-
Obama’s Sequestration Narrative Collapsing on Itself
May 3, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Obamacare’s house of cards tumbling down
April 18, 2013 | 12 comments
-
Fact-checking The Fact-Checker
February 22, 2013 | 6 comments
-
Obama Using Family as Prop Today
December 6, 2012 | 4 comments
-
Think Progress Misses Boat on GOP Senator’s ‘Crazy Reasoning’
November 30, 2012 | 10 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Yesterday, liberal magazine Mother Jones released a video of Mitt Romney talking about the nearly 50 percent of Americans who are dependent on the federal government for at least some of their income. Romney also talked about the 47 percent of Americans who pay no individual income taxes. His conclusion in the video — which was secretly taken at a fundraiser several months ago — was that he was never going to win the votes of those people, since his message is about low taxes and decreasing government dependence.
As is typical when a non-liberal talks about the truth of dependency on government, the media has become apoplectic. Never mind that Romney was largely speaking the truth.
Romney’s statement has drawn many negative reactions, and while some of them have substance (such as Quin Hillyer’s excellent points), others do not. Here are a few that have made news:
First, Romney’s statement includes senior citizens, who are on Medicare and Social Security. These programs, while transfer payments, are the result of an implicit government promise to citizens who are forced to invest in these programs throughout their working lives. It is doubtful Romney meant to say seniors are mooching off of the system.
Second, The Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart claims Romney said he doesn’t care about those on the lower income scale. This is either dishonest or a simple mishearing. In fact, Romney said he doesn’t worry about the people in this 47 percent because he knows he won’t win their votes. It was a statement about electoral strategy, plain and simple.
Ironically, speaking of electoral strategy, the same political pundit class now bashing Romney used to agree with him — this election will be won by gaining support from the relatively small percentage of independent voters who are undecided. Which is what Romney said.
Third, Romney is mostly correct that people on government programs don’t want to get off of them. While it is unfair and inaccurate to say all people on those programs want to stay dependent, the fact is that debates over Medicaid, food stamps, and other dependency programs usually focus on slowing the growth of those programs, not cutting them — and it is often the people on those programs who are most vocally for them. As a farmer explained to me once, his family could make more money by farming the land they own. However, since the government money is free, they simply take it and move on.
Fourth, the most legitimate criticism of Romney is the fact that the economy stinks and people are struggling. While government dependence is not the answer to a weak economy, blame for the current economic malaise should almost entirely be laid on the backs of the last several Congresses, Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama, the Board of the Federal Reserve, and the large banks — all of whom conspired to bail out banks, auto companies, and other select, connected industries… all while leaving the average American in serious financial straits.
Regardless of the political class’ response, this morning Tea Party Patriots co-founder and national coordinator Jenny Beth Martin spelled out exactly why grassroots activists should care about what Romney said: “Since 2009, Tea Party Patriots across the nation have said: Enough! Enough of big government supporting failed companies. Enough of big government health care schemes that rob American families of the freedom to choose the best care for them. Enough of big government that divides this great nation into factions that fight for their own government handouts.”
And that’s what it all comes down to. Government handouts were supposed to prevent the collapse of the economy. That failed. Then they were supposed to help us out of economic recession. That failed. Yet social programs continue to grow in cost and size; data calculated by Just Facts President Jim Agresti show that 61 percent of federal spending was for social programs in 2010. This has grown from approximately 22 percent of federal spending in 1959. As the cost of government health care continues to rise, especially as the President’s health care act begins to take full effect, this dependence on social programs will only grow.
Sooner or later, barring a massive tax increase on all Americans, social dependence on the federal government will shrink dramatically. Unfortunately, to paraphrase Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), this can either happen in a controlled way — through deliberate spending cuts — or through a collapse of the American economy as investors choose to stop buying our debt. No American wants to see the latter, and so it is long past time for Americans to start decreasing their dependence on the federal government while significantly reforming the tax code. Nothing else will prevent the fiscal collapse of our nation.
View all comments (11) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Dustin Siggins
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/09/18/romneys47-comments-needed-hone
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
- Her Unrequited Letter
- We Have Her Example
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bob Grant| 9.19.12 @ 12:06AM
Romney should say he owns ALL of his comments.
Then he should ask obama if he owns, "When I'm elected I'll have more flexibility." Then ask him what exactly does that mean. You'd think the media would have inquired.
