>> chief justice roberts. >> chief justices john roberts initially planned to strike down the mandate, but switched his vote. >> j. rob. >> how could you? i trusted you. >> the chief justice had to contort logic to come up with this ruling. >> we've passed plenty of laws around here that the court finds unconstitutional. >> where's the man who voted against equal pay for women? i don't even know who you are anymore! today, mitt romney and republicans couldn't agree on whether the individual mandate includes a tax or a penalty. and whether mitt romney should fire campaign senior adviser eric fernstrom, after the supreme court announced their ruling on thursday, republicans found their new line of attack. >> the supreme court, which has the final say, says it is a tax. >> it's now a tax. since the court said it was a tax. >> it's not even obama care, it's obama tax. this is a tax. >> chris wallace asked republican senate leader mitch

mcconnell the obvious question. >> if the obama mandate is a tax on the middle class, isn't the romney mandate a tax on the middle class? >> well, i think governor romney will have to speak for himself about what was done in massachusetts. >> and so, with mitt romney, as usual, unavailable for questions from reporters, the task of answering the question mitch mcconnell left for the romney campaign fell to the obama campaign's delight, the etch a sketch guy. >> the governor believes that what we put in place in massachusetts was a penalty and he disagrees with the court's ruling that the mandate was a tax. but, again -- >> so he agrees with the president -- but he agrees with the president that it is not -- and he believes that you shouldn't call the mandate -- the tax penalty a tax, you should call it a penalty or a fee or a fine? >> that's correct.

>> thank you, chuck todd! that prompted this reaction from fox news. >> my problem is this. we're out here fighting, the conservatives are fighting to call it what it is, a tax, and then mitt romney's guy, eric fernstrom, comes out today and says, it's not a tax -- >> the mandate is not a tax. >> what in the world are you -- you know what, eric, do us all a favor. take a vacation, come back november 7th, after the election, because it's a tax! >> eric fernstrom's incompetence must have come as less of a surprise to eric bowling's owner. rupert murdoch tweeted on sunday, "met romney last week, tough obama chicago prose will be hard to beat unless he drops old friends from team and hires some real pros." doubtful. joining me no are some real pros. the co-host of msnbc's "the

cycle," krystal ball and steve kornacki. so eric fernstrom has been with romney for a long time. i think that's who rupert's talking about. >> it seems likely, given the way things have happened. i wonder who rupert's talking about, that guy. yeah. of course the irony here, i had a friend in town this weekend from canada, who doesn't follow the american political system closely. and when i explained to him that mitt romney had imposed the exact same health care law in massachusetts that he's now railing against across the country, he founded just the most absurdly insane thing. and this situation where he's having to talk about, okay, it's not a tax, it's penalty, because this is what i did in massachusetts, and i campaigned on the fact that i didn't raise taxes in massachusetts points out the absurdity, not only with the health care issue, but he also raised, in one year alone, over $500 million in user fees that he claims weren't taxes.

so if this is a tax, aren't those taxes as well? >> steve, eric fernstrom's a professional. he did not go on television with chuck todd this morning without confirming with every strategist in the campaign, this is what we're going to call it. we're going to call it a penalty. they knew chuck was going to ask that question. he went on that show to send out the message, this is the romney campaign position. and they knew, didn't they, that this was going to be tough for republicans to hear? >> well, sure. and they're in basically an impossible situation there. because if they don't say that, they are saying that mitt romney imposed the exact same tax on massachusetts that barack obama supposedly imposed on the country. you know, i have heard the theory proposed, that the 2012 election is the 2004 election in reverse. this time the democrat is in the white house, the republicans have the flip-flopping rich guy from massachusetts as their nominee. and i look at this, and i see a real parallel here when it comes to health care to what john kerry and the democrats went through in 2004 with the iraq war. and you remember, you know,

kerry was haunted because, a, he had voted for the war in the first place, and b, he had that infamous, you know, for it before he was against it line on the supplemental funding. and throughout the entire fall campaign, kerry was pressing the message, hey, things are getting worse in iraq, we really need to rethink this and rethink our strategy there. and bush always had that line he could throw back at him. you voted for this thing. you wanted this war as much as i did. and i'm seeing that same potential when it comes to health care in the fall. romney can throw everything he wants, republicans can throw everything they want at obama, and obama can say, same program, same tax, your state. where'd you think i got the idea from? >> let's listen to what a romney endorser, rick santorum, said about this today. >> this is so important, yet mitt romney agreed with barack obama on every single thing that he did. why would we put someone up who is uniquely -- pick any other republican in the country! he is the worst republican, in the country, to put up against

