Republicans are supposed to provide a check on the big-government impulses of their Democratic brethren aren’t they?
Oh, yea, forgot about Congress. But it’s true at the state-level isn’t it?
Then why is a governor who is thinking about running for president still undecided about whether he should impose a new per-employee tax on businesses that do not provide health insurance for their workers?
In early March, Massachusetts House and Senate leaders agreed to impose a $295-per-worker fee on employers with 10 or more workers who do not provide employee health insurance. The funds would go into the state's free-care pool for the indigent that is already funded by a $62 per-worker tax on companies that do provide employee health care.
So if you’re a Massachusetts employer, you’re darned if you do—and if you don’t.
Part of the motivation is $385 million in federal Medicaid matching funds the state could lose if it fails to have the fee in place by July 1. But that just means Romney may be willing to compromise his principles—if the price is high enough. The state could also lose some jobs if it imposes the fee. Businesses have a history of moving to states and localities where the tax burdens are lighter.
Massachusetts’ Republican Gov. Mitt Romney has in the past said he would not “support any new tax,” but now appears to be waffling on this particular levy.
The Associated Press quotes Romney as saying the fee “could be viewed as an alteration of a targeted, existing fee, rather than a new tax,” whatever that means.
What it really means is that Romney is willing to break his no-new-tax pledge if he thinks he can get away with it.
We can’t let him off the hook.
Romney should not only stand firm on his campaign pledge that he would not support new taxes, he would do well to make a similar pledge should he run for president and challenge his GOP primary opponents to do the same. Voters can be sure they won’t hear the same pledge from candidates in the other party.