than in neighboring states, including New York.

RomneyCare was a horrible plan and the fact that “something” was going to pass does not excuse supporting the “something” rather than engaging in prinicpled opposition.

This lack of guts is what has many of us concerned about Romney

I love a guy with a good sense of humor, and you are cracking me up.

The reality is, Mitt Romney is trying to deflect criticism from RomneyCare by suggesting it’s a states rights issue. Well, thats fine, but if Massachusetts wants to experiment with a socialized medicine scheme, Massachusetts should pay for all of it, not the federal government.

And for that reason, Romney prefers national tort reform. But the answer to your question is yes, Romney has always fought hard for tort reform at every level.

From Club4Growth:

“From his 1994 Senate race, to his gubernatorial campaign in 2002, and throughout his four years as governor, Romney was a strong proponent of tort reform. As governor, he supported capping personal injury claims in automobile-related cases and advocated for overhauling Massachusetts’ exorbitant medical malpractice system. Massachusetts is notorious for having some of the highest malpractice insurance rates in the country, driving doctors in key specialties out of the state.

“During his gubernatorial campaign, Mitt Romney supported capping punitive damages to replace the unlimited status quo. In 2003, Romney also supported a bill to cap noneconomic awards at $500,000, arguing at a rally organized by the Massachusetts Medical Society, “If we have in place policies which drive physicians away, which drive costs spiraling out of control, we can’t attract jobs, we can’t have a better future for our kids and the families that want to live here. We need reform now.” In May of 2006, the Romney administration issued a specific tort reform proposal, calling for :

“Closing loopholes in the $500,000 cap on non-economic damages which allowed lawyers to win excessive damages

“Reducing lawsuits by allowing doctors to disclose medical errors without fear of admissibility in court

“Increasing the number of claims resolved prior to trial

“Tightening the state’s tribunal system to ensure that only meritorious malpractice lawsuits go to trial

“Reduces lawyers’ fees from 25% for verdicts over $500,000 to 15% for verdicts over $600,000

“Reducing pre-judgment interest to the one-year Treasury rate

“On the campaign trail in his last run Romney took his impressive record to the national level, and insisted on badly needed nationwide tort reform.”

More recent quotes from Romney:

“Another burden on our economic future is our out-of-control tort system. Last year, U.S. corporations spent more money on tort claims than they did on R&D. If innovation is the key to our long term leadership, then some tort lawyers are cashing out our country’s future. I spoke with one member of the plaintiff’s bar the other day. He said that the tort lawyers are ok with state reform, but not national reform. You know what state level tort reform means – it means that as long as there is one lawsuit-friendly state, they can sue almost any major, deep-pocketed company in America. No thanks, America needs national tort reform.”

More specifically, “Preventing excessive damage awards, limiting class-action lawsuits to those situations where they are actually warranted, and empowering judges to sanction more effectively trial lawyers and parties who bring frivolous claims [will prevent] spurious litigation from inhibiting investment and job creation.”

the question that I asked. I appreciate that. I should have explicitly went further by saying, “If he did try, what happened? Did he succeed, or to what extent?” I also appreciate that Romney understood the problem at a state level and tried to solve it. I do not have any doubts about his intelligence, just about his commitment to conservatism.

Incidentally, maybe Romney thinks Perry’s lucky “four aces” achieved tort reform in Texas, but judging by the recent House Speakership battle there, the place is not overflowing with aces. Besides, the “problem” trial lawyers and their army of lobbyists are the same everywhere, aren’t they? (I can tell you that the ten-volume Encyclopedia of Lawyer Jokes, which I have respectfully shelved due to much present company, is organized topically, not geographically.)

and no text

was even well known. Let alone Obamacare.

Romney was advised by the Heritage Foundation, which helped craft his plan. So why didn’t Obama choose to meet with them? Because he wasn’t interested in actually crafting it the same way as MA. He was interested in leveraging the narrative.

