from washington, "the mclaughlin group," the american original. for over three decade brought to you by at&t. issue o obamacare scores.

individual mandate upheld, so ruled the u.s. supreme court on thursday. the individual mandate is the core provision of president obama's overhaul of the healthcare system. the mandate requires that americans must buy health insurance. if they do not, they must pay a tax penalty. in a 5-4 decision with chief justice john roberts writing the majority opinion the court reasoned that congress has the right to impose taxes, and the health mandate can be construed as a tax. quote, because the constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness, unquote, so wrote chief justice john roberts. >> question.

26 states have sued the federal government over the healthcare law called the affordable care act. how will this ruling go over with those states and the american people at large in those states? pat buchanan. >> overall, i don't think it's going to go over very well, but john roberts has just given barack obama a signal victory, and he may have given barack obama a second term as president of the united states. john, four of those justices were ready not only to overturn the individual mandate but the entire obamacare law, and john roberts joined them, the whole thing would be gone now, and barack obama would have nothing to show for his first four years basically but a bad economy. go ahead. >> you say that notwithstanding the poll numbers. 37% is the percentage of americans with a favorable view of the law versus 44% with an actively unfavorable view of the law. >> here's what john roberts did, john. he -- i understand his

sentiment. it's a conservative sen tie meant. he says, we ought not to be deciding these things, the elected representatives should. but this was such an open-and- shut case that he should have acted on it but he failed to act, and as a consequence of that i think, as i say, john roberts may well have re- elected president obama. >> he put the word tax turned micro scope and got enough out of it to take the position that he has taken. a lot of thought went into this tax code before it was formed, a lot of deliberation. and who knows whether or not he has caught the essence of tax the way he describes it. >> i would points out that the health insurance plan that governor romney signed into law in massachusetts had a similar penalty, has a similar penalty if you do not -- if you can afford health insurance and choose not to buy it. and governor romney called at personal responsibility incentive. so i think i will go with that

language, and i commend the chief justice for finding or crafting a legal ruling that respects the majority rule and he did the same thing on the immigration case this week, and i think he's gone a long way towards rehabilitating the court's reputation as a body that is not just predictable along political lines. and as for the 26 states that sued, i would imagine they're all going to start putting the machinery in place to get the insurance exchanges up and running, because, you know, we're in a country, rule of law, the supreme court has spoken. >> well, we don't want to debate -- i don't think we want to debate that here. it's a done deal. >> that's right. >> 105 million people are the number of americans who no longer have a lifetime limit on their insurance coverage. because of this. what do you say to that? >> i'd say that the

conservative republicans and people who believe in economic freedom have three shots at this. first they have the court's shot to take down obamacare. that failed. the next shot comes in november, if mitt romney is elected. and the third shot is the math, because the math of obamacare over the long term does not work, because does it not address the fundamental problem driving healthcare costs, which people are not spending their own dollars on insurance, they're spending someone else's money. therefore, they do not pay close attention to how that money is being spent and too much is spent. >> let me put a dollar figure on that. the estimated 10-year gross cost of insurance coverage expansion under this is $1.5 trillion. $1.5 trillion. what are the american people going to say when they see that coming out of their pocket? >> i don't know what they're going to say. i don't know what the mechanism is that they're going to have to speak about it other than

elections. but i want to mention another mandate, something called employer responsibility. and that means every company with 50 employees or more is going to have to buy a certain kind of insurance. that is going to be much more expensive than what they've been doing, and that is going to add literally $1.79 per hour to all of these employees that they are hiring, and this is going to greatly diminish the number of basically low-level, low-income jobs that are going to be available in our economy, replacing private sector jobs with government bureaucrat jobs. >> let's move this on. president obama, right af this, in part. >> they've reafirmed a fundamental principle that here in america, in the wealthiest nation on earth, no illness or accident should lead to any family's financial ruin. i know there will be a lot of discussion today about the politics of all this, about who won and who lost.