barack obama. >> the graphic scene ruined my joke. i said he said that today, and then we were going to reveal, of course, that was back in march. but the man has a point. if you were trying to find the single worst person to have the republican nomination on the day that the united states supreme court says this is a tax, romney would be that guy, right? about the worst. >> let me introduce you to herman cain and newt gingrich. >> i don't know, herman? you know what, i would like to hear herman cain answer. is it a tax or a penalty. >> is it a tax? it might involve apples and oranges. >> and the number nine would be in there. >> it would be colorful. but, clearly, mitt romney has a problem with this issue. and actually, i think his problem may be overshadowed by the fact that the campaign's attack ads aren't actually as effective as the super pac attack ads. and they're all going to be on message with this being a tax, and quote/unquote, the worst

largest tax in middle class history, which is, of course, a lie. but they're all going to be on the page with that. there's a new study showing that their ads are actually more effective. so in some ways, i think they're going to be able to cover for this bungled romney response. >> and, let's listen to what eric fernstrom said in response to rupert murdoch's comments about the campaign staff. >> we're very happy with the team that we have. we're happy with the state of the race. i can't respond to every tweet that mr. murdoch sends out, but we like the way things are right now. >> he loves the way things are right now. loves them. he's got that penalty to deal with and now he's got rupert murdoch to deal with. what is rupert up to here? >> well, you know, i was saying to krystal before the show, it's interesting, because we all know -- >> don't say anything to krystal before the show. save it. >> we were discussing whether before the show -- we will now share. we all know where rupert murdoch is coming from.

we all know where his media empire is coming from, a very conservative republican. but it was striking to me to see him basically admit, outright, that he wants mitt romney to win the election. i thought that was kind of striking. i always thought there was a little more nuance there to see him come out and say that, i thought was interesting. but the question of fernstrom and his long-term future in the campaign. the one thing is this, this the friday, the next jobless report comes out. and we know the romney campaign, it is all about basically, they want that number as high as possible, heading into november. and i've got to say, if it's bad news this friday in terms of where the economy's going, you know, we will now be talking about eric fernstrom -- >> let's dwell on some bad news for romney for the moment. let's listen to mitt romney talking about the mandate in 2006 and 2008. >> for those that have higher incomes, we expect them to have health insurance. and if they don't, we're going to withhold their tax refund or put in place other penalties to assure that everybody comes in the system.

>> tax penalties in massachusetts. >> well, look, if people can afford to buy it, either buy the insurance or pay your own way. don't be free riders. >> so, yeah, they're tax penalties. he kind of nodded agreement to that. >> yeah. well, and he does such an eloquent job too of describing the mandate. i don't know why we didn't take some messaging lessons from him. and that's exactly what it is. you can't have people free riding on the system. we're paying for them anyway, so you have to get them in through the mandate. and the fact of the matter is, in massachusetts, which is the model for this nationwide, less than 1% of people ended up paying the penalty, tax, whatever you want to call it. >> steve, it seems that both campaigns want the, is it a penalty or is it a tax, discussion to go away. i mean, it presents a minor problem for the obama campaign, which is they don't want to dwell on this much longer either. they have to kind of enjoy where romney is, but it's not like they're going to be the prosecutors here. >> no. but i mean, in this case, you have the media is going to play

a big role in that. >> i am. i'm the prosecutor here. >> how often is it that you have one of the defining issues of the campaign, you have one party's nominee is basically completely at odds with the rest of his party. so at a certain level, the obama campaign doesn't need to worry about this. i'm really struck. look back at those clips from 2006 and 2008. the whole romney for president thing started, we have the masters of health care. that's going to be our big selling point. he was only governor for a term, he didn't run for re-election, but did this one big thing. and he showed in a bipartisan way with ted kennedy that he could do this. and six years later, because obama became president, we can learn from that, and now it's suddenly poison in the republican party. >> steve kornacki and krystal ball, you can see them every day. what is that, 3:00 p.m.? >> 3:00 p.m., 12:00 on the west coast.

