When Mitt Romney sat down with Fox News' Neil Cavuto yesterday, he very quickly denounced the idea of "redistribution" of wealth. Literally 20 seconds later, Romney added, "I believe the right course for America is one where government steps in to help those that are in need." Soon after, Romney also condemned President Obama for finding savings in Medicare.
It was a hint, not only that he's not clear on what "redistribution" means, but also that he hasn't really thought the issue through. As Greg Sargent noted, "Maybe someone can explain how we can pay for 'government caring for those in need' without 'taking from some to give to others.' How do you pay for a safety net without redistribution?"
The short answer is, you can't.
But there was another exchange in the interview that's worth keeping in mind.
CAVUTO: Now, you have said that your wording might have been inelegant, but others have said that you just kissed half the electorate goodbye this election year, that you all but called them moochers. Did you?
ROMNEY: No, I'm talking about a perspective of individuals who I'm not likely to get to support me. I recognize that those people who are not paying income tax are going to say, "Gosh, this, this provision of, that Mitt keeps talking about lowering income taxes," that's not going to be real attractive to them.
The point, of course, was to offer some kind of defense for his "47 percent" problem, explaining why he's largely prepared to blow off the chunk of the population he perceives as lazy moochers who refuse to "take responsibility" for their lives.
But in the process, Romney accidentally admitted something. As John McCormack at the conservative Weekly Standard noted last night, Romney "conceded yet again that his tax policies won't appeal to half the country."
Quite right. According to Mitt Romney, talking on Fox News, his tax plan won't help 47 percent of the population. Indeed, there's ample evidence that many of the folks in this chunk of the population will see a tax increase, as the Romney administration redistributes wealth in the other direction by slashing taxes on the wealthy.
Remember, as Rachel noted last night, Romney believes it's a "problem" that 47 percent of the population doesn't pay federal income taxes, and it's a problem he intends to fix. What's new is the admission on national television that his tax plan won't be "attractive" to nearly half the country because that's the part of the country that won't see any of the benefits.
Leave a Comment:
Im not really one for blogs and boards but this seemed like the place to put this so I thought I would give it a try.
I was reading David Brooks op-ed where he called Romney "Thurston Howell" and it occurred to me why this idea of 47% of Americans being dependant on the government might have so much traction with this part of the Republican base. It's a problem of perspective. These are people of privilege and status and they are equating a 75 year old's Social Security check with their last earnings statement and a 2 room flat with their winter home in Aspen. These are people who just honestly DO NOT understand poverty especially not in the U.S. Its not something in their experience or history and rather than going out and seeing it or (God forbid) experiencing for themselves they get defencive, which while perhaps not rational is at least understandable. So if that's the problem what is the solution. How do you get these people to understand what poverty and near poverty is in America without forcing them to leave the safety and security of their gated communities...
Has anyone done a study of the number of jobs created by the people who benefitted from the Republican-sponsored reduction in the Federal income tax? Some smart economics PhD must have tried to figure this out.
More to the point, how many jobs did Mitt Romney create with the reduction in his Federal Income Tax liability? Or how many jobs were created by Mitt's top 100 donors? Come on Republicans, show us just a little evidence that what you're pushing has actually worked.
The statement inadvertently reveals a deeper cynicism about the political process. Not only was Romney feeding his base with the notion that they are the overtaxed victims of Big Government's redistribution of wealth to the 47% moochers, he also told them that the 47% could no longer be bribed with the prospect of lower taxes because they are already paying no taxes. His point was that the GOP has nothing to offer 47% of the population, since the platform is essentially 1) reduce the size of government and 2) lower taxes.
Why I'm better off now then 4 years ago...4 years ago my stocks were in the toilet, my 403b lost half it's value. I was admitted to the hospital with chest pain, when I realized that my retirement money was down the drain....forward to Today...my stock portfolio has doubled. My 403b regained it's losses, and is making money again. I don't have to work till I'm 85. Best of all, no more chest pain, I'm training to run a marathon. So let's recap shall we. Stock market under republican president with trickle down economics...low. Stock market under a democrat president ( you can insert Clinton or Obama here )...high. Guess what, I'm voting for the party that the stock market likes.