that's how these things tend to be viewed here in washington. but that discussion completely misses the point. whatever the politics, today's decision was a victory for people all over this country whose lives will be more secure because of this law and eme cou uphold it. >> how does that impress you, mr. public? >> i'm pretty sure that's not what the court said. the court said, listen, this law is not unconstitutional. chief justice roberts did not say it was good law. he said, listen, i'm not ruling whether this is good law. congress will have to rule that. i'm not ruling whether this is smart law. it's up to the american people. and i think the american people in poll after poll have said they think this is bad law. >> what you said is quite clear. the cost of this thing is what is not being dealt with. the cost is going to be somewhere well over a trillion dollars. it's going to chew up all of the available assets that our federal government brings to bear. >> it's the wrong direction.

>> i'm not saying we shouldn't do something about healthcare. this is just not the way to deal with it. it is just going to cost a fortune, and nobody's got the finances. it's going to destroy state government, destroy the federal government's ability to do things. >> if you list the various benefits in the affordable care act, the fact that insurance company can't kick you off if you have a preexisting condition, and there are many other things, i think it's very important to many people in this country, and it is about time that we recognize that healthcare is a right. excuse me. is a right, and obamacare is not perfect, and it will be revisited many times. but it is a beginning, and if you try to take away and dismantle this, you will create pandemonium in the insurance market. >> john, the only way we can change this thing, the only possible way, i believe, and the math is way down the road is you've got to elect -- not

only elect mitt romney president, you've got to have a republican senate and a republican house, because it is a tax. i tell what you that does, john. that energizes the republican base which is enormously energized now, but we're still four months out from the election. >> i don't know if i gave you the statistics but i want to give it to you now. the projected number of americans remaining uninsured now because of this development is 27 million. >> it adds $30 million -- 30 million people when it is finally implemented. nobody is saying it's perfect. it's the hugest step that any president certainly has been able to take. >> it's an unsustainable step. >> the congressional budget office says it lowers the deficit. there are pilot programs trying to get an vend life issue with the republicans say -- >> when we come back

issue two. romney responds. >> what the court did not do on its last day in session i will do on my first day, if elected president of the united states. and that is, i will act to repeal obamacare. let's make clear that we understand what the court did and did not do. what the court did today was say that obamacare does not violate the constitution. what they did not do was say that obamacare is good law or that it's good policy. obama care was bad policy yesterday, it's bad policy today. obamacare was bad law yesterday, it's bad law today. let me tell you why i say that. obamacare raises taxes on the american people by approximately $500 billion. obamacare cuts medicare, cuts medicare by approximately $500

billion. and even with those cuts, and tax increases, obamacare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt and pushes those obligations on the coming generations. >> mr. romney also said obamacare means 20 million americans will lose the coverage they like. obamacare is a job killer. obamacare makes the government too big, too intrusive. >> if we want to get have to replace president obama. >> question. rate romney's reaction. did it have merit, or was it rhetoric? james? >> he's certainly right on the fact at least immediately if you want to replace obamacare. it's not going to happen in ngress now unless he's elected and gets a republican senate, a republican house, then could it possibly be repealed. i wish he would have taken the opportunity to talk about his

own healthcare plan. >> it certainly does dramatically accentuate the fundamental problem facing this country which is that we are insolvent. it's just a question of time when everything hits the fan. we have not -- we have a

trillion and a half dollar additional costs. we're going to have to find a way to deal with that. somehow or other it's just going to chew up almost everything both at the state d this is a critical issue e way towards time to again

focus on accomplishing a healthcare future that is premised upon patient centered care, lowering costs, and affording better access. >> he is going to initiate next week a repeal. what's the story on a he repeal? >> it's meaningless what he's doing. he's going to pass it in the hours, send it to the senate. >> what is it? >> this is the repeal -- >> it's anne arundel nullment of -- >> the house is going to pass it, the senate is not. this depends, as i mentioned, romney has got to be elected president. >> why would the senate not pass it? >> it's harry reid's senate. >> it's a democratic senate. so this is going to await the election, and if the senate is overturned, then we might get the repeal. >> you've got to have romney and a senate and a house. >> 51 votes. >> it's a tax. and you can deal with taxes. >> so you think this is an unrealistic expectation? is it for rhetoric?

