Romney’s Latest, Greatest Twist On The Individual Mandate

  • Share
  • Read Later
Alex Wong / Getty Images

Republican U.S. Presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney speaks in response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Healthcare Act with the U.S. Capitol in the background, June 28, 2012 in Washington, DC.

The contortionists impress, until they twist again. Then the crowd goes “Awww.” On Tuesday, I tried to explain all the knots both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney had tied as they tried to bend with the political winds on the individual mandate, a provision that requires all citizens to get health insurance under both politicians’ past health care reforms.

I noted that Romney had argued that the same individual mandate could be a good idea on the state level and an abomination on the federal level, even though he had previously praised efforts to impose a federal mandate. But I did not see the next twist coming. It’s a masterpiece worthy of serious contemplation.

First, to set the scene: On Monday, Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney’s longtime aide, told MSNBC’s Chuck Todd that Romney continued to believe that the mandate was not a tax. This put Romney at odds with his own party leadership, but kept him consistent with his past statements about the Massachusetts mandate. Here’s the tape:

TODD: [Mitt Romney] agrees with the president that it is not [a tax], and he believes that you shouldn’t call the tax penalty a tax, you should call it a penalty or a fee or a fine?

FEHRNSTROM: That’s correct.

On Wednesday, Romney reversed course. “Well, the Supreme Court has the final word and their final word is that Obamacare is a tax. So it’s a tax,” Romney told CBS News. “The American people know that President Obama has broken the pledge he made. He said he wouldn’t raise taxes on middle-income Americans. Not only did he raise the $500 billion that was already in the bill, it’s now clear that his mandate as described by the Supreme Court is a tax.”

If Romney stopped there, this would just be a flip flop. But what Romney actually did was far more artful. He continued to argue that the identical mandate he supported on the state level was not a tax, because the Supreme Court did not call it a tax. Furthermore, his campaign argued that Fehrnstrom on Monday and Romney on Wednesday were in agreement. Here is more from Romney:

Actually the chief justice in his opinion made it very clear that at the state level, states have the power to put in place mandates. They don’t need to require them to be called taxes in order for them to be constitutional. And as a result, Massachusetts’ mandate was a mandate, was a penalty, was described that way by the legislature and by me, and so it stays as it was.

In other words, a duck is a duck unless it’s a goose because the Supreme Court has not weighed in on whether it is a duck or not. The Supreme Court won’t be weighing in on whether Romney’s logic passes muster, but it’s hard to imagine that Chief Justice John Roberts would agree.

There are two questions at play here: Is an individual mandate allowed? And is it a tax? On the first question, the Supreme Court said it was allowed, on both the state and federal level, for different reasons. (On the state level it is allowed, because state’s have broad powers to do stuff like that, and on the federal level it is allowed because of the federal taxing power.)

On the second question, the Supreme Court said the federal mandate was a tax, and was silent on whether the identical state mandate was a tax. (Both the state and the federal mandates penalize people of means who choose not to get health insurance through the tax code.) Romney interprets this to mean that the state mandate is not a tax, allowing him to deny that he ever raised taxes in Massachusetts, while at the same time arguing that Obama raised taxes on the middle class with a tax.

It is worth noting that Justice Roberts had made it clear that he saw through the political contortions around the tax question. In oral arguments, he had this exchange with Solicitor General Donald Verrilli:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Why didn’t Congress call it a tax, then?

GENERAL VERRILLI: Well -­

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: You’re telling me they thought of it as a tax, they defended it on the tax power. Why didn’t they say it was a tax?

GENERAL VERRILLI: They might have thought, Your Honor, that calling it a penalty as they did would make it more effective in accomplishing its objectives. But it is in the Internal Revenue Code, it is collected by the IRS on April 15th. I don’t think this is a situation in which you can say -­

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, that’s the reason. They thought it might be more effective if they called it a penalty.

In other words, Roberts is quite comfortable with the idea of politicians saying something is not a tax when it is a tax for reasons that are beyond the court’s purview. That is what Romney appears to be doing again here. (In the past, he has been pretty clear that his state mandate was a tax, noting in one 2010 interview that the penalty for not getting insurance was “a higher tax rate.”)

As politics, Romney’s approach depends on voters not thinking too hard about what he is saying. As a contortion, it is masterful.