We did not get “Romneycare as Mitt intended it”. It is irrelevant what Mitt intended. What matters is what he let get by him.

He had choices. He had a bully pulpit. He walked away from the fight.

I do not want a POTUS who folds like a cheap suit, I’ve already got McConnell and Boehner racing to see who can fold fastest.

Mew

But they’ve only really looked at the attacks on Romney, and most of those are smears.

What don’t you like about Romneycare?

First, there’s a misconception that needs to be addressed about his advisers. They were people in the private sector who Romney paid to offer advice for a short period. But they were not his employees. Obama chose to pay these same people for advice, but that has nothing to do with Romney.

Second, Romney’s plan was for everyone to pay as much as they could afford for their health insurance, and if necessary Medicaid would make up the difference. The new governor changed that, so some people get covered 100% by Medicaid.

As I have said to others here, the plan would be better if Romney’s vetoes had not be overridden and if changes had not been made after he left.

since we seem to be addressing the same issue below:

http://www.redstate.com/ryanlarsen/2011/10/13/open-letter-to-redstate/#comment-34

then you said in your long, meandering diary, so in that sense, yes, it doesn’t take much to impress me.

Like westcoastpatriette responded to you, I have already made substantive responses to Craigpennsylvania earlier on this thread, so no further comment from me is necessary as my position is very clear on Romneycare. Also, your tactic of deflecting criticism by telling your detractors to read your diary isn’t going to work on me either.

You are justifying the destructive liberal policies of a liberal politician (Romney) in this diary, so I will remind you that this is a conservative site and we support and defend conservatism and conservative policies and the politicians who espouse them. To many of us here, Rommey does not meet the basic standards of a conservative politician, so I suggest you remember this the next time you feel the urge to post sarcastic comments to those who don’t buy into the Romney spin you are peddling.

make a substantive response, but if you’d like to do so I’ll be here.

I haven’t been able to devote as much time to RedState today as I would have liked. I apologize for keeping you waiting – apparently people like quick replies around here

a) It’s not so simple. People do not want the state government mandating that kids eat broccoli, but as a matter of societal preference. States force children to run, do jumping jacks, do push-ups, play basketball, soccer, baseball, etc. for the express purpose of changing their bodies, with or without their consent. This is not merely education. Children are not simply taught how to do these things and given the option whether to do them or not. The state decides this is in their best interest, and if they refuse or even if they fail to perform well, they are penalized. They may not advance in grade and ultimately may be denied a diploma. It isn’t up to the parents, unless they are able to home school or pay for private schooling. Most people want it this way. Even Ronald Reagan actively encouraged it. But if public schools mandated that kids eat broccoli at lunch or be penalized in the same way, Tea Party activists would be upset. But it doesn’t bother them that some kids and some parents think PE wastes time and infringes on liberty. Why? Because those people are in the clear minority (although they might be less of a minority than 50 years ago).

So let’s apply this standard to MA. The people overwhelmingly wanted the mandate. The legislature overwhelmingly wanted it (I believe only two voted against it). And even today, 3 in 4 want to keep it. Contrast that with Rick Perry’s attempt at mandating young girls receive a vaccination for their own health (as opposed to public health vaccination requirements), where he tried to circumvent the legislature entirely, as I understand it. He justified it by saying it was to fight cancer. As it happens, broccoli is widely accepted as a cancer-fighter. Perry’s rationale could apply if he had mandated that the active vitamins etc. from broccoli be injected into young children. So, whose thinking comes closest to the broccoli example?

b) There’s a difference between the right of federal government to hand out money (which it does even to foreign nations) and the alleged right of federal government to mandate that people spend money between themselves.

No child left behind received 87 yea votes in the Senate, including Rick Santorum and Fred Thompson. Thompson later said he regretted his vote because “it’s not working,” but I don’t believe he made a federalism case.

I don’t think the Constitutional question is education. NCLB is about the right of the federal government to grant money to states. If the states want the money, they have to do what the federal government says. An interesting parallel might be federal student grants. Are these unconstitutional? If you are low-income, the government will give you money if you go to school. But if you don’t go to school, you get no money.