>> "the cycle." >> but you don't use any of the material that you use on this show. >> nothing -- >> you come on here, it's all fresh. >> every show's a new one. >> no one heard anything like that this afternoon? >> of course not. >> thank you very much for joining me tonight. coming up, a shocking new report by david corn at mother jones that says that mitt romney was an abortion profiteer. and remember that 14-year-old kid who wowed conservatives at the cpac conference a few years ago? well, he's getting ready to go to college and he's not a conservative anymore. jonathan krome gets tonight's last word. in coffee shops. people who have been out of work. you can tell it wears on them. narrator: he's fought to pull us out of economic crisis for three years. and he still is. president obama's plan keeps taxes down for the middle class, invests in education and asks the wealthy to pay their fair share. mitt romney and his billionaire allies can spend milions to distort the president's words. but they're not interested in rebuilding the middle class. he is. i'm barack obama and i

you walk into a conventional mattress store, it's really not about you. they say, "well, if you wanted a firm bed you can lie on one of those. we provide the exact individualization that your body needs. wow, that feels really good! once you experience it, there's no going back. and don't miss our special financing now through july 4th only. plus enjoy the lowest prices of the season on selected bed sets only at the sleep number store, where queen mattresses start at just $699.

in the most underreported part of the supreme court ruling on the affordable care act, republican governors are now empowered to deny health care coverage to maybe 8 million people. how the supreme court rewrote the affordable care act is coming up in tonight's "rewrite." and david corn is here with his stunning report in mother jones on how mitt romney actually invested -- invested in the business of abortion. that's coming up.

mid grade dark roast forest fresh full tank brain freeze cake donettes rolling hot dogs bag of ice anti-freeze wash and dry diesel self-serve fix a flat jumper cables 5% cashback signup for 5% cashback at gas stations through september. it pays to discover. ♪ power surge, let it blow your mind. [ male announcer ] for fruits, veggies and natural green tea energy... new v8 v-fusion plus energy. could've had a v8. cleaning better doesn't have to take longer. i'm done. i'm gonna...use these. ♪ give me just a little more time ♪ [ female announcer ] unlike mops,

swiffer can maneuver into tight spaces and its wet mopping cloths can clean better in half the time. mom? ♪ ahhhh! ahhhh! no it's mommy! [ female announcer ] swiffer. better clean in half the time. or your money back. ♪ that has not dissuaded the media from publishing a steady stream of rumors and fifth-hand accounts. my favorite among press pieces, wisely observed, at the supreme court. those who know don't talk. and those who talk, don't know. >> that was supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg in a speech to the american constitution society on june 15th. but the rules about discretion at the supreme court might have changed since then.

here is the headline-making report from cbs news reporter, jared krofr, on "face the nation," about chief justice john roberts switching his vote on the case involving president obama's health care. >> i am told by two sources with specific knowledge of the course deliberations that roberts initially sided with the conservatives in this case, and was prepared to strike down the heart of this law, the so-called individual mandate. of course, it requires all americans to buy insurance or pay a penalty. but roberts, i'm told by my sources, changed hi views, decided to instead join with the liberals. and he withstood, i'm told by my sources, a month-long desperate campaign my the conservative justices to bring him back to the fold. and that campaign was led, ironically, by justice anthony kennedy. >> joining me now are julian epstein, a democratic strategist, and a former democratic counsel to the house judiciary committee, and paul campos, a reporter for salon.

professor campos, i was just told you may be add to the knowledge of this from a source of your own close to the drafting. tell us what you've learned and how it is different from or adds to that cbs report. >> yes, lawrence. i've been speaking with someone who was involved in the drafting of the opinions, who wasn't willing to divulge that information up until now, when this person has become very angry about the jan crawford report on cbs. and this person wishes to emphasize that, in fact, there are serious inaccuracies in that report, particularly the claim that the joint dissent was drafted after chief justice roberts defected on the question

of the individual mandate. in fact, the first 48 pages of the 65-pages of the joint dissent were really the majority opinion. only the last 17 pages of at joint dissent were added on, essentially, for the most part, after chief justice roberts changed his vote. you can tell this from internal evidence as well, if you look at justice gingsberg's opinion on, you know, on page 35, she says that the chief justice fails to explain why the individual mandate threatens to constitutional order, and then on page 15 of the joint dissent, it says, justice ginsberg claims that we fail to explain how the individual mandate threatens the constitutional order. but, instead, we do explain it. it's clear at that point that justice ginsberg is writing a straight-out dissent to the majority opinion offered by chief justice roberts. only later in the process did that become the joint dissent, and justice ginsberg's clerks, you know, changed her opinion, so that it would be addressing the chief justice's arguments in

