« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Mitt Had Better Worry About The Poor

Senator Moynihan Had This One Dead Right

WARNING: The YouTube Video below is not safe either for work or Mitt Romney.

There’s a part of me that hopes that the Rap-Artist known as Chapter engaged in evil satire when she wrote and performed the song portrayed in the video above. I also hope that GOP Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney was engaging in satire when he made the following comment.

“I’m in this race because I care about Americans,” Romney said. “I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it.”

With only one foot in his mouth, Romney still remained hungry after his tiring victory in the Florida Primary. He rides further into his dung heap below.

“I’m not concerned about the very rich,” he continued. “They’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling and I’ll continue to take that message across the nation.”

Reaction from the Left was predictable. Chuck Todd tweeted his predictably nausea-inducing bilge.

Many a POTUS prayer breakfast speech includes talk of caring about the poor but today when one hears it, seems to take on a diff meaning?

Austin Goolsbee scored higher on the sense-of-humor metric.

Headline: Romney not worried about the very poor, has nice roof cages available for any that “like fresh air.

(HT: The Hill)

But just how do we approach this gob-smacking gaffe from The Right? Clearly it disqualifies Mitt Romney from professional consideration as a future conservative leader. Clearly it inspires all of those in America who want to trash the Conservative Movement, and run the welfare spending odometer well into the tens of trillions.

It was political equivalent of drinking strychnine, and we need to get this political cadaver named Romney embalmed and buried as rapidly as possible. But how do we critique this without opening the floodgates to dependency nation? We start by learning from one of our most intellectually-gifted political opponents; Former Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Moynihan served as one of Lyndon Johnson’s Assistant Secretaries of Labor. In this position he wrote an famous/infamous federal report entitled The Negro Family: The Case For National Action. Apparently “Safety Net” Mittens hasn’t given this work any perusal.

The Moynihan Report has had long-lasting and important implications. Writing to President Lyndon Johnson, then-Assistant Secretary of Labor Patrick Moynihan argued that, without access to jobs and the means to contribute meaningful support to a family, black men would become systematically alienated from their roles as husbands and fathers. This would cause rates of divorce, abandonment and out-of-wedlock births to skyrocket in the black community (a trend that had already begun by the mid-1960s)—leading to vast increases in the numbers of female-headed households and the high rates of poverty, low educational outcomes, and inflated rates of abuse that are associated with them.

(HT:Wikipedia)

The obvious tragedy and failing of Moynihan’s brilliance is that it focused solely on blacks. This led critics to just write off the truth as racism. Anyone diligent enough to make it all the way to the end of Deer Hunting With Jesus by Joe Bageant will quickly realize that it’s not just African-American families that are disintegrating under the perverse incentives of the modern safety net. The lower ten percent of African-Americans are far from the only group of people in America just living for free; off the EBT. Even Ann Coulter now seems to be drinking the RomneyCare Bug Juice. (HT: Jeff Emanuel).

When Mitt Romney says not to worry about the poor, they have a safety net, he’s telling us to get over our foolish and anachronistic Conservatism. We don’t empower people to improve themselves and thereby redeem their particular corner of our tragically fallen world. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day…” is out the window in Mitt Romney’s version of the GOP. It’s more like give every ten of them a ball and hope you don’t have too many armed robberies next Saturday Night.

The Poor know when they are condescended to. They know when they are being treated like cattle. They know when they are being bribed with transfer payments not to put the torch to Los Angeles. This may not always be articulated, but the poor are not human if that simmering anger and resentment isn’t there.

My family comes from working-class roots. My Father worked on the farm to help his Dad make both ends meet. I know enough of what Lower Income America goes through to know good and well that our current safety net is one of the worst things that ever happened to America’s working poor. If we really intend to nominate “Safety Net” Mittens and bribe the poor with EBT Cards not to riot for the next four years, then the poor are morally right to hate The Republican Party.

COMMENTS

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    he is likely going to be our nominee and we are likely going to see many ads (at times I regret living in Ohio) showing Mitt saying “he doesn’t care about the very poor”, so I guess we are just going to have to hope that his Super Pacs can spend enough nationwide to make gaffes like this less of an issue.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      Do we just manage the poor like a form of environmental pollution? That seems to be almost what Romney was getting at in that quote?