is he beyond the -- >> right now it is meaningless. >> meaningless? you have not initiated a repeal. >> it's irrelevant. >> suppose the senate gets the message from the people that this thing is not working. >> they know it's not working. >> a democratic senate is going to overturn -- >> it will be repealed later in the year. >> you can bring it up all you want. unless harry reid is gone you are not going to get anywhere. >> exit question. this is a victory for president obama. will it be a short-term victory or long-term victory? pat buchanan. >> i'm afraid it's a long-term victory. >> it puts him in the history books and on the right track and i think it's to his benefit in november. the country does not want another long, bloody battle over healthcare. not that time in business of giving advice to republicans. if they want this election to turn on the economy, they ought to get off this topic real fast and accept the ruling of the

land. >> quickly. >> short-term, obama care encapsulates everything that's wrong with obamacare. >> i believe it's going to have an adverse impact on the economy. >> short term three, high court immigration. >> today is a day when the key components of our efforts to protect the citizens of arizona to take up the fight against illegal immigration in a balanced and constitutional way has unanimously been vindicated by the highest court in the land. >> arizona governor jan brewer applauded another u.s. supreme court decision. on monday, the high court ruled on the state of arizona and its law that deals with illegal immigrants. the high court ruled that police officers can continue to

check the immigration status of people they stop. that means if someone is stopped for any offense, major or minor, and cannot provide proof of legal residency, then the police officer has the that person's legal status. >> question. how big of a victory was this for arizona governor brewer and how big a victory for president obama? eleanor clift. >> this was a total loss for the governor of arizona. the supreme court basically gutted the arizona law. they left -- they said that immigration is a matter for the federal government and states should not overstep. they left the papers please provision but they issued a warning. first report that anybody is racially profiled they will invite another case, and they also said they did a conference call with reporters, the administration, did and basically said the police call to check someone's immigration status, if they find -- unless they've got a felony they're not supporting people because

they're illegal. so the arizona law and has huge implication on alabama and other states with similar laws. this was a case for john roberts. >> obama declared a de facto amnesty for all illegal aliens under 30 years of age, if you've got a good, clean record, you've served in the military, which is something you can do, but he's declared he's not going to enforce law. >> it's prosecutorial discretion, pat. if you have limited resources, you don't deport people. >> he tells a group of people, i'm not going to enforce the law against. >> it's prepostorrous. >> it's well within his constitutional rights. >> how can he decide whom he's going to enforce the law against? not these folks but those folks? >> he's said several times

this. the president must enforce the law. he himself, obama said this. >> i don't notice any constitutional challenges. immigration as an issue, believe it or not, does not score very high on the american think board. out of 15 issues ant. >> there are guns on the list. let me tell something you, you start to restrict guns, it will be right up there very high, and people will want to run away from. that john that group of issues you've got are sort of general things. there are cultural, moral, social issues and issues like gun control on which people vote, and immigration is one of them. >> which one? is it 14th out of 15? >> i think that's too low. >> so do i but when i saw the stat i saw the stat. >> i would put the economy and all the issues under it number one, immigration two or three. >> you want to speak to this?

hold on. >> i would put immigration very high but i would put the need for high-skilled immigrants, entrepreneurs, when it comes to this country, that's a big part of our economical -- whic exit question. how does this immigration ruling play politically for president obama and how does it play play politically for the candidate on the left, mitt romney? >> i think what obama did on the dream act, i would agree it's to his benefit with the hispanic community dramatically. i think -- >> they bring about 13 electoral votes, the latinos. >> that is ridiculous, john. colorado, states like arizona -- >> i'm including colorado. >> california is gone, but colorado -- >> 13 is what they bring. >> hispanics are very heavy now in north carolina. >> how much depends on the latino vote? >> i would say 50.