The Constitution says nothing about space exploration, but conservatives – including Reagan – love(d) NASA, even when it had nothing to do with national defense, like the Hubble telescope.

So I don’t think NCLB is necessarily unconstitutional from a conservative standpoint. And although Romney has said the DOE has “a role to play,” I don’t think that’s any type of endorsement of their policies. He might echo the words of Reagan: “The national government also has an important, but limited, role to play in the education system.” Romney did offer some praise for aspects of Race to the Top, but then immediately said “but as for me, give that back to the states” (Which Perry edited from his attack ad, just as all of his attack ads are carefully edited to be out of context).

On gun control, here’s what I wrote at WhyRomney: “Mitt Romney supports the constitutional right to bear arms as intended by the founding fathers. The founding fathers did not intend a right to bear nuclear arms, for example, so we need to thoughtfully draw the line according to their intent. Mitt believes banning weapons of extreme lethality, which are not practical for self-defense, is consistent with the original intent of the second amendment. Critics of Mitt Romney fail to explain where they would draw the line and what principles ostensibly make their own line conservative.” So, where do you draw the line on bearing arms, and how do you reconcile it with the second amendment? I confess, I don’t see the states’ rights angle on that one.

I’d like to deal with abortion related issues separately, but as far as federal government funding scientific experimentation, I don’t see why that would be controversial. Likewise, I don’t see why the federal government can’t negotiate loans – which are much better than outright subsidies – to keep the United States competitive in key industries which other governments subsidize in their own nations. For instance, in the context of extending a loan guarantee, Reagan said, ” Conservation and renewable energy sources are an important component of this administration’s national energy policy. We support efforts by the private sector to develop alternative energy sources that are economically viable in the Nation’s competitive marketplace.”

That leaves Social Security. Reagan said, “There is no more important domestic issue on which we have to have a national consensus than social security … I am determined that we put social security back on a sound financial footing and restore the confidence and peace of mind of the American public in its social security system … I believe in the social security system. I believe that it will survive and keep its promise to this generation of beneficiaries and those to come.”

I believe the taxation aspect of SS is perfectly constitutional under the 16th amendment. It is another tax on income, which we differentiate for convenience. This counts the employer portion as 100% taxed income for the employee. The only remaining question is whether the government can give money to citizens. Considering that it gives money to foreign nations, one would think it should be able to give to its own citizens. It’s also important to remember the Supreme Court has not only upheld SS, but on that basis the fed government has made obligations to the people, which it likely would be permitted (even obligated, under equal protection) to fulfill even in the unlikely event the court overturned its previous rulings.

- Ryan

I don’t believe anyone risks jail time for failing to purchase insurance in MA. Mitt has of course said if he could do it over again he’d get rid of the penalty (see diary), and thus the mandate. And Romney has always been adamant about no new taxes.

Would you be willing to cite the part of the U.S. Constitution you believe grants parental rights? Thanks.

You said, “you’re essentially saying that the social contract justifies any behavior on the part of a state that is condoned by an elected official.”

No. You read that one wrong.

You said, “Conservatism is about a little bit more than letting the people have what they want”

That’s right. But states don’t have to choose conservatism. I assumed you already knew that. Would you like to learn more about it?

You said,”For that matter, so’s the MA Constitution.”

You might have missed this: “The people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it.”

Very straight-forward. No use denying it.

You said, “What you’re quoting above is the preamble”

Two of the four quotes? That’s right. All four of the quotes are significant, of course. Like I said, they can help you understand the meaning of the clause I quoted in the diary.

You said, “an aspirational statement which has no legal bearing”

No. That’s wrong. Courts find preambles helpful in ascertaining the intentions behind, and meanings of, operative statutory provisions. Likewise, that was my own purpose in sharing parts with you, as I explained in advance. Ignoring such facts won’t help you.

http://www.whyromney.com/ryan/god-and-government.php

You said, “You also cite an article which is satisfied later on by the amendment process for the MA constitution.”