68 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest
MrObvious
MrObvious

As usual Romney wants to have it both ways and you can be sure the righties and rightie punditry will argue the same to their base who'll go:

Well that makes sense. Doh.

bobcn
bobcn

"If Romney stopped there, this would just be a flip flop. But what Romney actually did was far more artful."

"Artful"?  That's a very generous way to put it.  I think most plain speaking folks would choose the word "deceitful" instead.

I'm getting bored with all of this "is it a tax?" silliness.  It's childish.  It reminds me of all the squirming Reagan did every time he increased taxes and fees ("it's not really a tax -- it's a revenue enhancement!"). 

This is not hard to understand.  If you have the means to buy health insurance but you choose not to then you'll be assessed a modest penalty that the government has the right to levy based upon the tax code.  Anyone who say's that it's not a penalty is either willfully ignorant or lying.  Whether that penalty is authorized by the tax code is irrelevant.

If you choose not to register your car but you drive it anyway, when you get pulled over and ticketed have you just been assessed a tax?

filmnoia
filmnoia

Tax or penalty, penalty or tax, who the F  cares? This is semantic BS . When is TIME and the rest of the MSM going to ask (over and over again) Willard to release his  complete tax returns for the last 10-12 years, just like Daddy George did in 1967?  How much longer can Willard hide, and what is he hiding ? He's trying to run out the clock. The MSM needs to stop with the minutia.

nflfoghorn
nflfoghorn

Is it the MSM's job or BO's job to force the issue?  If laws were broken/ethically challengeable, I'd say it's the former.

Ivy_B
Ivy_B

If BO asked, it wouldn't be covered.

nflfoghorn
nflfoghorn

I think that would be the result.

outsider2011
outsider2011

 That was a funny question Foggy.

You were being ironic, weren't you?

nflfoghorn
nflfoghorn

Yipe.  I was kinda being serious.  For a minute.

outsider2011
outsider2011

 Obamacare not the biggest tax increase ever: Following

the lead of Rush Limbaugh, who called the Affordable Care Act “the

largest tax increase in the history of the world,” many other

conservatives have made similar hyperbolic claims about the tax

implications of the law, but they’re all just that – exaggerations. In

fact, the law is nowhere near the biggest tax increase in American history, falling short of tax hikes implemented by both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, among others

anon76returns
anon76returns

The fact that the Rushes of the world have no idea that they're parroting a Homer Simpson line (that was written to make Homer look ignorant) is just part of the fun.

outsider2011
outsider2011

 As the Romney campaign debates itself about

whether the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate is an evil tax or a

unconstitutional penalty, it’s worth remembering that Republican

presidential icon Ronald Reagan imposed his own national healthcare

mandate on the country. The mandate is well know today — it

requires emergency rooms to treat anyone in need, regardless of their

ability to pay — but the fact that Reagan signed it into law is often

forgotten.

By the mid 1980s, so-called “patient dumping” had became a major concern.

The practice involved hospitals transferring patients in need of

medical attention to other institutions to avoid footing the bill, or

even discharging them before they were properly treated. One influential

study of Cook County, Illinois, which contains Chicago, found that

patients transferred because they lacked insurance were twice as likely

to die as those treated at the transferring hospital. The vast majority

of these transfers were for the hospitals’ financial reasons, even

though it delayed care and jeopardize patients’ health. Physician

organizations had policies in place mandating that hospitals treat

everyone “regardless of race, creed, sex, nationality, or sources of

payment for care,” as the bylaws from the Joint Commission on

Accreditation of Hospitals read, but without the force of law behind

them, they were often ignored and people went without care.

In 1986, Congress passed

the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, which contained the

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The law

requires hospitals to treat patients in need of emergency care

regardless of their ability to pay, citizenship, or even legal

status. It applies to any hospital that takes Medicare funds, which is

virtually every hospital in the country.

“It is very clearly a

mandate — that is a good point,” said MIT health economist Jonathan

Gruber, who advised both the Romney and Obama administrations on their

similar healthcare laws. “Mandates are part of our history, under both

Republican and Democratic presidents,” he explained in an email to

Salon. (Incidentally, the larger Ombibus law is now known commonly as

COBRA and lets people stay on their former employers’ health insurance —

another healthcare mandate signed by Reagan.)

