Just when Mitt Romney was all set to reset his campaign following a Politico article that chronicled the implosion of his campaign, a video of remarks Romney made to a small group of wealthy contributors was leaked to Mother Jones. This is the quote that has the conservative right cheering and everyone else puzzled or downright outraged:
“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the 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. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what ….These are people who pay no income tax.”
In sum, Romney said that 47% of voters will vote for Obama no matter what. That’s not a terribly controversial statement. 47% of voters will probably vote for Romney no matter what, too.
Claiming the 47% of voters who are dedicated to Obama pay no federal income tax is where Romney went wrong.
The assertion that a high percentage of Americans pay no tax – a claim I’ve seen framed both as “no tax at all” (which is unlikely, as it would include sales tax) and “no income tax” – is a popular conservative talking point. The theory goes, all the poor people who aren’t paying their fair share are a drain on hard-working Americans, and it’s unfair to raise taxes on any part of the population – including the rich – for the benefit of those mooching freeloaders. Ezra Klein dissects this “makers v. takers” myth in this article, which is a must-read for anyone seeking to understand the truth behind the rhetoric.
The Atlantic took a look at where the majority of people who pay no income tax live, and – surprise! It’s in those red states, among the poorest in the nation, many of which nonetheless go GOP every election. These are the people who troll Twitter with hashtags like #ObamasMustGoBecause, claiming the President is a Marxist/Socialist/Communist Muslim Kenyan un-American lying piece of scum from whom the country must be retrieved, like a bone from an unruly dog. Thanks to cognitive dissonance, these voters – even the ones receiving Social Security disability and SNAP (food stamp) benefits – can hear this type of talk and *know* the speaker means “those people,” not themselves.
Except Romney really does mean them, too.
Setting aside the fact that there are many valid reasons why people don’t pay income tax – and that Bush tax policies are why so many Americans wind up paying no income tax – when Romney expresses concern about “the growing number of people who are dependent on the federal government, including the record number of people who are on food stamps, nearly one in six Americans in poverty, and the 23 million Americans who are struggling to find work” – he means not only those lazy, shiftless black welfare queens, he also means those poor, white, red state voters who hate Obama.
There are any number of flaws with Romney’s comments, of course. Obviously, not all Obama supporters are poor. A large percentage of Obama voters are working class, middle class, and even members of the 1%. Indeed, Obama would be foolish to rely on the poor vote, since many poor people don’t vote at all.
Moreover, Romney’s definition of “entitlements” is expansive enough to include not only programs for the poor such as welfare and food stamps, but programs that benefit the middle class and even the wealthy, such as federal college grants, federally subsidized student loans, unemployment benefits, natural disaster relief, Small Business Administration loans, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. The notion that beneficiaries of these programs are simply loafers on the dole, is deeply offensive.
The political fallout from the video remains unclear. With less than 50 days left before the general election, it is impossible to call this video the game-changer many seem to hope it is. But it’s safe to say some voters will be offended by the Romney video. Perhaps not so offended that they will cast a vote for the other guy. The danger for Romney, however, is that they’ll be offended enough – and wedded enough to their “entitlements” – to choose not to vote at all.
September 18th, 2012
Great post! I live in a part of the country where the black welfare queen is the image many think of when they pontificate on how their taxes are helping freeloaders. I hear this from lower to middle class people whose families are blue collar workers.
Your point on “entitlement” is so right. As a hardworking, tax-paying, middle class single woman I see cuts to student loans, disaster relief and the removal of the pre-existing clause from health care coverage as placing me precariously close to financial disaster should something outside of my control happen. Unlike Romney, I can’t call my parents for a bailout.
A week ago you stated that Romney had to make a case FOR people to vote for him. He’s making a compelling case on why independents should NOT vote for him. I don’t want a President who isn’t concerned about 47% of the country.
September 18th, 2012
Carolyn,
I think you have overstated your case here. Sure, there are many whites included in the 47% dependent on the government. Romney didn’t fully enumerate the ways in which people are dependent on government but when we include the military/industrial complex, the prison/industrial complex, the education complex, the FIRE (financial, insurance, real estate) complex all of which are inextricably propped up by the government, we are talking about a LOT of white people, many of which hypocritically consider themselves Conservatives. Nonetheless, the reality is that blacks are disproportionately represented among government dependents, so we stand out with respect to his remarks.