>> it could swing a number of states. the president has a 40-point lead over mitt romney and is a huge generational divide in attitudes. younger people think diversity is great. older people let's try this issue. foreign policy. to what extent was foreign policy issues appear and be reasonably prominent in the upcoming presidential election about five months away? >> they could be decisive in this sense, john. the negotiations with iran over its nuclear program are in very bad shape in moscow, and if these collapse, there's a real possibility that either the israelis would strike iran before november, or that barack obama might get into a confrontation with iran, in which case my view has always been, if there's a confrontation with a foreign regime, especially the iranians who are deeply unpopular, i

think it would benefit obama. i think they're going to stay out of syria, though. >> what's the likelihood of iran trying to resist israel? what's the likelihood that iran is anything else but ire rannic right now, that is they want a settlement of the issue quietly and peacefully. >> i think they do want a settlement of tissues as long as they're allowed to enrich uranium, but israel doesn't want them to have it and the united states is backing israel, and iran will not back down. >> are we talking about a 20% enrichment of uranium above that? is anybody okay over this? to allow them to have -- they already have civilian plants operating. >> we have offered them whatever materials they need for their medical purposes, because that is the primary -- >> you need enrichment. >> we can provide it to them what. we don't want is to have a system whereby they can clearly and use subterfuge to go from whatever it is up to 20%.

we have to have some kind of monitoring here in order to make sure this is for real and not another fake. >> if they were to allow enrichment and hold it to 20% as they seem to be guaranteeing would that be verifiable and would that satisfy israel so that they could enrich to that extent, which they can now do? and they're now doing it, i believe. >> they are enriching it, but they're not supposed to enrich to the that level of 20%. >> what should the level be? >> four and a half or five. >> i thought it was between five and ten. >> we've agreed to provide them whatever. >> foreign policy issue in this coming election is there one that you can conceive of coming to bear? >> i always think of former defense secretary rumsfeld talking about there are known unknowns et cetera. physicals there is some foreign policy cries this is an election about jobs and economy. and what the president has done

is successfully neutralized what has always been a republican advantage on foreign policy. he's been really tough, tough to the point where he gets criticism from, for example, former president jimmy carter, that he's violating human rights with the drone attacks. so i don't see is it as a voting issue, but, you know, outside events can interfere. >> the attorney general has been characterized recently. is that going to appear in this coming election, and does it have any lifting power? what am i talking about? >> i think there's a perception that certainly is true among republicans that this is an administration that really doesn't care very much about the rule of law, and exhibit number 1 is the attorney general. so, yeah, i think you are going to hear a lot about eric holder, fast and furious. >> what's the rap against holder? >> that he's not been forth coming with the united states congress about fast and furious and the murder of -- >> he's conducting a coverup of the rap against him, but he is

not going to be in a second term, even if obama wins, so that's somehow going to moot this issue. >> do you think they're okay with just letting this coast? >> i think the republicans would like -- >> you know that we have -- >> until the election is over, we'll deal with it after. that you remember, john, we did in that '72. >> you remember -- no, no, you know the name of the investigation body that's now sitting on this? >> the house committee -- the issa committee. >> he seems very tenacious, and he's very skilled. >> yes, he is skilled, and he is furious at holder. >> he's a committee chairman. >> yes, that's right. >> he has power. >> they just cited him for contempt. >> they just cited eric holder for criminal contempt and civil contempt. >> what happens now? does that just go away? >> the department of justice in d.c., he does nothing. >> can he get away with that? >> civil contempt goes to a

judge. >> do you think the republicans are going to let him get away with that? he's withholding documents related to fast and furious, which is -- i'm arguing with the panel. >> it goes to civil court predictions, pat. >> republicans have to win the senate to overturn obamacare. i predict they well. >> eleanor. >> contempt of congress charge against eric hold ler go nowhere. >> what do you think? >> the unemployment rate on election day will be closer to 9 than 8. >> the opposition to the healthcare bill will grow and will be a major factor in the election coming up in november. >> i predict the conservatives will be mobilized this fall more than they have been in the last four, even five