“Although

only 4 pages in length and barely noticed at the time, EMTALA has

created a storm of controversy over the ensuing 15 years, and it is now

considered one of the most comprehensive laws guaranteeing

nondiscriminatory access to emergency medical care and thus to the

healthcare system,” Dr. Joseph Zibulewsky wrote

in the Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings. The law has helped

millions of people seek treatment and likely saved countless lives, but

it has also shifted the cost of some treatment for poor people away

from the states and onto private hospitals, as the government provided

zero funds to accommodate the extra coverage it mandated. According to

the American College of Emergency Physicians, which has some qualms with

the law as it exists today, “As a result, local and state governments

began to abdicate responsibility for charity care, shifting this public responsibility

to all hospitals. EMTALA became the de facto national healthcare policy

for the uninsured. Congress in 2000 made EMTALA enforcement a priority,

with penalties more than $ 1.17 million, nearly as much as in the first

10 years (about $ 1.8 million) of the statute combined.” Many observers

argue that the law drives up the costs for everyone else, as hospitals

have to raise their prices on paying customers in order to cover the

costs of their charity care.The law was often mentioned during

the Obamacare debate, as both sides noted that Americans are already

paying for poor people’s medical care, either directly or indirectly

through this law. But one wonders if the conservatives today would

support Reagan’s health mandate, considering that it imposes

restrictions on hospitals, shifts costs to the private sector and

individual insurance holders, and explicitly mandated the treatment of

undocumented immigrants.

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/0...

outsider2011
outsider2011

 As the Romney campaign debates itself about

whether the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate is an evil tax or a

unconstitutional penalty, it’s worth remembering that Republican

presidential icon Ronald Reagan imposed his own national healthcare

mandate on the country. The mandate is well know today — it

requires emergency rooms to treat anyone in need, regardless of their

ability to pay — but the fact that Reagan signed it into law is often

forgotten.

By the mid 1980s, so-called “patient dumping” had became a major concern.

The practice involved hospitals transferring patients in need of

medical attention to other institutions to avoid footing the bill, or

even discharging them before they were properly treated. One influential

study of Cook County, Illinois, which contains Chicago, found that

patients transferred because they lacked insurance were twice as likely

to die as those treated at the transferring hospital. The vast majority

of these transfers were for the hospitals’ financial reasons, even

though it delayed care and jeopardize patients’ health. Physician

organizations had policies in place mandating that hospitals treat

everyone “regardless of race, creed, sex, nationality, or sources of

payment for care,” as the bylaws from the Joint Commission on

Accreditation of Hospitals read, but without the force of law behind

them, they were often ignored and people went without care.

In 1986, Congress passed

the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, which contained the

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The law

requires hospitals to treat patients in need of emergency care

regardless of their ability to pay, citizenship, or even legal

status. It applies to any hospital that takes Medicare funds, which is

virtually every hospital in the country.

“It is very clearly a

mandate — that is a good point,” said MIT health economist Jonathan

Gruber, who advised both the Romney and Obama administrations on their

similar healthcare laws. “Mandates are part of our history, under both

Republican and Democratic presidents,” he explained in an email to

Salon. (Incidentally, the larger Ombibus law is now known commonly as

COBRA and lets people stay on their former employers’ health insurance —

another healthcare mandate signed by Reagan.)

“Although

only 4 pages in length and barely noticed at the time, EMTALA has

created a storm of controversy over the ensuing 15 years, and it is now

considered one of the most comprehensive laws guaranteeing

nondiscriminatory access to emergency medical care and thus to the

healthcare system,” Dr. Joseph Zibulewsky wrote

in the Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings. The law has helped

millions of people seek treatment and likely saved countless lives, but

it has also shifted the cost of some treatment for poor people away

from the states and onto private hospitals, as the government provided

zero funds to accommodate the extra coverage it mandated. According to

the American College of Emergency Physicians, which has some qualms with

the law as it exists today, “As a result, local and state governments

began to abdicate responsibility for charity care, shifting this public responsibility

to all hospitals. EMTALA became the de facto national healthcare policy

for the uninsured. Congress in 2000 made EMTALA enforcement a priority,

with penalties more than $1.17 million, nearly as much as in the first

10 years (about $1.8 million) of the statute combined.” Many observers

argue that the law drives up the costs for everyone else, as hospitals

have to raise their prices on paying customers in order to cover the

costs of their charity care.The law was often mentioned during

the Obamacare debate, as both sides noted that Americans are already

paying for poor people’s medical care, either directly or indirectly

through this law. But one wonders if the conservatives today would

support Reagan’s health mandate, considering that it imposes

restrictions on hospitals, shifts costs to the private sector and

individual insurance holders, and explicitly mandated the treatment of

undocumented immigrants.http://www.salon.com/2012/07/05/reaga...

