The GOP’s Weirdly Misguided Obamacare Tax Frenzy

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

After the Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate was constitutional because it was a tax, conservatives went ballistic. President Obama raised taxes! But the GOP’s presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, disagreed:

That message, delivered first by a top aide to Mr. Romney on television and later by the campaign, contradicts top Republican Party officials and leaders in Congress, who have spent the last several days eagerly accusing the president of levying a new tax.

….For much of Monday, Republicans sought to minimize the differences between themselves and Mr. Romney by trying to focus on Mr. Obama’s own shifting characterization of the health care mandate. In 2010, Mr. Obama said the mandate should not be called a tax.

I’m genuinely stumped by all this. Why are Republicans making such a big deal out of the mandate being a tax? I can think of at least four reasons why they shouldn’t:

  • They know perfectly well that Romney can’t agree on this. He implemented a mandate in Massachusetts, and he can never, ever concede that this was a tax.
  • Obamacare already includes plenty of other taxes. Does one more really help their message much?
  • Their whole crusade against the mandate has always been based specifically on the idea that it’s a liberty-destroying command from the government to buy something you don’t want. Even among the tea party set, a tax isn’t viewed as anywhere near as tyrannical as a mandate.
  • What’s the point? Everyone who hates the mandate will keep on hating it regardless of whether it’s a tax or a penalty.

Seriously, I’m befuddled by this. The whole tax angle seems like a loser to me. It muddies up the notion that the mandate is unconstitutional, it creates obvious friction with their presidential nominee, and it seems unlikely to change anyone’s mind or to gin up the base any more than it’s already ginned up. Why are they doing this? Is it just reflex? What am I missing here?


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend