Mitt Romney got some unwanted attention early this year when he flatly stated, "I'm not concerned about the very poor." When challenged on this remark he assured Americans that the safety net for the very poor was a given, safe from any budget and tax code tinkering in Washington. This was a sinister explanation since Romney's tax and spending plan -- or as much of it as can be deciphered -- calls for further tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of social services that he claimed were safe.
Now, we see that it's not just the "very poor" who don't merit Romney's "concern." At the now-infamous $50,000-a-plate fundraiser in Florida, Romney wrote off the concerns of the 47 percent of Americans who don't owe federal income taxes, saying that half of Americans are "dependent on government," "believe that they are the victims," and have the gall to "believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it."
That 47 percent includes families and individuals with low incomes -- about 23 percent of taxpayers, according to the Tax Policy Center. It also includes those for whom tax credits for children and working families have eliminated tax burdens -- about 7 percent. It also includes seniors who have left the workforce -- about 10 percent. Over half of the 47 percent pay federal payroll taxes. All are subject to state and local taxes, many of which, like sales taxes, are more regressive than federal taxes. (And if we ever see more Romney tax returns, we may find some years when the Romney's were in that entitled 47 percent.)
As conservative writer Reihan Salam points out in the National Review, policies like the Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit -- responsible for much of this tax relief for working families -- were conservative ideas meant to reduce the "dependency" that Romney so reviles, by "encourag[ing] people get on the first rungs of the jobs ladder, and to become less dependent over time."
Romney was telling the well-heeled guests at this fundraising dinner that these people -- middle-class parents, low-income workers, the unemployed, the elderly -- aren't interested in working hard despite the fact that most of them report to the IRS each year that they work quite a lot. This isn't just tin-eared politics. Like Romney's comments on the "very poor," it represents a profound misunderstanding of how Americans' lives work and how his policies would affect those lives.
But even talking about the "47 percent versus the 53 percent" belies the fact that nobody in America is free from at least some government "dependency." We all rely on roads, hospitals, schools, firefighters, police officers, and our military -- even Mitt Romney and his $50,000-a-plate friends. Romney himself has relied on the government's safety net for businesses, securing a federal bailout for Bain & Company. Nobody succeeds without some help from a stable, functional government. That's what President Obama was saying when his "you didn't build that" comments were taken out of context.
Romney was clearly telling his funders a fantasy story that they love to hear. But that story is a lie, and we shouldn't accept it from someone who could become a president representing 100 percent of the American people.
Follow Michael B. Keegan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MBKeegan
Billy Shore: Why the 47% Debate Could Define Both Candidates
BJ Gallagher: What Would Jesus Say to Mitt Romney?
Using percentage-based arguments regarding fair share of tax burdens is a straw man for the simple minded . We don't measure the government services we receive in percentages, so measuring the payment for those services cannot be measured in percentages for math to make any sense.
A person who pays $500,000/yr in federal taxes isn't entitled to a larger percentage of the roads he drives on, or faster mail service, or get his food inspected better. It doesn't matter whether that $500,000/yr is a 35% income tax, a 25% income tax with 6% FICA, or a 2% income tax. That guy is paying his fair share, as well as the share of two dozen other people.
It was what Romney DID SAY about these voters which is essentially that they are 'moochers' that turns people's stomach. People who are disabled - temporarily or permanent need government assistance, Ryan's college was paid for by SS survivors benefits & Romney's father received public assistance. Were they 'moochers'? aSSISTANCE ALLOWS PEOPLE ASSISTANCE TO MOVE UP that is not the same thing as dependency.
Really? Quote please? Currently the banks are able to borrow money at 0% interest, they received a $700 billion dollar bailout. Taxes at ALL levels, corporate taxes, taxes for the wealthiest etc, are as low or lower than they have been in 60 years.
You complain about electric bills going up because of regulations? On coal? Do you know how much coal costs us in terms of health expenses? Those regulations REDUCE costs overall. Moreover - the emissions standards set by Obama will essentially cut your future costs for gas IN HALF. We are importing LESS oil under Obama than under Bush or any other president in recent memory. Obamacare will not 'hit' medicaid - what are you talking about?
As far as taxes going up on the wealthy - it's not going to make a dent in inflation. I make around $300 K a year in taxable income (individually - my husband earns his own living). If my taxes go up they will go up 3% on the amount I make over $200K, that's a whopping $3000 more I'll be paying in taxes - BIG DEAL. I would much rather my taxes go up than my customer's taxes go up. If my customers don't have money to spend, then I'm out of business. Why don't you people in the middle class stand UP for yourselves? Join a union, fight for higher wages. STOP voting for trickle down economics.
Medicaid and Obamacare: The states will be creating Obama's exchanges, and those who join will be added, at least for now, onto state medicaid rosters. It will be on states to pay for these exchanges. Some are opting out, a result of the decision by SCOTUS. But in those states creating exchanges, the money will come from taxpayers.
Taxing wealthy: Notice that Rush Limbaugh used to reside in New York, and paid New York taxes. Now he resides in Florida, because New York raised taxes on the wealthy. Instead of keeping what they were getting, they lost ALL of Rush's contribution. Businesses do not have to keep their corporations in the U.S.
Airlines recently lost a tax loophole, they immediately raised customer rates. Banks, when new fed regulations were implemented, increased fees for using bank cards.
You would see your taxes go up rather than your customers', How does your paying more in taxes protect anyone from paying more for goods and services? You may not raise prices to compensate, many will.
When asked about offshore accounts in tax havens he implied that the issue was too complicated for the average guy to get- so there was nothing more forthcoming! The man is feeling his way forward in this so called campaign mistake by mistake and upset group by upset group. Offended that Romney doesn't believe in abortion? "I believe there are cases where abortion is appropriate",says the Mittster! Offended by the notion of MORE tax relief for people like him? "We mean to give tax relief to everyone,"says Romney.
This man is a walking, talking ad for flip flops. One has to wonder how he could possibly keep track of it all.
The answer is that he has no intention of doing anything he promises to anyone who isn't part of HIS strata of the electorate.
Good luck to all of us poor people. I'm wondering how to get the apple concession in front of the white house gates!