the court's opinion. but the joint dissenters didn't bother to clean up their opinions to cover the tracks of the fact that, in fact, what we were really dealing, originally, was the majority opinion of the court, offered by chief justice roberts. which, again, i want to emphasize, the first 48 pages does not mention the opinion of the court. the dissent for the first 48 pages does not mention the opinion of the court. only in the tacked on section at the end does it mention the opinion of the court, because for the first 48 pages, it was the opinion of the court. >> so professor campos, just to clarify here, the distinction you seem to be drawing with the cbs report is that the roberts' defection occurred much later. that there wasn't the opportunity of a month of robert kennedy lobbying roberts. >> i'm not clear to what the precise timing was. what my source is very clear on is that most of that opinion was, in fact, chief justice roberts' opinion for the court. most of that was now the joint dissent. and the part of the report that claims that the joint dissenters wrote this opinion after the

fact, which just simply doesn't mention the chief justice's arguments at all, until the tacked on section at the end, having to do with medicaid, that's just a completely inaccurate description of what happened in the course of the court's deliberations and votes. and in fact, chief justice roberts did write in sum, ended up writing both the majority and the dissent in this case. >> julian epstein, your reaction to what we're learning from inside the court. >> well, i have a great deal of respect for paul, and i think that it's going to get confusing your viewers, because there are, in fact, three majority opinions and three dissenting opinions. >> okay, go ahead. make it more complicated. go ahead. >> well, i'll try to make it more simple. i think this is a theory about justice roberts changing his opinion at the last minute that's being put out by the clerks for the conservative justices and it's a very unwise move for them, because i think

it will alienate roberts. but i think it's implausible. let me tell you why i think it' implausible. first of all, chief justice roberts is not as temperamental as that, to change his mind on something so important the last minute. and he was going to author the majority opinion. and the idea that he had scalia offering the majority opinion and jumped at the last minute just doesn't seem to hold water. third, if you read justice -- the chief justice roberts' opinion on the irs penalty, he makes it clear that he thinks the conservative view on the irs penalty is absurd. and in fact, his opinion is very close to your piece last tuesday, lawrence, on the irs penalty being in the tax laws extensively in this country, as we talked about the other night. you have tax penalties if you don't get married, you have tax penalties if you don't get a child, you have tax benefits if you get a home, you have tax benefits if you get an education. and chief justice pointed out this is very common in the tax code.

it seems utterly implausible that he would have had an opposite opinion almost days earlier and that he would have shown a total disrespect -- he really dissed the republican point of view on the irs penalty. and i think paul's done good forensics on this. but i think the problem is, paul, when you have this back and forth between scalia and referring to ginsberg as the dissenting position, you know, scalia wrote the majority -- essentially had the majority view when it came to the commerce clause. when you talk about scalia saying that the question on the tax didn't need to be addressed -- the direct tax issue didn't need to be addressed because that would imply that the majority opinion felt that the tax provision was unconstitutional, i think your forensics on that are incorrect as well, because, really, what i think the position of the court there is that you don't have to get to the direct tax question, because this isn't a direct tax. this is a penalty. so i think the forensics that

you've done are very good, but i think they could be interpreted many, many different ways. the idea of roberts changing his mind on this irs penalty at the last minute, when there is such enormous precedent for it in the law, i think it's utterly implausible. >> paul, just to be clear. your information is coming from a source inside the supreme court. >> that's right. and i do want to emphasize that the real debate here is not about the irs penalty, but about what the -- what roberts' role was in the composition of what is now the joint dissent, especially in regard to the individual mandate. and my sources indicate that until very late in the process, justice roberts was going to go along with the notion that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, vis-a-vis, the commerce clause, and was not going to bail it out through this tax claim. he -- now, of course, i don't know precisely when he changed his mind in regard to that question. but, in fact, what we now see as the joint -- what is now the joint dissent was until fairly

late in the process the majority opinion of the court, authored by justice roberts in significant part. now, there are certainly parts of it that he did not author and that he would not agree, that's quite true. but i think that the crawford report is just incorrect on the claim that the dissent was drafted after -- >> and i agree the crawford report was incorrect, but let me just -- >> julian, i'm sorry, we've really got to go. i have a feeling this story is going to continue. i have a feeling we'll be having another leak or two from the court. >> give it a week and it will be debunked. >> okay, thank you both for joining me tonight. coming up, david corn's report in mother jones shows that mitt romney invested in a company that was attacked by abortion opponents for profiteering in the abortion business. david corn is next. s earns 2% cash back on every purchase, every day! put it on my spark card!

[ high-pitched ] nice doin' business with you! [ garth ] why settle for less? great businesses deserve the most rewards! awesome!!! [ male announcer ] the spark business card from capital one. choose unlimited rewards with 2% cash back or double miles on every purchase, every day! what's in your wallet?

you will always have the music, will always have that voice that we all fell in love with. she inspired us all. we'll always have my friend, miss whitney houston. >> that was mariah carey at the b.e.t. awards last night, which will be re-broadcast this week. the most important and moving tribute to whitney houston last night was from her 78-year-old mother, cissy houston. ♪ like a prayer over troubled water, i would lay thee down ♪

[ tires squeal, engine revs ]

♪ ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] not everything powerful has to guzzle fuel. the 2012 e-class bluetec from mercedes-benz. see your authorized mercedes-benz dealer for exceptional offers through mercedes-benz financial services. in the spotlight tonight, mitt romney's new abortion problem, and this one could be

worse for abortion opponents than he was for it before he was against it. david corn's investigative reporting in mother jones shows that mitt romney signed a $75 million investment in a company called stericycle, which disposes of medical waste, including fetuses from abortion. that would make mitt romney an abortion profiteer in the eyes of abortion opponents. romney successful evaded questions about this the during the presidential campaign, because he claimed to have retired from bain capital after bain made the investment in stericycle. but nine months after romney supposedly retired from bain capital, he was listed as both an active participant in the investment in stericycle and had, quote, share voting and dispositive power over the investment.

joining me now, the man who wrote today's investigative piece for mother jones, david corn, also an msnbc political analyst and also karen finney, former dnc communications director and msnbc political analyst. david, romney was able to get around this during the campaign, just because of these dates about exactly when he left bain and the republicans, his republican opponents didn't look much beyond that. >> well, yes. that's one of the big questions. there are two key parts to this article, and thank you for promoting it, as you have. one is just the investment itself. he was part of a partnership, $75 million in this company. years later, after they sold and made about $49 million off their investment, romney and his partners, abortion foes targeted it for the company's role in the disposal of aborted fetuses. so at the time, it wasn't a big issue. but, you know, one can wonder what he was looking for in terms of investments. but the other issue here is, as you noted in your introduction, he was listed as being an active participant in this deal, and

being in charge of several bain funds or properties or entities, months after his campaign says he left bain and had nothing to do with bain's internal business. this is important because, again and again and again, stories come up about bain deals, such as "the washington post" piece about outsourcing, just a few days ago, and the campaign or bain's responses that romney had left the company by that point in time, thereby trying to absolve him of involvement in these sort of deals that would look bad for a political candidate. but in this deal, and in other deals too, it turns out, there were s.e.c. records and other indications that he was more active than he has claimed to be. so there's a whole little wishy-washy mystery here to what romney was doing at bain after he supposedly left. >> and karen finney, no matter when romney left bain, the question of when he derived

income from some of these schemes could span many, many, many years, which is one of the reasons why you'd love to take a detailed look at romney tax returns, that would show up exactly where he got his income, over the relevant years, and how much of his income was from stericycle. >> that's exactly right. and as david points out in his reporting, in addition to those questions, there are new questions that seem to be raised in the responses that the romney -- from the romney campaign to david's piece, that raise questions about how -- what did he know and when did he know it? which are always the classic questions that get people in trouble. and, again, you know, this plays into a couple of narratives that are deadly for mitt romney. number one, that he will say or do anything to get elected. number two, what is he hiding in the tax records and why won't he come clean and honest and forthcoming? but number three, in the context of this campaign, lawrence, as we've talking about on your show, we got a -- you know,

reporters who are covering mitt romney have got to press these questions. these are very important questions, as david pointed out, both around stericycle, specifically, and around mitt romney's relationship to bain and to a number of deals after the period of which he is claiming that he no longer had an association with the company. >> i want to read a posting on an anti-abortion website about just how much they hate this company, stericycle. they say stericycle and other corporations like it must be stopped from furthering the abortion holocaust in our nation and around the world. the campaign to stop stericycle is committed to aggressively pursuing stericycle, along with its officers, service providers, and investors -- that would be mitt romney -- until they end their collaboration with the abortion industry. join us in the fight against this goliath. david, i've lost track of when

mitt romney was in favor of abortion and when he became against it. when he invested in stericycle had he become an abortion opponent yet? >> not yet, at least not publicly, as far as i'm aware of. but there are two key points here. one is, he invested in what he invested in, not to create jobs, not to promote family values, but to make money for himself and his fellow investors. and that's the point that the president has been very good at making again and again and again. he wasn't in it to further public or communal interests. he was in for the money. and the second thing is, mitt romney signed the papers for this deal. i have another deal that happened two years later. he's listed in s.e.c. records as part of the management committee for bain. now, bain says he was just merely a signatory, because it was very hard to separate him from the ownership in a private equity firm, because you know what, it's complicated. but that aside, we see

indications again and again that he had deeper involvement, or that he had some involvement, at least not no involvement, in what bain was doing after february 1999, when he says he left and retired to go work on the olympics. so these are issues that are going to have to be resolved. they can be resolved by looking at the tax returns in part, and by going to some of these other deals, and it just doesn't -- again, it's very fishy. >> go ahead, karen, quickly. >> as david points out, it's not just the tax returns, but the nature of his awareness in what these companies were doing and what their interactions were in addition to the tax implications. >> and was he making tens of millions of dollars off this? did he know what was happening? >> we've got to break it there. david, before you go to bet to find, can you find out how much stericycle is making from romney care in massachusetts? surely she have contracts in massachusetts that are basically funded by romney care. stay up a little later tonight, david. thank you both very much for

joining me tonight. thank you. coming up, how supreme court really did rewrite the affordable care act. they really did. and how republicans will now be able to deny coverage to millions of people, thanks to the supreme court. that in the "rewrite." and later, the 14-year-old author of "defying conservatism," who was once the darling of fox news will make his debut here on "the last word", now that he is no longer a conservative. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 let's talk about fees. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 there are atm fees. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 account service fees. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 and the most dreaded fees of all, hidden fees.

tdd# 1-800-345-2550 at charles schwab, you won't pay fees on top of fees. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 no monthly account service fees. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 no hidden fees. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 and we rebate every atm fee. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 so talk to chuck tdd# 1-800-345-2550 because when it comes to talking, there is no fee. about how older people are becoming more and more antisocial, so i was really aggressive with my parents about joining facebook. my parents are up to 19 friends now? so sad. ♪ i have 687 friends. this is living. what!? that is not a real puppy. that's too small to be a real puppy. [ male announcer ] venza. from toyota.

♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] we believe you're at your best when you can relax and be yourself. and at thousands of newly refreshed holiday inn hotels, you always can. holiday inn. stay you. and now stay rewarded with vacation pay. stay two weekend nights and get a $75 prepaid card. in a "last word" exclusive, the teenager who was once the darling of fox news and conservatives everywhere will join me to explain why he's decided he's no longer a conservative. we'll hear why he made that decision, tonight, when he gets the last word. calcium they take because they don't take it with food. switch to citracal maximum plus d. it's the only calcium supplement that can be taken with or without food.

that's why my doctor recommends citracal maximum. it's all about absorption.

in the "rewrite" tonight, the most underreported, in a way, the most important part of the supreme court's decision on the affordable care act. it is the most important part of the decision because it affects the most people. most people who will get health care coverage under the law will get it from a good old-fashioned expansion of medicaid. i say "old-fashioned" because we have expanded coverage many times under medicaid under the years. the medicaid expansion in the affordable care act has always been completely ignored by the

press, even though it is the single biggest component of the law. and that is the part of the law that the supreme court rewrote. the court switched the expansion of medicaid from being mandatory in all states to being optional in all states. that leaves us, in the media, with a very big job to do. it is a job we hate to do, because it involves actual research and reporting, all of which, all of which has to occur outside of washington, d.c. but, it can be done by phone. we now have to ask each of the 50 governors if they will veto or sign a bill expanding medicaid coverage in their states. we also, then, have to check with each of the 50 legislatures on whether they will pass a bill expanding medicaid in their states, in effect, accepting the optional offer of expanded medicaid in the affordable care act. now that you've heard the political media's homework

assignment, you can understand why no one is doing it. no one is making those phone calls to all 50 states. and so i am, tonight, inviting the national media and the local media in all 50 states to put this question to governors and legislative leaders around the country, so that we can fill out a map showing exactly how much health care coverage with was lost in the united states supreme court. how bad a hit to the affordable care act take in the supreme court? it may turn out that more people will lose coverage because of the medicaid rewrite than would have lost coverage if the individual mandate had been thrown out. think progress led the way today on how to cover this story. they posted this map, which shows only 16 states in light blue that they think will implement the medicaid expansion. and they show ten states that

they say definitely won't implement the medicaid expansion, and the rest of the states they call undecided. those ten states, supposedly refusing to implement the medicaid expansion, would be denying obama care coverage to 3.5 million people. that's more than 10% of all of the people projected to be covered by the affordable care act. it would take the total covered under medicaid from 17 million down to 13.5 million. but the medicaid total could go much, much lower than that. remember, these 26 states brought this case all the way to the united states supreme court, so that they would not have to implement the medicaid provision. so why would any of these 26

states who won that point in the supreme court go ahead and implement something they fought against and won? if all these states who won this point in the supreme court refused to expand medicaid, that would deny obama care coverage to 8.2 million people. that is approximately half of the people the affordable care act was designed to cover under the medicaid provision. that is why the handsomest man in american politics said this to bill maher on friday night. >> the big provision that concerns me on this, in sober honesty, in reflects on a decision, is the medicaid provision, which allows states to now opt out. there are 26 red states that precipitated this lawsuit in the first place in this decision. this is a major issue, even in some democratic states. >> even in some democratic states. that was the lieutenant governor of california talking there, and he has doubts that some democratic states will implement the medicaid provision. i have doubts that his state will implement the medicaid provision. the lieutenant governor of california could have said, right there on bill maher's

show, of course california will implement it. but he didn't say that. and he was wrong about the 26 states who brought the case to the supreme court being red states. two of them, two of those states, have democratic governors and democratic legislatures. only 13 states have democratic legislatures and democratic governors. the expansion of medicaid will have to be passed by legislatures and signed by governors and two, two of these 13 democratic states are among the 26 that tried to get the entire affordable care act ruled unconstitutional. so the real implementation prospects for the medicaid provision could be quite grim. washington democrats have absolutely no strategy for getting the states to accept their new medicaid option.

the reason washington democrats made that provision mandatory is that they did not believe that most states or enough states would implement the new medicaid option. so now with washington democrats who didn't trust the states to do this on their own are just pretending that the states will now do this on their own, now that they have the option. the truth is, we don't know what the states are going to do, and we need more people working on this question than just the people at think progress. if 8 million people or more just lost health insurance coverage in the united states supreme court, maybe somebody ought to tell them that. to a little girl who saw flames reach her home as her family pulled out of the driveway, this isn't just a teddy bear.

it's a step towards normal. it's why allstate catastrophe teams didn't just arrive at these fires with cold water and checks to help the grown-ups start the rebuilding... they also brought thousands of these teddy bears for kids. people come first. everything else is second. [ female announcer ] allstate customers affected by the recent wildfires call 1-800-547-8676. visit a mobile claims office, your agent or allstate.com  according to ford, the works fuel saver package could literally pay for itself. jim twitchel is this true? yes it's true. how is this possible? proper tire inflation, by using proper grades of oil, your car runs more efficiently, saves gas. you could be doing this right now? yes i could, mike. i'm slowing you down? yes you are. my bad. the works fuel saver package. just $29.95 or less after rebate. only at your ford dealer. so, to sum up, you take care of that, you take care of these, you save a bunch of this. that works. trick question. i love everything about this country! including prilosec otc.

you know one pill each morning treats your frequent heartburn so you can enjoy all this great land of ours has to offer like demolition derbies. and drive thru weddings. so if you're one of those people who gets heartburn and then treats day after day, block the acid with prilosec otc and don't get heartburn in the first place. [ male announcer ] one pill each morning. 24 hours. zero heartburn. thin coffee shops. people who i thave been out of work. you can tell it wears on them. narrator: he's fought to pull us out of economic crisis for three years. and he still is. president obama's plan keeps taxes down for the middle class, invests in education and asks the wealthy to pay their fair share. mitt romney and his billionaire allies can spend milions to distort the president's words. but they're not interested in rebuilding the middle class. he is. i'm barack obama and i

