The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : On Romneycare and Federalism

Text Size

On Romneycare and Federalism

By John Tabin on 12.16.09 @ 4:53PM

Phil's post yesterday on Romneycare and the current Senate healthcare bill struck me as, if not necessarily unfair to Romney, then perhaps incomplete in its critique. Phil writes:

So now, if Obamacare passes, Romney will be left telling angry primary voters that the only real difference between the two plans is that he implemented his policies at the state level, while Obama did it through the federal government. Sure, it's clearly worse if the federal government is implementing bad policies, but it's hard to see how such an argument would pass muster with anybody but those who are already ardent Romney supporters. It's sort of like saying, "As governor, I raised state income taxes, but the thought of raising federal income taxes -- that's an outrage!"

The case for federalism, though, goes beyond the argument that it's "worse if the federal government is implementing bad policies." There are, in fact, policies that are defensible or even necessary at the state level that would be pernicious at the federal level. Now, it would be a gross understatement to say that Phil knows more about healthcare policy than I do, so it may well be that a Massachusetts-style healthcare bill is analogous to raising income taxes, and would have similar policy implications at both the state and federal level. But it isn't immediately obvious to me that it isn't instead analogous to levying a sales tax, which is prudent under some circumstances at the state level but would be fairly radical at the federal level.

All that said, if Mitt Romney runs for president next cycle, the burden will be on him to draw the distinction between a state and federal healthcare program, and he will have to do a bit better than the line from his spokesman, quoted in the update to Phil's post, about "a 'one-size-fits-all' solution."

View all comments (6) | Leave a comment

Rank and File| 12.16.09 @ 5:14PM

Amen to that. I'm not sure if I'm a Romney fan or whether I just want to be a Romney fan. He wearies me sometimes. However, I feel like his policy is distinguishable based on Federalism and that's what I said in my comment to his post yesterday.
That's the whole idea of Federalism; if you don't like the policies of your state, on that local and more-accessable level, you can explore a friendlier climate, while still enjoying the benefits of the American system. I think Romney should be able to distinguish his ideas from those of today's proposed Federal-legislation (i.e., Obama-care), and, as you say, states can be given a little more rope in figuring out their own individual problems sans the Feds.

duane lominac| 12.16.09 @ 8:39PM

Romney's work in Mass. has nothing to do with the federal level. Mass. is a very liberal state and the people basically demanded a universal plan. Because the plan had to get a lot of input from Romney, it was much more conservatives than if Ted Kennedy had been governor of Mass. I think it is amazing for any republican to get elected in any northeastern state and they should get cudos instead of criticism.

Allen G| 12.17.09 @ 11:16AM

Okay, I'm not a huge fan of the so-called "fair tax" (a national sales tax), but, in essence, weren't all taxes ("duties") sales taxes before Ammendment 16? Why is it a "radical" idea?

Otherwise, good points.

tracey | 12.17.09 @ 4:17PM

Romney's original health care program was compromised by a democratic legislator. I think that Romney demonstrated the ability to work with democrats and was successful at getting a health care program passed in Mass. Romney would have liked his original health care program to be passed but he had to work with the LIBERALS in MASS. in order to make it happen.