Jesse Fell| 9.19.12 @ 4:01AM
The increase in the number of people enrolling in programs such as Food Stamps and Medicaid is a consequence of the recession, not in any growing popularity of dependency. And of course, the people in these programs defend them -- they have no other resource at the moment. And it is hard to see how the Affordable Care Act is going to make dependence on government programs grow. The way that the ACA expands Medicare is to create a national "insurance exchange" that will make it possible for people who previously have been unable to buy insurance to buy it from private insurers, to obtain the services of private health care providers. It is true that people who cannot afford the premiums will receive subsidies for the amount that they cannot pay for, so yes, these people will depend on the government for their health insurance to that extent. Would they be better off, then, going without treatment for diabetes, high blood pressure, depression; or forgoing pap smears, mammograms, PSA tests, and the like? Is accepting government help obtaining potentially life-saving care the same as sitting on the couch all day long watching TV and gobbling beer nuts secure in the knowledge that the government will always make this way of life possible for you?
Stan Redmond| 9.19.12 @ 2:11PM
False choice nonsense.
JD| 9.19.12 @ 10:26AM
Romney's comments are a gaffe, though the secret recording is despicable. But I don't think his comments are as insulting as "cling to guns and religion", which Obama got a pass for.
Of course the media isn't going to be evenhanded.
Mike G| 9.19.12 @ 11:39AM
It's not a gaffe at all, it's merely a realistic view of what his job is. His job, as a candidate, is to sway all the voters he can, and correctly says that the 47% who pay no taxes will not respond to his message of cutting taxes. Note, he is not president, so he can't worry about swaying the votes of the 47% .
Fiscal| 9.19.12 @ 10:29AM
Everyone seems to be missing the point here. Of course Romney was right in his political analysis. That's precisely the problem -- he should be talking about his vision of the country and the importance of making government better and more cost effective and not about political strategy -- even to donors. It plays into the notion of Romney as someone who wants the Presidency more for ambition than for governing -- and that is becoming increasingly apparent. That's why he has changed his "core" beliefs over the years. He won't give details about what he knows must be done again because he's more interested in getting elected than in making the case for smaller government. He's worried about losing votes, especially with seniors, and thus will not say how he is going to reduce Medicare. In fact, arguing about Obama cutting Medicare only proves the point about his ambition as he should be supporting Medicare cuts.
Let's face it, Romney just doesn't have the "vision thing" -- he's a technocratic manager. While that still makes him a better alternative than Obama, it speaks volumes about our political system that is more like a football game than one interested in our future.
Stan Redmond| 9.19.12 @ 2:14PM
Missing two minutes anyone? Doctored tape? It wasn't the venue to talk about his vision.
I'm not a rabid Romney supporter but come on. We have to do everything we can to get rid of Obama. I hate reading these defeatist posts that already declare Romney DOA and not support him while we watch the country fall into a de facto dictatorship.
Fiscal| 9.19.12 @ 2:28PM
That's the problem... This election has turned into "getting rid of Obama" rather than voting FOR Romney. I'm voting for Romney, but I won't make excuses for him. He isn't going to make much difference, but he will be a better "manager" of our government.
Fiscal| 9.19.12 @ 2:29PM
One more comment... It WAS the venue to talk about his "vision". It's always the venue to give people reasons to vote for you. If any of his donors want to get into the political details, they can ask his political director.
Mike Daly | 9.19.12 @ 12:42PM
That Obama has steered the nation toward the government hackerama and the slackerama has been obvious forever - Romney merely made a blunt statement about it. If anything it shows Romney is more honest than Democrats ever have been.
Fiscal| 9.19.12 @ 1:00PM
If Romney were honest, he would have said it in public. NO politicians are honest because the only way to get elected in this country is to pander to your base, independents, and wealthy donors. Once you pander to your base, you make enemies on the other side.
This is because of the spread of media on the extreme right and extreme left that push slightly true factoids into lies. Because people are lazy, they only listen to media that agrees with them. You can't adjudicate issues when the "facts" you hear are skewed.
Fox has ruined conservatism because it used to be an intellectual, fact based, ideology. Now, it's turned into a religious, feeling based exercise. Of course, liberalism has always been based on feelings. That's why there can be no compromise because people refuse to look at facts.