[chuckles] As well as the normal legislating process. The Constitution gives them both options.

You said, “So, was the MA health bill codified into MA’s constitution?”

No. They didn’t choose that one.

You said, “If not, then it’s a clear violation of the protocol that revisions to MA’s government must follow.”

You may have missed this part when you read the Constitution: “…it may be a government of laws and not of men.” (hint: A government of laws means that a change in law is a change in government)

You seem to be having a hard time finding anything in the MA Constitution that Romney’s bill actually violates. Of course, an amendment would only have been necessary if the bill violated the Constitution.

You said, “Lastly, regarding your point that no one is perfect”

It’s not a general point. It’s a specific point I applied to the question of whether Mitt should be excused for implementing the mandate to begin with.

You said, “Romney critics understand that already”

I doubt that.

You said, “Every candidate has flaws”

That’s right. But not every candidate has a smear mob exaggerating and spreading half-truths about their flaws.

You said, “there are legitimate reasons to find Romney’s imperfections problematic”

If you buy into the smear versions, then ya.

You said, “a lackluster record in general”

You don’t seem to know much about his record.

When Mitt was elected Governor of Massachusetts in 2002, the state was in severe disarray, its budget was out of balance, spending was soaring, and taxpayers were being required to pay more and more in taxes for diminishing services. The state economy was in a tailspin, with businesses cutting back on investment or even closing and unemployment ticking up. Mitt made hard decisions that brought state spending under control. He restructured and consolidated government programs, paring back where necessary and finding efficiencies throughout.

Facing a state legislature dominated by Democrats, Mitt cast more than 800 vetoes as he brought conservative principles to state government. He cut red tape for small businesses, signed into law job-creating incentives, and fought hard to bring new businesses to the state. He eliminated a $3 billion deficit without borrowing or raising taxes. By 2007, at the end of Mitt’s term, the state had accumulated a $2 billion rainy day fund in its coffers. This stringent fiscal discipline provided an essential backdrop for economic recovery. When Mitt came into office, the state was losing jobs every month. When he left office, the economy was generating new jobs by the thousands.

In 1999, the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics was on the verge of collapse. Thanks to his reputation as a superb manager, Mitt was asked to take over. The event had been bogged down in a bid-rigging scandal, sponsors were fleeing, and the budget was bleeding red ink. The attacks of September 11, 2001, just months before the start date, created a security nightmare. Some were contemplating scaling back the competition or even moving it out of the country.

Mitt set to work. In a remarkably short period, he revamped the organization’s leadership, trimmed the budget, and restored public confidence. He oversaw an unprecedented security mobilization to assure the safety of the athletes and millions of international visitors, staging one of the most successful games ever held on U.S. soil.

Mitt’s impressive skills did not come out of nowhere. He began his career in business.

After graduating from Brigham Young University in 1971, he earned dual degrees from Harvard Law and Harvard Business School. After working as a business consultant for several years, Mitt founded the investment firm Bain Capital in 1984. Under his leadership, Bain Capital helped to launch or rebuild hundreds of companies, including household names such as Staples, Domino’s Pizza, and The Sports Authority. As Bain Capital was growing in prominence, Mitt returned to his old consulting firm, Bain & Company, as CEO. In a time of financial turmoil at the company, he led a successful turnaround.

http://mittromney.com/learn/mitt

You said, “I am perturbed by the view embodied in this statement”

Parental rights come from God. Legal recognition of those rights comes from the state. A state “recognizes” a child as subject to a parent. The state delegates to the parent “legally.” The state holds the authority of “a larger compact, with expectations and obligations.”

I said we whole-heartedly embrace the state power because it “defers” to the natural order of family.

The trouble comes when the state starts redefining family, and displacing the legal recognition of parenthood. We are not “mere wards” of the state. But we need to be aware of the social compact, lest it slip into the hands of true agitators. And that means not crying “wolf” over Mitt Romney, who may be our nominee, to score points in a game of self-piety.

- Ryan

The legality of adoption relies on the state’s earthly authority to award one person nearly complete control over the life of another person.

I can understand why that would make you feel uncomfortable. But if the state can do that, it can certainly help people purchase insurance and cause those who refuse to pay a penalty.

Should just give this one up and admit Romneycare was a mistake. It sounds so much scarier when you try to defend it in this way. “federalism” as a defense works better in the 30 second debate format (ie fools more people) but it obviously can’t sustain critical scrutiny in this forum. You should know when your worldview is “the states delegate parental authority to parents” that your not helping Mitt’s cause. Let alone citing adoption as some exemple of absolute state power.

I’m sorry I didn’t get to it sooner. I just noticed it, as I today have time to sit down and read over various comments in this thread.

You said, “To suggest that anything a government does, so long as it is “constitutional,” cannot infringe on the peoples liberty is asinine to nth degree.”

I wish you had given me your interpretation of what I wrote, in your first comment. I would have told you then what I will tell you now. First, I was talking specifically about “giving,” which is the word I used. And I used that word specifically in the context of the clause I cited, which speaks of the government requiring one to give for the purpose of contributing “his share to the expense of this protection [protection in the enjoyment of his life, liberty and property].” So, I’m not talking about “anything a government does.” I’m talking about a specific thing for a specific purpose. Second, the word “expectation” is critical in what I wrote. The MA Constitution establishes the “expectation,” and therefore if people choose to live in the state they do so with the expectation that the government can require them to give. Therefore, it does not not infringe on their liberty.

You said, “Your statement reproduced above is either extremely naive, horribly miss-worded, or reveals you as no conservative.”

No. Misinterpreted.

We should work with everyone TO ADVANCE CONSERVATISM.

If you don’t stand for somethin’, you’re gonna fall for anythin’.
– Mellencamp

Mew

You’re seriously going to tell me that Romney is defending his actions because the legislature was going to legislate?

Better yet, you’re going to ignore:

“It shows a high degree of ineptitude to assume that future legislative bodies wouldn’t manipulate such a complex codex of law.”

By suggesting that *knowing* that they were going to legislate something by constitutional amendment which isn’t all that easy, and a veto, or a court case that goes to the supreme court would have been sufficient to deal with it if it had gone there… the “non-inept” solution is “beat them to something else that violates liberty” and introduce something that provides the “right” to have health insurance by de facto mandate on others that may refuse their right?

You my friend aren’t stupid… you can see a loaded question… but you can’t answer it plainly. The reason for that is, subconciously you know there is NO defense… just excuses.

To strip it down a little, what you’re saying is that, because Rush, Levin, and Heritage didn’t {complain} about the mandate in 2008 we are obligated give Romney a pass in 2012 as well.

Umm, no.

In 2008, by the time Rush started sounding pro-Romney, the other choices were McCain and Huckabee. Compared to either of them, Romney is better…. but Cain or Perry are better still. More betterer, if you really want to butcher the language.

For this cat, the problem with Romneycare isn’t the mandate, it’s that Romneycare-as-root-of-Obamacare is in the water, and is being spread by the Obama administration. That makes it a very high hurdle for Mitt to get over, regardless of everything else.

Whether I accept the 10th amendment argument is moot. What matters is whether Joe Sixpack, whose last exposure to the division of powers and roles between State and Federal levels was likely a high school civics course taught by a liberal drone can do so. I know several Joes, and in my informal polls, I’m finding that they don’t.

That means a huge part of Obama’s record is off the table in 2012, and .. it’s the specific part that sparked the Tea Parties.

Romney is, therefore, the worst suited candidate to go after Obama.

Further, I do not have a reason to trust Romney will actually repeal-and-replace. Nothing he’s done indicates that he wants to repeal, everything in his background says he wants to tinker.

If I compare the Federal Government to a car, it’s currently a ’74 Chevy Caprice. Big, heavy, rusted out in spots, inefficient. I think Mitt would be happy to replace the oil and the timing chain and search eBay for a new carburetor to bring the fuel mileage up by 1 or 2. I want a guy who’s willing to trade it in for an ’08 Toyota Camry. Lighter, more efficient, no rust…

Mitt has done nothing to convince me he’s that guy.

Mew

Of course, it’s 4:30 in the morning where I’m at, and I could probably use some caffeine

I’m afraid to post anything, for fear it will be gibberish this early in the morning. Which means I’m not really even reading responses cause that would make me want to post lol. But I’ll certainly make an exception for GC. Thanks.

can respect that, but I hope you realize that the closed-mindedness which you perceive in me is what I perceive in Mitt’s detractors.

I’ll be posting more diaries, covering the issues. I hope you’ll take a look at them as well.

And thank you for reading my diary.

Another poster raised some concerns in that other thread and this is my response to those. Hopefully you will find this information useful.

You said, “Shifting the cost of parking in state parks to the users sounds great. The people getting the benefit shoulder the cost. Problem is, the cost was being taken out of one pot (general taxes by the Mass taxpayers) and put into a new pot made up of entirely new fees. The first pot is never credited (through reduced taxes), so Romney implemented a net increase in payments made by the taxpayers to the government”

First, Romney turned a 3 Billion dollar budget deficit crisis into a surplus. Second, he did not spend the surplus, he put it in a rainy day fund and tried to give back to the taxpayers most of the 240 million which he estimated had been raised by fees, starting as soon as he began to turn around the economy, prompting the liberal Boston Globe to complain after Romney’s first year in office, “The first signs of life appear in the Massachusetts economy and the governor calls for a $225 million tax cut” (“Romney’s Real Agenda.” The Boston Globe 11 May 2004).

You said, “Gun permits – the fee was increased, twice. Once by Romney and then again by the legislature.”

That’s what I said.

You said, “Replacement of lost or stolen permits represent such a small percentage of the overall number of permits issued that to call that a compensation (as if it would offset the increased fee) is laughable.”
That’s part of the compensation. The other thing I mentioned is that “Romney also signed a law allowing permits to expire after 6 years instead of 3.” By only citing one of the things I mentioned, I get the feeling you might be trying to misrepresent what I said. I’m interested in honest discussion. Are you?

You said, “Your argument on the fuel fee generating additional revenue due to wildly fluctuating prices only makes sense if you suspend the economic reality that as price increases, demand and therefore consumption decreases.”

Thank you for correcting me on that. I didn’t look closely enough at what I was pasting (from what I had previously written at WhyRomney.com). The initial costs, caused by the backlog of claims, were not representative of future costs, due to improved storage tank quality. So that was a mistake, however I think the important thing is that Romney did not spend the surplus but tried to return it to the people.

You said, “On your inflation paragraph, people wanted more bureaucracy which drove up costs, but Romney is not to blame since the people elected him and the legislators. Um, what?”

The Act was from 1998, before Romney ran for governor.

Incidentally, Romney eventually replaced that act with a much more conservative gun bill. Sadly, critics mischaracterized that bill as a new “assault weapons ban” in MA, even though it was actually a downgrade, supported by the NRA:

“While not perfect by any means, this bill represents a step forward for gun owners in Massachusetts … Despite the efforts of some (including The Boston Globe) to spin this bill as an extension of or creation of a new “Assault Weapons” ban, the bill makes no net changes to the Commonwealth`s laws regarding those types of firearms”
(http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=1149)

I mentioned his religious beliefs.

Funny thing that. I always thought those types of unfounded assertions were the province of the NSDWP.

Personally, I’m happy he believes in something bigger than himself.

I just refuse to vote for a liberal pretending to be a moderate. I’m old enough to remember the fights his father started as part of Nixon’s Cabinet. The apple fell real close to that particular tree.

Go ahead, however. Don’t let me stop you from believing what you will.