jmac
jmac

So Romney wrote in a 2007 speech delivered at the American Enterprise Institute that he would call for "an ambitious Marshall Plan for the Middle East"?   Don't let the Tea Party in on that.  He'd be better off mentioning he's going to raise taxes on the middle class than mention "Marshall Plan" to a conservative.  

In the meantime, it seems he still has Bolton as an advisor?  Yike.  http://thinkprogress.org/secur...

outsider2011
outsider2011

 I'm not even sure how anyone in gov't, thinking of running for Gov't - can hire bolton.

S_Deemer
S_Deemer

Not a rhetorical question: Why is Eric "Etch-a-Sketch" Fehrnstrom still part of the Romney campaign apparatus?

Ivy_B
Ivy_B

Actually, I just heard a comment on NPR's Here and Now that Fehrnstrom ran Scott Brown's campaign and that made him golden in some circles in Boston.

bobell
bobell

Beating up on a weak woman is hardly a credential for running the campaign of a weak man.

Ivy_B
Ivy_B

Supposedly he's the best in show. I think he's Mitt's Mark Penn.

nflfoghorn
nflfoghorn

'Got the goods on too many people, I reckon.

jmac
jmac

To borrow from Gail Collins - It would be easier to explain what the physicists at the Large Hadron Collider discovered about the Higgs boson than to try to figure out Romney's various positions on any given topic of the day - on any given day.  

LoudRambler
LoudRambler

 The difference between Romney's position and Higgs boson is that we know that Higgs boson exist.

bobell
bobell

No, actually we don't know whether the Higgs boson exists.  It's almost certain that a new particle has been discovered, and it seems to have at least some properties that the theorized Higgs boson is supposed to have, but we don't know enough to be confident of anything.

Whereas there are quite a few things about Mitt Romney that we can state with complete confidence -- He was a predatory businessman, he lies unabashedly, he favors the Ryan "budget" and wants to cut taxes for the rich, he has no idea what he'll actually do if elected president, etc.

sacredh
sacredh

Goddamn particles!

nflfoghorn
nflfoghorn

You think Rev. Wright started that?  Insteada God BLESS particles....

sacredh
sacredh

Thanks outsider. To be honest, we've got it made. The pay is good. Our bosses are all good guys and easy to work for. As long as you do what you're supposed to do and put out a little extra effort, they've got your back. We make them look good and they take care of us.

.

The crew is tight and we put more pressure on each other than the bosses do. Nobody wants to be the one that screws up a good thing. Our installation is used as an example for all of the other installations in the district. The only time someone  leaves our installation is when they get a promotion to go somewhere else. We've had guys turn down promotions because they didn't want to leave.

sacredh
sacredh

outsider, as long as we get our work done and do a few extra things to put in the log book, I'm up for shooting the breeze with him. It reminds me of my college days when you never knew where a bull session would lead. I can see alot of myself in him when I was his age.

.

He's happier than hell that he has a job that he likes and that pays well. He doesn't complain and wants to be there. It doesn't take much to make him happy so it's easy to work with him. I give him a job to do and he goes and does it. He comes back and asks me what I want done next. Once all of our work is done, I tell him to do whatever he wants to. We work at a big place and I tell him just to let me know where he is in case I need him for something. If he wants to take a break or just talk, I don't care. The way I look at it, if I tell him to do something that takes and hour and he busts his @ss to get it done in 20 minutes, he gets the other 40 minutes off.

outsider2011
outsider2011

 I think you have the right attitude man. Just remember it if it gets on your nerves.

sacredh
sacredh

nfl, he's young and has two kids. He's been to my house a couple of times and wants me to give him first shot at it when we put it up for sale. I really like our house and the view is spectacular, but it's just too big for a place I want to retire in. Our yard is huge and it's all landscaped. I spend about 8 hours a week just keeping the outside looking good. When I retire, I want to retire. Small house, small yard and little maintenance.