You wrote:
The Atlantic took a look at where the majority of people who pay no income tax live, and – surprise! It’s in those red states, among the poorest in the nation
Yes, but those red states (except Idaho) have very high percentages of blacks (and Hispanics now, unfortunately) in them, a fact which The Atlantic author David A. Graham conveniently leaves out.
In sum, Romney said that 47% of voters will vote for Obama no matter what. That’s not a terribly controversial statement.
It is not controversial, but it is striking nonetheless. The reality is that the white vote is much more in play than the minority vote because, as Romney indirectly and truthfully points out, minorities are disproportionately dependent on the government. Any candidate who campaigns on a small government platform is not going to win minority votes. Romney’s electoral logic makes sense. He must turn out his white base in order to win. The problem is that Romney really isn’t willing to go there. In his heart of hearts, Romney is as contemptuous of working class and middle class whites as Obama is. These whites really don’t have a champion, so a large number of them probably won’t even bother to vote, thus handing Obama a victory in November.
a claim I’ve seen framed both as “no tax at all” (which is unlikely, as it would include sales tax)
People who make this assertion mean that no net tax is paid, with tax refunds via earned income credits offsetting sales tax.
when Romney expresses concern about “the growing number of people who are dependent on the federal government, including the record number of people who are on food stamps, nearly one in six Americans in poverty, and the 23 million Americans who are struggling to find work” – he means not only those lazy, shiftless black welfare queens, he also means those poor, white, red state voters who hate Obama.
I agree with you here. Poor whites have good reason to hate Obama. The problem is that they have equally good reasons to hate Romney too! Many will figure “Why bother voting for the lesser of two evils?” and stay home.
but programs that benefit the middle class and even the wealthy, such as federal college grants, federally subsidized student loans
Benefit!!? Who benefits from government subsidizing of the education industry? I’ll give you a hint: it ain’t the students (as we have seen in Chicago recently). You don’t really want to get me started here do you?
The danger for Romney, however, is that they’ll be offended enough – and wedded enough to their “entitlements” – to choose not to vote at all.
I don’t think so. Red state whites have not been offended by Romney’s remarks, even those who themselves are government dependents. In fact, Romney has probably received a boost in Red states from his remarks, which was no doubt his intention. Romney’s problem is that he is viewed as not being much better than Obama in furthering the interests of white working and middle-class people. It is hard to figure out what Romney believes in. At least Obama has a belief system. His belief system may be evil at root, but at least the guy believes in something. What does Romney believe in other than believing himself qualified for the presidency and to dedicating himself to be an Israeli vassal? Romney is a sap.
September 23rd, 2012
Carolyn, your logic is okay. And I am sure that Romney would love to walk back his casual ill-formed reply to a questioner at a fundraiser, just as Obama would love to walk back his “Guns, God” remark at a fundraiser. Let’s quick playing this silly game, shall we? This election is about one thing, so let’s keep the focus on that. Who is the best person to dramatically grow jobs and the GDP over the four years while steadily decreasing our colossal, and credit-threatening, deficit? I don’t care what the color of that person’s skin is, what their religion is, what gaffes they might have made, or any other sideshow. And I don’t want to hear anymore excuses or blame. I care about concrete, empirically proven ways to answer the key question of this election. Let’s keep the focus there.
– James Marshall Crotty
Business of Education Columnist, Forbes
http://blogs.forbes.com/jamesmarshallcrotty/
September 25th, 2012
James, my logic is more than ok – it’s consistent with the analysis of writers on both sides of the political aisle. This was not simply a casual, ill-formed reply. Although I disagree that Romney’s statements are directly analogous to Obama’s “bibles and guns” quip, these unscripted statements are just as informative about the candidate’s positions as their official scripted words, often even more so. This speaks to the issues at the heart of this campaign. You may choose to disagree and make your decision on whatever basis you see fit, but Romney’s comments cannot be so easily dismissed.
September 26th, 2012
James, Carolyn,
Romney’s remarks may not have advantaged him, but they were true. The percentage of the population involved in unproductive, wealth sapping activities (and I include the financial industry especially) is increasing. There must be a day of reckoning. It will be painful, but the country as a whole will be better off for it. Continuing to pretend that QE to infinity or make-work to infinity constitutes wealth creation will only make that day of reckoning much worse than it has to be.
Regardless of who is elected in November, we are in for a blow as a country. Neither presidential candidate really has the best interests of average Americans at heart.