      • Death_of_the_Donkey

        Capitalism pretty well guarantees that there is always going to be some group of “very poor” (call it the bottom 20%) and it really almost depends on them to some extent. The solutions are either a) to equalize the income brackets (likely not a desirable solution) b) support them in some way, or c) ignore them. I do not believe that “lifting them out” is a viable solution, as the economy required to do that would likely be quite inflationary (and thus its benefits are greatly diminished).

        • Repair_Man_Jack

          http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=201372

          The cost of keeping the medical portion of this safety net intact doubles every eight years. A program like RomneyCare can either be supplemented by something that teaches or economically encourages people to get off, or it can ration. Once you’ve told someone they are to receive an entitlement and then turn around and ration it, you have much more on your hands than a managemant problem.

          • Death_of_the_Donkey

            when my wife gave birth to our very premature NICU child (no drinking/drugs, good health, good prenatal care, etc) you are advocating through that article that we should have either paid the multi six figure bill out of pocket or what exactly, left the child to die?

            The problem with medical care is that even healthy people have serious issues that cost obscene amounts of money to fix and we have made a choice as a society to not simply leave those who cannot afford treatment to die of otherwise treatable conditions. I have yet to see any (non-Ron Paul’s) Republicans stand up and say “if you cannot afford care you will not get treated, period” (which is the true free market approach to healthcare).

            As for things like provenge, that is the exact “death panel” stuff that we went nuts about 2 years ago. Some panel deciding that the government would not pay for certain very expensive drugs/treatments that have limited efficacy (note one would always be able to buy these out of pocket so to speak).

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            I hope very much your child is OK. Sorry if I offended you on that in any way.

            But that’s what will happen. Nobody has to want it to happen. it will. There will not be enough wealth left to repair the safety or afford the Provenge unless someone can innovate in a way that makes provenge a whole lot cheaper. Mitt needs to realize this or he is colosally inept as a potential POTUS.

          • renl57

            Eugenics is the other laissez-faire market approach:

            “Dear Mr. Smith:
            “Our genetic testing confirms that you are a carrier for the following genetically inherited diseases: ….
            “We at Adam Smith Health Insurance regret to inform you that we can only issue you an insurance policy if you agree to undergo vasectomy, so that you cannot transmit your defective genes to the next generation.”

          • Death_of_the_Donkey

            but WE were the ones who went nuts at the very idea that government paid for healthcare would even think to make those decisions with our tax dollars. And the reality is that a real free market in healthcare would lead exactly to the poor dying from otherwise easily treatable maladies. So it seems we need to either admit that people must die (from otherwise treatable ailments) under a free market health system to get costs under control OR that government will treat everyone, BUT that treatment is going to have to be rationed by efficacy and cost.

            **our child is a healthy kindergartner**

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            Who really trusts the USG to ration treatments by efficacy and cost? I’m thinking the anti-Death Panel critique gained credence fromt he fact that most people read ” BUT that treatment is going to have to be rationed by efficacy and cost.” as really meaning “BUT that treatment is going to have to be rationed by efficacy and cost and not to mention; Pull.

            Had anyone believed that our modern USG was even close to being ethical and decent, that argument might have gone the other way. We have a significant moral gap in our society and government that will have to be bridged before any large majority would trust our government to have a God-Gun in hand when it isn’t absolutely necessary.

          • lineholder

            One of the biggest problems with the socialized health care model is that government controls the purse strings to an excess! To what extent is the federal government inclined to spend money wisely, DotD? They don’t.

            They always go with programs that are excessively burdensome and interfere with free-market options. They do this for the purpose of power and control over society as a whole, including economic activity.

            Administration costs of government agencies developed to disburse taxpayer funds under various programs is almost always much, MUCH higher than it needs to be. These agencies are “fat”…actually, obese would be a better term. And they do find a way to pander to special interest groups in the process. All of this contributes to a lack of cost-efficiency, and there is very little oversight to encourage any changes on this matter.

            In the context of reality, within the health care industry, we are literally to the point where we have broad basis of data that could make it feasible to consider developing alternate programs where the span of control is much lower, which is likely to contribute to an increase in cost-efficiency and an increase in efforts to implement free-market principles within the context of the program, and this could genuinely reduce costs of health care provision.

            The feds aren’t going to let it happen, because it means giving up some of their power and control.

          • Death_of_the_Donkey

            most of those countries with socialized models spend far less per capita (and as a % of GDP) on health care than we do. I would personally rather shift to a British or German style system (one where people who want can buy their own private health care/insurance) than the expensive disaster we have now (and have had for decades). I am not saying I support socialized medicine, only that it is better than what we have had (in terms of dollars).

          • lineholder

            is that our system is bloated (mostly at a federal level) and we have regulatory measures that keep prices artificially HIGH, DotD. I know that may not make much sense, but that is the case.

            There are some things about systems in other countries that I do like. Most of them went full-throttle for a single-payer system, only to back away from it after a period of time when they started realizing that it is isn’t sustainable long-term. And quite a few of them now have a hybrid where government covers up 70% of costs and individual consumers have the option to purchase supplemental private insurance to cover the difference.

            The British system stinks. I’m sorry, but it does. It’s one of the most poorly constructed systems out there.

          • Common_Cents

            nt

          • redcal

            ..will ever vanquish all crime, or cure all illness, or defeat all unhappiness. These are political/economic systems, not religious fantasies.

            I’m sorry to hear about your child as well, having had my own touch-and-go situation in a NICU. But I agree with Repair_Man_Jack’s basic point, which is that it’s not about whether or not you can perfectly solve for one case, or one class of patients, but whether or not you do better, overall, in one system vs. another.

            Romneycare/Obamacare are unsustainable. Full stop. They may promise (and even deliver, for a short time) ‘universal’ health care (up to a point, of course). But we are simply borrowing from the future, and other people will have premature children there as well. If the system collapses under its own weight then, and those children are left uncared for (as they will be), we are all morally culpable now.

            You may know that we all implicitly place a finite economic value on human life. Not even Romney/Obamacare (or foreign nationalized health care systems) will pay for an individual’s health costs past some fixed number. And that’s necessary in a world of finite resources — if it costs $10 million to keep Grandma alive for another week, maybe we should put that money towards other patients. The free market view is simply saying — let’s make that economic value public so that it can be debated, negotiated, open. Otherwise, it’s decided by policy teams within federal agencies without much transparency or accountability.

            The free market is certainly not perfect. There are clearly documented market failures, and I believe in government regulation in certain areas — I’m not a pure libertarian. But this is an example where the top-down solution is clearly inferior, and provably so in Massachusetts.

          • earlgrey

            in the NICU were teenage moms. Many had drug issues. She was 34 and they asked her if she was her own child’s grandmother.

            We have some cultural problems that contributes to high costs of healthcare for newborns.

        • sethellis

          I think you are correct when you say there will always be poor. The best we can do is equip them with the tools necessary to pull themselves out.

          I don’t like any of the analogies I am hearing. Safety net implies a program just to help out when the inevitable stumble occurs. In my view that’s more for the middle class than the poor. The poor don’t need a safety net. They have already fallen to the bottom of the pit. Furthermore the problems with the safety net have already been discussed as it relates to unemployment and so forth in the debates by Romney himself. So who knows where he was really going with safety net.

          Meanwhile, Gingrich wants a trampoline. This analogy sounds even less conservative to me. It implies a big government program that actively boosts people out of poverty. Besides a trampoline just doesn’t sound like a particlarly effective our safe way to get out of a pit.

          Perhaps I am overanalyzing it, but I just don’t like any of this language. I want self reliance. That doesn’t mean the government has no role, but the primary responsibility for getting out lies with the individual. I’d prefer something more like a rope, but I’d love to see what other analogies you can come up with.

        • aesthete

          so much as the human condition. Laziness, greed, pride, and other failings that prevent people from living productively are part and parcel human failings, and are usually only overcome because people desire stuff and food more than they want to hold on to those attitudes. There will be a bottom/failing 5% in any society, whether that society is communist, capitalist, or somewhere in between. Social democracies and communist states are just (somewhat) better at papering over this 5%. Romney’s attitude (seeing the poors as a problem and roadblock for greater society) is, in fact, the common one amongst most well-off social democrats — most are just better at concealing it with a veneer of faux compassion.

      • Juggernaut

        problems proving he hasn’t researched entitlement problems let alone does he offer intelligent solutions. I’d expect an uneducated response from Obama or most dems who can’t explain how to solve the problem with jobs targeted with tax credits using census data to grant tax credits to companies who hire from high unemployment areas. While some aren’t employable due to mental illness, that’s a minority, other than that its a lack of training or work history, etc. Employers that offer on the job training could seek out such people with ads in the right neighborhoods. We can’t expect all to be hired but there are solutions. Romney would never think of this because he’s a blank slate aka tabula rasa.

