sfx: is.
>>> with only 126 days to go until the election, teams obama and romney have finally found something to agree on. sometimes a tax isn't a tax but a penalty and sometimes agreeing with your opponent isn't really the best campaign strategy. it's monday, july 2nd and this is "now." joining me today, msnbc contributor, ari melber of "the nation." sam stein of the huffington post , margaret talev is white house correspondent for bloomberg news and our favorite american with a british accent , msnbc political analyst , richard wolffe . president obama may want to send a thank you card to the romney campaign today. on the daily rundown this morning, romney 's senior advisor appeared to veer off the gop script, agreeing with the president that the individual mandate portion of the affordable care act is not a tax.
>> the governor believes that what we put in place in massachusetts was a penalty, and he disagrees with the court's ruling that the mandate was a tax. but again --
>> he agrees with the president, he agrees with the president that it is not, he believes that you shouldn't call the tax penalty a tax, you should call it a penalty or a fee or a fine?
>> that's correct. but the president also needs to be held accountable for his hypocritical, contradictory statements.
>> richard wolffe , we talk a lot about moments in this cycle, perhaps being overblown, but this would seem to be an issue. here you have mitt romney 's senior strategist saying it's not a tax, it's a penalty. i can't tell you, my in-box has been flooded by republican communications saying president obama 's creating another tax on the middle class . here, governor romney 's chief envoy is saying no, it's actually a fee. it's a penalty.
>> well, you set this up by saying veering off script. there is no script here. they're trying to desperately form some kind of script and the problem is, we see it with the ads because they've got three or four different entities putting out ads. we see it with the messaging as well. there is no rational route here. part of the reason they're not coordinated in this respect is because people recognize that mitt romney was an imperfect guy to critique health care . they will spend the next month, this republican party , trying to go after health care again, having a repeal vote again, all the while their candidate is the guy who gave them the model for health care . so they're in a bind.
>> he has a history here. there is tape where he's saying as much. i want to play archival footage from "meet the press" when governor romney is talking about raising fees in massachusetts . let's take a listen to that.
>> the fee's not a tax?
>> if it were a tax it would be called a tax.
>> that's gimmick.
>> it's reality. i am not trying to hide from the fact we raised fees $240 million.
>> we raised fees $240 million. sam, how much of a problem is it for the romney campaign?
>> you remember when rick santorum said the singular worst candidate for the republican party to run on health care would be mitt romney and everyone sort of laughed at him but it's true. mitt romney , you could not find a republican more tied to obamacare than mitt romney . of course, he would say he did it on the state and it's done nationally so the two are very different but he has so much baggage on this issue and rightfully so, because he's on record. he's called it and there, he said it's not a tax but he has called it a tax penalty so eric fernstrom did what he had to do. this is a penalty, this is not a tax being leveled across the board. keep in mind, the penalty in massachusetts is bigger than the penalty that will be administered under obamacare. it's almost not quite twice but could be twice for some families so they have a real problem. i think fernstrom did what he can do, saying listen, it's not a tax, otherwise we raise taxes by double the amount obama did.
>> the other question, margaret, is how much the word tax is a boogeyman for the american public right now. i just think, maybe i'm naive. but i'm of the mind that once the american public sort of sees and sort of concrete form, the affordable care act enacted either in the coming months or by 2014 , they will be more sort of warmed to the notion of a national health care plan and the notion that somehow a $90 tax which is effectively what this is, is so detrimental to the future of our country, i think you lose a lot of steam in that argument.
>> well, messaging has always tb central problem for president obama and this administration on the aca, so the question is can they turn around the messaging to say look, this is how much money we're talking about and this is what you get for it, and is that what they're going to do or will they get stuck again in this sort of ditch with the wheels spinning of how the messaging goes on selling this.
>> they do like that ditch metaphor. we should actually talk about that. in terms of the practicalities of implementing the affordable care act , there was a lot of talk about how republicans if they control the senate and of course the white house and the house will work through budget reconciliation to just peel the affordable care act back plank by plank. the other issue, i thought this was really interesting, getting deep into health care policy as i am want to do on a sunday afternoon, is the exchange question. the health care exchanges need to be set up by the states and states are already beginning to opt out of them. the " washington post " making the point that the deadline for that is january of 2014 . if they are not set up, the federal government is supposed to step in, but there's all manner of disagreement as far as how prepared the federal government is to set up state exchanges if the states don't do it.
>> you're putting your finger on part of the whole debate in the courts which is federalism, right? what's the proper role of the federal government . conservatives have argued the federal government is doing too much basically predicating all of its powers on this notion of interstate commerce and they have long sought to narrow that and that was the part of the opinion that was ultimately good for those critics. but health care is a huge interstate problem and these exchanges and these approaches involve interstate solutions so that is where it makes sense to have the federal power . the other point between tax and penalty is, the reason why people don't like taxes is not just that grover norquist and a whole school of chamber of commerce , you know, attacks have really taken something they already didn't like and made it sound worse. it's also because people associate taxes as an automatic payment they make whether or not they use a service or whether or not they like what's going on. the reason why it matters when we talk about the difference, i think people who supported this which include both presidential candidates emphasize it's a penalty because that means the vast majority of people will never pay it. i think that is the substance beneath this rhetorical debate.
>> somewhere between 2% and 1% will be affected by this. i know it's beleaguered but this was a conservative idea at some point in time not all that long ago. now all of a sudden it's become the big boogeyman for the republicans.
>> i do want to talk about, though, the stripping down of the affordable care act and some of its provisions. i mentioned the exchanges. the medicaid expansion is the other one which is of course, you know, states saying we don't want help from the federal government , we don't want to expand our medicaid roles. i don't -- the federal government is going to cover 100% of the cost of the expansion and then 90% through 2022 . i don't know, richard. again, you don't think it's going to happen?
>> i think the states that are the governors right now who are engaging in this kind of rhetoric will ditch it quietly and by the way, enthusiastically because they want the federal dollars. all of these states are really right up at the top of the list when it comes to getting federal money for transportation, anything. they want federal dollars and this isn't going to cost them. the other part of it is the repeal question. once we get beyond the cycle, if there is a president romney , he's going to be faced with either pushing ahead in the first hundred days with his agenda or undoing the last guy's agenda. when it came to this president, president obama , with the idea of are you going to go and prosecute bush administration officials on war crimes , or are you going to say declassify some documents and move on, he chose to move on. i think a romney administration would be faced with the same thing. the states will take the money, the congress, the new congress, will want to go and work on its own agenda and so will the next president.
>> i couldn't disagree more. i think at this point, this health care law has become such a toxic thing in the republican party that if romney were to become president and not do something about it, it would basically reaffirm all the fears that conservatives had about him to begin with. with respect to the states , too, you know, yes, there is hypocrisy from governors that do defend on federal money. rick scott made a big thing about rejecting high speed rail funds and hasn't compromised. what might turn them around is the fact that 900,000 plus people will not get medicaid access because of this. at some point, you do think you pay a political price by denying 900,000 people medicaid .
>> you are saying to the people of your own state we're not going to take this money to help you when you're sick. you're talking about texas, which has 25% of residents without health insurance . i understand the sort of political optics here but then there's the practicality of legislating and governing. you got to think, especially when the federal government is going to pick up the tab there's going to be a strong push by residents to say you got to do this.
>> recovery act money. and they hated it. they wound out putting press releases, we hate the stimulus but we'll take it. come on. will romney have to do nothing? no, he will sign executive orders , he will slow things down, but repeal is a whole other question. that's if you can get to 60 votes and if you can convince people it's not a budget reconciliation measure. remember, 60 votes in the senate, no matter what happens in this election is going to be a real stretch for republicans.
>> rob portman , in the "new york times," says you can't get everything through reconciliation with respect to appeal, just the budgetary stuff. within the gop caucus there is confusion.
>> surprise. dissent within the gop caucus.
>>> with only 126 days to go until the election, teams obama and romney have finally found something to agree on. sometimes a tax isn't a tax but a penalty and sometimes agreeing with your opponent isn't really the best campaign strategy. it's monday, july 2nd and this is "now." joining me today, msnbc contributor, ari melber of "the nation." sam stein of the huffington post , margaret talev is white house correspondent for bloomberg news and our favorite american with a british accent , msnbc political analyst , richard wolffe . president obama may want to send a thank you card to the romney campaign today. on the daily rundown this morning, romney 's senior advisor appeared to veer off the gop script, agreeing with the president that the individual mandate portion of the affordable care act is not a tax.
>> the governor believes that what we put in place in massachusetts was a penalty, and he disagrees with the court's ruling that the mandate was a tax. but again --
>> he agrees with the president, he agrees with the president that it is not, he believes that you shouldn't call the tax penalty a tax, you should call it a penalty or a fee or a fine?
>> that's correct. but the president also needs to be held accountable for his hypocritical, contradictory statements.
>> richard wolffe , we talk a lot about moments in this cycle, perhaps being overblown, but this would seem to be an issue. here you have mitt romney 's senior strategist saying it's not a tax, it's a penalty. i can't tell you, my in-box has been flooded by republican communications saying president obama 's creating another tax on the middle class . here, governor romney 's chief envoy is saying no, it's actually a fee. it's a penalty.
>> well, you set this up by saying veering off script. there is no script here. they're trying to desperately form some kind of script and the problem is, we see it with the ads because they've got three or four different entities putting out ads. we see it with the messaging as well. there is no rational route here. part of the reason they're not coordinated in this respect is because people recognize that mitt romney was an imperfect guy to critique health care . they will spend the next month, this republican party , trying to go after health care again, having a repeal vote again, all the while their candidate is the guy who gave them the model for health care . so they're in a bind.
>> he has a history here. there is tape where he's saying as much. i want to play archival footage from "meet the press" when governor romney is talking about raising fees in massachusetts . let's take a listen to that.
>> the fee's not a tax?
>> if it were a tax it would be called a tax.
>> that's gimmick.
>> it's reality. i am not trying to hide from the fact we raised fees $240 million.
>> we raised fees $240 million. sam, how much of a problem is it for the romney campaign?
>> you remember when rick santorum said the singular worst candidate for the republican party to run on health care would be mitt romney and everyone sort of laughed at him but it's true. mitt romney , you could not find a republican more tied to obamacare than mitt romney . of course, he would say he did it on the state and it's done nationally so the two are very different but he has so much baggage on this issue and rightfully so, because he's on record. he's called it and there, he said it's not a tax but he has called it a tax penalty so eric fernstrom did what he had to do. this is a penalty, this is not a tax being leveled across the board. keep in mind, the penalty in massachusetts is bigger than the penalty that will be administered under obamacare. it's almost not quite twice but could be twice for some families so they have a real problem. i think fernstrom did what he can do, saying listen, it's not a tax, otherwise we raise taxes by double the amount obama did.
>> the other question, margaret, is how much the word tax is a boogeyman for the american public right now. i just think, maybe i'm naive. but i'm of the mind that once the american public sort of sees and sort of concrete form, the affordable care act enacted either in the coming months or by 2014 , they will be more sort of warmed to the notion of a national health care plan and the notion that somehow a $90 tax which is effectively what this is, is so detrimental to the future of our country, i think you lose a lot of steam in that argument.
>> well, messaging has always tb central problem for president obama and this administration on the aca, so the question is can they turn around the messaging to say look, this is how much money we're talking about and this is what you get for it, and is that what they're going to do or will they get stuck again in this sort of ditch with the wheels spinning of how the messaging goes on selling this.
