to the coattails of an ugly, narrow partisan victory. Obama wins on policy, this time. And Roberts rewrites Congress’ power to regulate, opening the door for countless future challenges. In the long term, supporters of curtailing the federal government should be glad to have made that trade.

Erik Ericson identifies the macro-view Roberts seems to have taken:

It seems very, very clear to me in reviewing John Roberts’ decision that he is playing a much longer game than us and can afford to with a life tenure…Roberts is playing a different game…We’re on poker. He’s on chess.

Today is Obama’s day so give him his due.  But for each step back in the conservative movement, it is very likely John Roberts moved the needle more than a few notches forward, right underneath the nose of the liberal jurists.

Romney’s Course of Attack Now Clear

Below is an excerpt of a column I submitted for publication:

After today’s ruling Mitt Romney has a clear line of differentiation with President Obama that is consistent with the GOP message in 2010:

These were the major factors that led to historic gains for Republicans in 2010.  These arguments remain true today and should all be articulated against Obama for the remainder of this election.  The states mentioned above have already declared their support for such arguments and many others can be expected to join in if Mitt Romney can effectively state his case to the American people.

Twitter Fun on Obamacare Eve

The Battleground State news crawl has come to a halt ahead of tomorrow’s big day. Since every pundit has weighed in on what and how many Justices will vote for or against Obamacare, Twitter has taken a more irreverent turn with #otherSCOTUSpredictions.

As such we will share some of the funnier #otherSCOTUSpredictions on Twitter:

Quick Hits — The Obamacare Ruling

Although this blog is supposed to be about only the Battleground States, with something as momentous as tomorrow’s Supreme Court ruling it is hard to ignore all the chatter and forge ahead with our mandate.  That said, here are a bunch of important reads ahead of tomorrow’s throw-down:

SCOTUSblog explains how to understand the opinions quickly tomorrow

American Enterprise Institute has a flow chart about what comes next following the ruling

Rachel Weiner’s 6 Things You Should Read Before the Supreme Court Decision on Obamacare

You can vote on tomorrow’s outcome at Teagan Goddard’s Wonk Wire

Former Clarence Thomas Supreme Court clerk predicts tomorrow’s outcome

Sean Trende: Why the entirety of Obamacare will be struck down

There is already a line forming in front of the Supreme Court to see Justin Bieber, I mean the Obamacare ruling [image]

Quick Hits

Vice President Joe Biden to make a two-day visit through eastern Iowa Tuesday and Wednesday this week

A Chris Christie Vice President to deliver Pennsylvania for Mitt Romney?

Janesville, Wisconsin buzzing over rumors native-son Paul Ryan is being vetted for Vice President nod

Barack Obama plays 101st round of golf as President

Approximately 25% of voters say they are still persuadable over whom to vote for President [but half are probably lying]

Obamacare, Arizona Immigration Law, Student Loan Bill, Fast & Furious contempt  showdown all this week

White people who voted for Obama in 2008 are racist in 2012 because they don’t support him any longer

A “Supreme” Hint at the Fate of Obamacare?

This is not an unfamiliar tactic in Supreme Court rulings.  Often cases are chosen due to the similar “conflicts of law” the Court would like to address.  Ed Whelan over at Bench Memos picks through the Knox v. SEIU ruling this past week and gleans some possible insight into the thinking in the forthcoming Obamacare ruling:

“[W]e do not revisit today whether the Court’s former cases have given adequate recognition to the critical First Amendment rights at stake.” The free-rider arguments that those cases have relied on (i.e., preventing nonmembers from free-riding on the union’s collective-bargaining activities) “are generally insufficient to overcome First Amendment objections” and are “something of an anomaly.” “Similarly, requiring objecting nonmembers to opt out of paying the nonchargeable portion of union dues—as opposed to exempting them from making such payments unless they opt in—represents a remarkable boon for unions.” It’s difficult to see the justification for an opt-out rule. Indeed, the Court seems to have accepted the opt-out approach “more as a historical accident than through the careful application of First Amendment principles.” (Slip op. at 10-13.)

As the writers in the Daily Beast smartly point out:

The mandate in Obamacare is all about the free rider problem. Further, opting out of the market for insurance sure sounds like this. We will know soon but the language in this union dues case does not bode well for Obamacare.

Quick Hits

Smart 1-minute take on the current state of the campaign from Time’s Mark Halperin

“CBS Sunday Morning” Profiles Marco Rubio

North Carolina poses uphill battle for Obama, though Charlotte is DNC host city…but you know that

“Have you beaten Obama yet?” — Mitt Romney’s 4-year old grandson

2008 Obama campaign adviser and former Obama law professor Robert Unger says “Obama must be defeated

Ron Paul insurgents continue to frustrate state GOP leaders, this time in Iowa

Justice is blind, unless they refuse to legislate from the bench in favor of liberals

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 216 other followers