September 26th, 2012
Something is seriously wrong with you. 47% of the population is not unwilling to take personal responsibility for their lives. Take that crap to a conservative blog.
September 27th, 2012
Carolyn,
I’m not so sure about that. If what you say is true, why has the size of government increased since the end of the Cold War? Why was Wall St bailed out (a bailout then President Obama fully supported)? The financial bailout was an extreme illustration of a lack of willingness (in this instance, of the financial elite) to take responsibility for the actions committed. The move afoot to get student loan debt forgiven is another instance of people not wanting to take responsibility for the bad decisions they make. I am more sympathetic toward students with onerous debt burdens than I am toward banksters ( it was governmental action that allowed student debt to rocket skyward ), but the complaints of students are signs of the times. We are increasingly an entitlement nation, not a productive nation.
September 27th, 2012
RR, I’m going to tell you this for what I hope is the last time: this is my personal blog. I don’t have to be objective. I strive to offer well- reasoned, balanced opinions, but at the end of the day, they are my opinions. I don’t have to accept opinions or points of view on here I find offensive – and I take great personal offense to the notion that half of the American population fails to take responsibility for their lives. I’m not interested in your comments. Good bye.
September 27th, 2012
Carolyn,
Your response is illustrative of precisely the sense of entitlement many people have adopted. You feel entitled to having your opinions protected from criticism despite the fact that you have opened your blog to the public. You want your readers to be cognizant of your tender sensibilities even though you espouse highly debatable positions. If you do not wish people to respond to your commentary, I suggest you either get rid of the comments section of this blog or become a diarist.
September 27th, 2012
I feel entitled to decide which comments I do and do not want on my blog, because I am so entitled. I feel entitled to decide that I don’t want you to comment here anymore, because I can. You are now going to be blocked.
September 28th, 2012
(RR, “Yes, but those red states (except Idaho) have very high percentages of blacks (and Hispanics now, unfortunately) in them, a fact which The Atlantic author David A. Graham conveniently leaves out.”)
Black people make up about 13% of the population for the entire nation. They make up an even smaller percentage of that 47%.
October 7th, 2012
James, I find the tone of your comment to be patronizing and condescending. I know this because – to be honest – that’s MY job. You toss out your three names and your bona fides as a blogger on a Forbes website. I’m sure your mother is very proud. The fact is that both Carolyn and many of her readers have enough professional credentials to stop a freight train. It is the quality and clarity of thinking that impresses people here, not tossing your business card on the table.
That said, I think that charactizing Governor Romney’s candid remarks as a “casual ill-formed reply to a questioner” is nothing more than wishful spinning by Romney supporters busy stammering; “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!” There is an axiom in politics; “Truth is what politicians say when they think no one is listening.” Governor Romney’s remarks about the 47% reflects the essence of his vision of America.
And by this same standard, I believe that President Obama’s remarks about “guns and religion” likewise reflect the essence of his vision of America. But there is a huge difference between the intent of President Obama’s remarks and those of Governor Romney. The full context of President Obama’s remarks were that we (he and his fundraisers, and indeed the rest of us) need to understand those voters and why they feel the way they do. We need to find a way to have constructive dialog with them. Precisely because we cannot (practically and ethically) afford to write them off. Governor Romney, on the other hand, was saying that the 47% don’t get it and never will, so he has effectively written them off.
That is a profound and fundamental difference between these two men. Take a look at this video. It makes the point more cogently than I have. http://www.animalnewyork.com/2012/ill-doctrine-the-tale-of-the-tapes/
This is not a “silly game” James. This is an intensely important examination of which man has the character to lead our nation, all 100% of it. Furthermore, this election is not about “one thing.” That argument is (or was) a complete confection of the Republican Party at a time when they believed they held the statistical and rhetorical advantage in that particular argument, and therefore wanted to narrow the debate to this one issue. The truth is that the election is about a tapestry of complex and inter-related issues. That’s like saying a father must be a good financial provider for his family. Yeah, that’s very true (for the most part), but if that is the only thing that dad can do well, he is a pretty poor excuse for a father. The world has more than its fair share of rich daddies with fucked up kids.
You say that you only care about empirically proven ways to fix the economy. Well, if you are honest in applying that standard, then clearly the first thing that you have ruled out is any candidate that believes in trickle-down economics.
October 7th, 2012
Mark, no one ever says anything more cogently than you have – including myself. Seriously, I read your comments and I wonder why I’m the one blogging, instead of commenting on your articles. Thank you so much.