nflfoghorn
nflfoghorn

He had to grew up on Star Wars/Trek and all that, so cut him some slack. 

sacredh
sacredh

outsider, he's fun to work with. He's enthusiastic, he wants to learn and he's more than willing to work. Letting him go off for awhile seems like a good trade-off. When we were walking over to the parking lot last night I told him that after we got our work done tomorrow that I'd like to continue our discussion. He's a happy camper.

outsider2011
outsider2011

 Careful there sacred - play with fire..

sacredh
sacredh

nfl, I'm working with the youngest guy at work this week. He's obsessed with UFOs and the mysteries of the universe. Most of the other guys at work will do anything not to get him started because, to put it mildly, he's enthusiastic.

.

When the 8-4 shift left yesterday I told him that after we got the buildings cleaned, I wanted to talk to him about some recent sightings and the implications of the Higgs-boson discoveries. He was like an unstoppable force.

LiberalLies2012
LiberalLies2012

While TIME.com and their gaggle of so-called "journalist" get swamped in the weeds, the big elephant in the room cries out.

“The American people know that President Obama has broken the pledge he made. He said he wouldn’t raise taxes on middle-income Americans. Not only did he raise the $500 billion that was already in the bill, it’s now clear that his mandate as described by the Supreme Court is a tax.”

Yes a TAX.  A READ MY LIPS moment for Barack Hussein Obama who said not once, not twice, but thousands and thousands of times, "I will NOT raise taxes on the middle class".  Isn't that right Michael?  

Oh that's right, you are too concerned about whether Romney thinks it is or isn't a tax.  

Not only did Obama break his most solemn promise.  He did so in historic measures.  

The individual mandate is our country's LARGEST TAX INCREASE ON THE MIDDLE CLASS, EVER.

Ivy_B
Ivy_B

Meant in response to sacred. Moved.

S_Deemer
S_Deemer

First, it's been thoroughly debunked that the individual mandate is not the largest tax increase on the middle class, ever.

Second, since it's generally accepted that the mandate penalty is a tax, are you willing to accept this statement, since Massachussetts has a similar mandate "penalty": “The American people know that Governor Romney has broken the pledge he made." As governor, Romney raised revenue in many ways, especially via penalties and "fees" to help close a budget deficit. Any reasonably intelligent person would recognize that these revenue enhancements pass the duck test, and were taxes, regardless of what they were called.

The combined state and local tax burden in Massachusetts increased during Romney's governorship but still was below the national average. According to an analysis by the Tax Foundation, that per capita burden was 9.8 percent in 2002 (below the national average of 10.3 percent), and 10.5 percent in 2006 (below the national average of 10.8 percent).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

LiberalLies2012
LiberalLies2012

Glad you brought the latest lib-loon spin to the swamp.

But, if anyone wants to know the truth.  Here it is.

http://www.businessinsider.com...

ObamaCare is the most progressive tax of it's kind at 2.5% to hit the American middle-class since taxes were collected in this country in over 237 years.

Period.

The 1950 and 1951 Revenue taxes were temporary.  ObamaCare is forever unless it is repealed.  

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

The next big "tax" burden for the middle-class occurred according to your source in 1982 during the Reagan Administration.  Again, the lying liberal source failed.  It was no where near Obama's historical tax increase for his ObamaCare entitlement program.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

anon76returns
anon76returns

Very few people will pay the voluntary tax.  Therefore it is not the "biggest tax increase in history" by any standard other than tortured logic.

S_Deemer
S_Deemer

@LiberalLies2012 : You are reminding me of Karl Rove, who predicting that Republicans would control both houses after the 2006 midterm election, said "You may end up with a different math, but you're entitled to your math, I'm entitled to the math." He was wrong, of course.

Do you ever read the things that you link to? The Wikipedia article on TERFA, for example, says:

In 1988, libertarian political writer Sheldon Richman described TEFRA as "the largest tax increase in American history." In 2003, former Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett wrote in National Review that "TEFRA raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year", elaborating, "according to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history."

