From the Guy that brought you the "Etch-a-Sketch" moment...

Eric Fehrnstrom, Mitt Romney Adviser: Individual Mandate Is A 'Penalty,' Not A 'Tax' (VIDEO)

Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior adviser to Mitt Romney, admitted Monday that he actually agrees with the Obama administration on something: the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act is a "penalty" and not a "tax."

Since the Supreme Court upheld President Barack Obama's health care law but ruled that its mandate is a tax, Republicans have criticized him for imposing a massive tax on the American public.

The Romney campaign joined in this line of attack, with an adviser telling The Huffington Post's Jon Ward that the Supreme Court's ruling would help them politically.

"Frankly, to be able to tell you your taxes have been raised by this bill and you didn't know that, as opposed to trying to explain Congress's powers under the commerce clause, it's easier," the Romney adviser said, referencing the issue of the law's constitutionality.

But in a Monday interview on MSNBC's "The Daily Rundown," Fehrnstrom contradicted this statement, agreeing with the Obama administration that the mandate is a "penalty" on individuals who do not purchase insurance -- not a tax.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/0 ... 42951.html

Well, there you have it...Straight from the surrogate's Etch-a-Sketch mouth... It's NOT A TAX...IT'S A PENALTY... Dang, what are you gonna do when you can't even get your own spokesman on-board with the outrage-of-the-day talking-points?

It is a penalizing tax? Either way, it is less money that I have to spend on healthcare or for other life needs.

Really? Are you one of the 1%? I never knew.

Why is a forced penalty any better than a forced tax on something you dont want to buy?

What Obama and the Democrats want you to do is accept as fact that it isn't a tax. Of course, not being a tax would make it unconstitutional - which is likely "The Rest of the Story" that is being clipped in order to try and convince you of something that isn't really true. Mitt's adviser likely agrees that it isn't a tax and is therefore an unconstitutional exercising of powers not held by the federal government. I don't think it is a tax either, I think it is a punishment for not participating in commerce of the federal government's choosing despite the reality that the federal government was never delegated the authority to compel you to participate in commerce in the first place.

Bottom line - if it isn't a tax, it isn't constitutional.

Some years I am a 1%'r. Some years I am not.

Bipartisanship? Romney & Obama both agree that it is a penalty and not a tax.

Good, I'm glad we got that out of the way... It IS a penalty and not a tax.

If it isn't a tax, it isn't constitutional. I'm glad we got that out of the way, it isn't a tax and it isn't constitutional.

Democracy4Sale wrote: Good, I'm glad we got that out of the way... It IS a penalty and not a tax.

So you think the SCOTUS was incorrect?

I think you are misinterpreting what the SCOTUS decision actually said. (No surprise there...) Apparently, Eric Fehrnstrom, Mitt Romney Adviser, understood it.