Romney Calls Voters Government-Dependent

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright Sept 18, 2012
All Rights Reserved.                                         

                 Speaking off the record at a fundraiser earlier in the year, GOP presidential nominee former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney stood by his comments calling Obama’s supporters “victims,” reliant on government largesse.  Sniffing more closely at Romney’s remark, it smells like his chief strategist 58-year-old former Hollywood screenwriter-novelist-turned political consultant Stuart Stevens.  Stevens apparently views political consulting as a new form of narrative or fiction writing, running with whatever gains traction.  Stevens was the architect of Mitt’s latest foreign policy fiasco that blamed Obama for recent Mideast unrest that took the life of U.S. Libyan Amb. Chris Stevens Sept.12 in Benghazi.  When that narrative backfired, Mitt went back to bashing Obama on the economy.  Steven’s overarching story-line tells voters that Barack botched the economy.

            Instead of doing some urgent damage control, Mitt dug himself deeper into a hole standing by his embarrassing comments.  “There are 47% who are with him, dependent upon the government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it,” Romney said off-the-cuff.  Instead of denouncing his own remarks, the multimillionaire former Wall Street investment banker, worth in excess of $250 million, tried to explain himself.  “That’s not as attractive to those who don’t pay income taxes as it is to those who do.  And likewise those who are reliant on government are not as attracted to my message of slimming down the size of government.  And so I then focus on those individuals who I believe are most likely to be able to be pulled into my camp,” Mitt explained.

            Romney gave a free X-Ray into his convoluted thinking about class differences, rich and poor.  He paints 47% of the population as dependent on government largesse but has lacunae when it comes to himself or his upper-crust “self-made” friends.  After all, it was Mitt who recommended recently for young people to borrow money from their parents to start businesses.  Does Mitt really think that average folks have so much cash-in-hand to give it away to their kids?  When Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) ran for president in 2004, he was seen as too rich to relate to average folks.  Showing him on snow or jet-skis didn’t help his image.  Romney’s “let-them-eat-cake” moment hurts his image, showing how far he’s detached from the man-in-the-street.  Romney points fingers at low wage-earners for not paying taxes yet ignores all his “legal” loopholes to reduce his tax rate to under 14%.

            Mitt talks disparagingly about “those who are reliant on the government” but knows the vast majority of seniors use government-funded Medicare and Social Security to pay for health care and retirement benefits.  Mitt knows plenty of folks in his income bracket that use Medicare and cash Social Security checks.  Are those folks really part of Mitt’s 47%?  When corporations, like the oil giant Halliburton or security firm Blackwater, seek government contracts, does Mitt rip them for government-dependence?  Romney or his VP Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) have no problem handing tax dollars to corporations just not hard-working taxpayers.  Mitt comes closest of all to exposing his real economic plan when he talks of “slimming down the size of government.”  In less euphemistic terms, it usually means laying-off federal employees, something that would spike the unemployment rate.

             Romney has a plan to add 12 million jobs during his first term.  He just won’t fill in the details on his plan.  His chief consultant Stevens believes it’s better in today’s politics to remain vague.  After all, the devil’s in the details.  If Mitt even hinted about laying off federal workers, he’d be a dead duck.  “It’s not elegantly stated, let me put it that way,” said Mitt, referring to his “victims” remarks.  “I’m speaking off the cuff in response to a question, and I’m sure I can state it more clearly in a more effective way than I did in a setting like that so I’m sure I’ll point that out as time goes on,” said Mitt refusing to apologize or explain himself.  Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) recently noted that the Medicare and Social Security issue practically handed Barack a second term on a silver platter.  It’s difficult for Mitt to put the genie back in the bottle now that it’s out.

              Mitt’s “off-the-cuff” remarks open up a can of worms for his chief strategist Stuart Stevens.  He’s helped Romney revive the old Reagan narrative that “government is too big and spends too much.”  Instead of bashing struggling taxpayers, Romney should show more empathy for voters in all income brackets.  “Do you believe in a government-centered society that provides more and more benefits or do you believe instead in a free enterprise society where people are able to pursue their dreams,” said Mitt, presenting the false choice to voters.  Government has always played a role in helping citizens become self-sufficient.  Some government benefits, like Medicare and Social Security, apply to all income brackets not only those at the lowest wrung.  If Mitt really believes what he’s saying, he should urge his followers—including himself—to voluntarily swear off Social Security and Medicare.

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com.and author of Dodging the Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2012 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.