remember the republican debates we had this year? they applauded for the idea of letting a sick man without insurance die. herman cain got cheers for saying he'd electrify the border fence. they booed a gay man serving his country in the military. no wonder 14-year-old boys can do your act. you act exactly like 14-year-old boys. there's no ideology here. it's just about being a [ bleep ]. >> the most famous 14-year-old boy to thrill republican conservatives was jonathan krohn, who spoke to cpac in 2009. >> in the book, i define conservatism, as i believe it is fit, upon four categories of principle. respect for the constitution, respect for life, less government, and personal responsibility. >> needless to say, young

jonathan got rave reviews. >> he could be the next sean hannity and the future of the gop, but he can't even vote until 2016! >> political prodigy and proud conservative, jonathan krohn. >> at age 14, he's 14 years old, he's one of the gop's up-and-comers, named one of the most influential people of 2009 by "time" magazine. he is also author of "define conservatism." he's 14 years old! >> but that was then. and now jonathan krohn is 17 years old and he has, to say the least, matured. he likes "the daily show," he reads "the new yorker," he'll a freshman at new york university this year, and he will be very comfortable to live in a state where same-sex marriage is legal. joining me now for his first post-conservative tv interview is is jonathan krohn, author of "defining conservatism." jonathan, thank you very much for joining me tonight.

i have to tell you, i'll never forget seeing your video at cpac a few years ago, and i thought, wow, that kid is really bright, really smart, he's very poised in front of a microphone. but i just thought, it made me feel a little bit bad that a kid that young had his thinking all locked in on everything. and it turns out your thinking wasn't so locked in. >> yeah. i mean, i've really changed. i think that, for me, politics isn't really being about being a part of an ideology or being a part of a party. it's about just being yourself and what you think is right. i don't think i had all the answers then, i don't think i have all the answers now, i don't think anybody has all the answers at any point in their life. i just think it was really naive of me to think i knew everything then and not open my mind to the possibilities of other things being correct. >> well, i've got to tell you,

every 14-year-old i've known seems to think that they think they know everything. and it is true that by the time you're headed to freshman year in college, you realize, whoa, this university has a lot of stuff that i don't know. and so, i'm glad you're entering nyu with exactly the right kind of open mind. and this is not to s that you've moved over to becoming a liberal, is it? >> no, i mean, i have a lot more left-leaning ideas than right-leaning ideas, i guess, now. but i just don't want to be boxed in. i mean, maybe it's just having what i call label phobia. i don't want to be labeled as anything, and maybe i'll get over that and call myself something at some point. but i just don't want to be called anything. sure, i have more left-leaning ideas now, and i've talked about that recently. but i don't want to be called this ideology or that ideology. i just want to be able to talk about any ideas. and i don't think i've got it all figured out, so why box myself in now. >> right. and your development, and this started with slipping away from what you call the social conservative ideas. >> yeah. i mean, that's really where it started.

i mean, part of what happened was after the second book came out, when i was about 14, i really started reading philosophy, you know, and i've mentioned that, you know, hagel, schupenhour, niche, and i started getting into people like kripky chalmers and a lot of people. and when i revisited everything else, i realized, you know, i don't really agree with everything i wrote then. so i should just move on. the first thing to go was my social conservative ideas, because they seemed to regimental and so structured and that was the most dogmatic part about it. and i don't like being in such a place that's so -- it's so -- it suppresses me, it making me feel like i have to agree with this or i'm not a part of anything or i'm a bad person and i don't want to be a part of that. i want to have the ability to

have my opinion on any issue i want. so i left and started having more socially liberal positions on that. >> jonathan, if we weren't running out of time, which we are, you've already cited more philosophers that you've read than i have read. up next, "hardball" with chris matthews. when is a tax not a tax? let's play "hardball."

good evening. i'm michael smerconish. what we have here is a failure to communicate. from the moment the supreme court upheld the mandate, republicans say see, president obama raised taxes. but today mitt romney's chief spokesman told our chuck todd, no the mandate is not a tax after all. why would eric fernstrom say that? that means romney raised taxes with his health care plan in massachusetts. this is why rick santorum said romney would be the worst republican to carry the anti-health care reform message into the fall. also we're hearing that chief justice roberts initially planned to strike down the mandate but switched his vote. a look at the inner workers of the supreme court. plus count on seeing the obama campaign keep up their attacks on bain capital. both campaigns admitting the attacks on the business experience is working. and ne