>> they do like that ditch metaphor. we should actually talk about that. in terms of the practicalities of implementing the affordable care act , there was a lot of talk about how republicans if they control the senate and of course the white house and the house will work through budget reconciliation to just peel the affordable care act back plank by plank. the other issue, i thought this was really interesting, getting deep into health care policy as i am want to do on a sunday afternoon, is the exchange question. the health care exchanges need to be set up by the states and states are already beginning to opt out of them. the " washington post " making the point that the deadline for that is january of 2014 . if they are not set up, the federal government is supposed to step in, but there's all manner of disagreement as far as how prepared the federal government is to set up state exchanges if the states don't do it.
>> you're putting your finger on part of the whole debate in the courts which is federalism, right? what's the proper role of the federal government . conservatives have argued the federal government is doing too much basically predicating all of its powers on this notion of interstate commerce and they have long sought to narrow that and that was the part of the opinion that was ultimately good for those critics. but health care is a huge interstate problem and these exchanges and these approaches involve interstate solutions so that is where it makes sense to have the federal power . the other point between tax and penalty is, the reason why people don't like taxes is not just that grover norquist and a whole school of chamber of commerce , you know, attacks have really taken something they already didn't like and made it sound worse. it's also because people associate taxes as an automatic payment they make whether or not they use a service or whether or not they like what's going on. the reason why it matters when we talk about the difference, i think people who supported this which include both presidential candidates emphasize it's a penalty because that means the vast majority of people will never pay it. i think that is the substance beneath this rhetorical debate.
>> somewhere between 2% and 1% will be affected by this. i know it's beleaguered but this was a conservative idea at some point in time not all that long ago. now all of a sudden it's become the big boogeyman for the republicans.
>> i do want to talk about, though, the stripping down of the affordable care act and some of its provisions. i mentioned the exchanges. the medicaid expansion is the other one which is of course, you know, states saying we don't want help from the federal government , we don't want to expand our medicaid roles. i don't -- the federal government is going to cover 100% of the cost of the expansion and then 90% through 2022 . i don't know, richard. again, you don't think it's going to happen?
>> i think the states that are the governors right now who are engaging in this kind of rhetoric will ditch it quietly and by the way, enthusiastically because they want the federal dollars. all of these states are really right up at the top of the list when it comes to getting federal money for transportation, anything. they want federal dollars and this isn't going to cost them. the other part of it is the repeal question. once we get beyond the cycle, if there is a president romney , he's going to be faced with either pushing ahead in the first hundred days with his agenda or undoing the last guy's agenda. when it came to this president, president obama , with the idea of are you going to go and prosecute bush administration officials on war crimes , or are you going to say declassify some documents and move on, he chose to move on. i think a romney administration would be faced with the same thing. the states will take the money, the congress, the new congress, will want to go and work on its own agenda and so will the next president.
>> i couldn't disagree more. i think at this point, this health care law has become such a toxic thing in the republican party that if romney were to become president and not do something about it, it would basically reaffirm all the fears that conservatives had about him to begin with. with respect to the states , too, you know, yes, there is hypocrisy from governors that do defend on federal money. rick scott made a big thing about rejecting high speed rail funds and hasn't compromised. what might turn them around is the fact that 900,000 plus people will not get medicaid access because of this. at some point, you do think you pay a political price by denying 900,000 people medicaid .
>> you are saying to the people of your own state we're not going to take this money to help you when you're sick. you're talking about texas, which has 25% of residents without health insurance . i understand the sort of political optics here but then there's the practicality of legislating and governing. you got to think, especially when the federal government is going to pick up the tab there's going to be a strong push by residents to say you got to do this.
>> recovery act money. and they hated it. they wound out putting press releases, we hate the stimulus but we'll take it. come on. will romney have to do nothing? no, he will sign executive orders , he will slow things down, but repeal is a whole other question. that's if you can get to 60 votes and if you can convince people it's not a budget reconciliation measure. remember, 60 votes in the senate, no matter what happens in this election is going to be a real stretch for republicans.
>> rob portman , in the "new york times," says you can't get everything through reconciliation with respect to appeal, just the budgetary stuff. within the gop caucus there is confusion.
>> surprise. dissent within the gop caucus.