The BusinessInsider link cites factcheck.org for its figures, but factcheck.org actually refutes your assertion:

It’s certainly true that the health care law would raise taxes on some Americans, particularly those with higher incomes. The law includes a Medicare payroll tax of 0.9 percent on income over $200,000 for individuals or $250,000 for couples, and a 3.8 percent tax on investment income for those earning that much. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the biggest chunk of revenue — $210.2 billion — comes from those taxes.

There are other taxes in the health care law — including an excise tax on the manufacturers of certain medical devices and on indoor tanning services. The health care law included $437.8 billion in tax revenue over 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation‘s calculations. Republicans tend to add in fees on individuals who don’t obtain health insurance (which the Supreme Court now agrees can be considered taxes) and businesses that don’t provide it to bump that up to about $500 billion.

The US GDP is approximately $15 trillion dollars. $500 billion over 10 years is $50 billion a year. Do the math — it's nowhere near 1% of GDP. You have failed math 101, again.

Apparently you agree, then, that Romney is a liar.

grape_crush
grape_crush

The individual mandate is our country's LARGEST TAX INCREASE ON THE MIDDLE CLASS, EVER.

"Obamacare is the biggest tax increase in history … if you ignore history."

sacredh
sacredh

Or else re-write it.

jmac
jmac

Conservatives threw away one of the more decent of their Presidents - George Herbert Walker Bush (thanks foggy)  - because of a READ MY LIPS pledge that he corrected on to do the right thing (pay the bills).   It's never about the right thing with LibbyLies - it's about rigid philosophy and drowning the Republican party in the gutter.   Romney's switch/switchback/ then double switch again shows how hard crawling out of the gutter is proving to be.

nflfoghorn
nflfoghorn

George HERBERT Walker Blush [aka '41'], y'mean.  Your reference points to '43,'' aka Epic FAIL.

Commentonitall
Commentonitall

If you look at the big picture this mandate will save money and health care as we know it.  Too many people are getting health care for free while the middle class pay for it.  This way it spreads the payments.  I don't mind paying if everyone else has to pay as well.  That is the essence of this bill, why don't you get that?  Your saying your okay with people refusing to buy health care and bankrupting health care for everyone else making your payments and my payments higher?  Why wouldn't you agree that everyone should pay for it and if you don't you'll be penalized?  I'm curious, what is your stance on Romney care?  You know, the mandate Obama ( for some reason you call him by his whole name, please answer why you did that as well) cribbed from?

nflfoghorn
nflfoghorn

He wants everyone to know that BO wasn't born here.....

Matthew
Matthew

 It taxes (yes, it is a tax) freeloaders who go to the ER when they're sick or hurt and leave the rest of us to pay for it. Sorry, but I don't mind taxing them.

LiberalLies2012
LiberalLies2012

The problem is your "freeloaders" for the most part are exempt from paying the tax.  

Get a brain and read.

bobell
bobell

NFL -- Why bother?  He never uses it anyway.

sacredh
sacredh

Jenna Jameison: Read my lips.

nflfoghorn
nflfoghorn

READ???

sacredh
sacredh

nfl, the missus won't even go outside when it's this hot. She bakes when it's 75. I've been drinking tons of water. I was soaked after 20 minutes at work yesterday. I had to change my t-shirt three times yesterday.

sacredh
sacredh

Ivy_B, we've already broken a couple of dozen records here in the Ohio Valley. Last year I had to cut our grass every third day. I haven't cut it in two weeks. It rains, we get soaked, it turns into a sauna and then we bake.

nflfoghorn
nflfoghorn

No global warming here--nope.  

Make sure you, the missus and the MIL drink lotsa water.

Ivy_B
Ivy_B

Read somewhere that over 3,100 heat records were broken across the country in June. Doesn't even count July.

sacredh
sacredh

nfl, we broke the heat record yesterday. We're supposed to break it again today. We're supposed to break it again tomorrow. It was still in the 90's at 10:30 last night. You could see the waves of heat rising off of the concrete.

sacredh
sacredh

OT, but the 4th is usually our busiest day of the year at work. We usually got pounded. Not yesterday. It was over 100 with a heat index of 110. I was sitting out on the picnic table last night at about 11:20 smoking a cigarette and drinking a cup of coffee. It was HOT, humid and not even a breeze. 2 minutes later we had sustained 50 mph winds, heavy rain and several lightning strikes every few seconds.

sacredh
sacredh

Think blind people and braille.