        • Death_of_the_Donkey

          that is government picking winners and losers again. So, you think that government should offer rewards to who companies hire based on location? The free market is what has already created these high unemployment areas/skillsets and you seem to be advocating for government intervention.

          • renl57

            would end such special tax breaks for employers who hire the long-term unemployed.

            Advocates of a flat tax have to abandon using the tax code to promote any kind of social policy.

          • aesthete

            Min wage laws and many of the regulations placed on the labor market are huge encumbrances for those at the bottom. We’d have to remove all the price floors and artificial costs attached to hiring a less well-off employee to see how many of them are employable in a free market, IMO.

            I will agree that there is a “natural” rate of unemployment, but it’s not necessarily that high.

          • Juggernaut

            since employers will have little say in who applies for jobs. What you call rewards is actually a cost saving idea that gets people off entitlements that cost 10 to 20 times a tax incentive.

            The free market didn’t create high unemployment areas, government did offering money to move jobs overseas. Gov will not pick winners and losers, industry shall decide if they want to participate, location is not the final factor.

    • avgjo

      Idiotic comments like Mitt’s are tailor made for a campaign (Obama’s) that will play class warfare in a country primed by corruption and widespread destruction of wealth for populism. Combine this with perceptions of bain, the Mitt money picture and his ‘I like to fire people’ comments, and he’ll lose bigger than McCain.

  • fpete13527

    Romney also just came out with another gem today that further demonstrates that his true nature is big government…, and coddling to it’s growth..

    Romney just declared that he is in full support of RAISING the minimum wage of PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES that are run by PUBLIC SERVICE UNIONS.

    This was probably a pitiful attempt, by Romney at cancelling out his comment about not caring about the poor. It made it worse instead.

    I hope we hear lots more from Romney:)

    Great post RMJ

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      But he’s entrely too tone-deaf to realize such is the case.

    • Juggernaut

      what a gem this guy has become. I’m sure that comment gave the SEIU a thrill up their marxist legs.

  • redcal

    And it reveals their biggest divide from the conservative movement. ‘Environmental pollution’ is exactly how they see the lowest 10-20% of the socioeconomic spectrum. They don’t really believe in the free market lifting all boats; they feel like the world is permanently tilted towards them and away from the poor (whether due to nature, nurture, or some combination), and thus their goal is to minimize the damage that the poor can do (through crime, transfer payments, or voting).

    Death_of_the_Donkey actually states the same philosophy — their failure “depends on them”, the nature argument, and “lifting them out” isn’t a “viable solution”. The poor are not stupid or worthless; and whether or not they have the natural/innate advantages of the successful, they certainly have, as a class, intellectual capital that is being especially inefficiently utilized. The free market is all about maximizing the efficiency of resources, and it has a solution here (and a narrative that Romney should have delivered, even if he were just parroting Reagan).

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      Rockefeller Rpeublicans could politically get away with forcing society to swin with an anvil because there almost was no viable alternative to the US in the world economy. That is no longer true. The rest of the world has rapidly made up ground since the era between 1955-1975 when the Rockefeller Republicans were in their golden age.

      • redcal

        And Reagan was only able to unify the Rockefeller Republicans (ie, Gerald Ford’s side in ’76 and GHWB’s side in ’80) with the conservative movement because of the economic near-monopoly the US enjoyed after WWII. It was a sort of economic peacetime for the US on the world stage. If he ran today, you’d have the Ann Coulters and NYC-style GOP trashing Reagan as a dangerous loose cannon, naive, etc…pretty much everything they’re calling Gingrich, in fact. Gingrich, unfortunately, doesn’t have the political/emotional/communication skills that Reagan did.

        I wonder why the Rockefeller Republicans don’t support Obama. Even if some of the specific issues diverge, they share a basic philosophy for how the world works, the immutable flaws of human nature, etc.

        • Repair_Man_Jack

          I see no daylight between RomneyCare/ObamaCare.

    • Death_of_the_Donkey

      a market will allocate resources and demands that various resources have various costs. This rising tide argument only works when the income brackets are much more narrowly spread, as otherwise, that tide simply causes inflation that then prevents the poor from actually realizing their gains.

      • redcal

        Rising tide only works when we’re all closer together? I mean, that’s the opposite of my views, and the conservative view of free markets. Income inequality and increasing social utility are both symptoms of a free market system that is utilizing more resources efficiently, due to the underlying variance in ability, etc. Entrepreneurs create wealth not by creating money, but by creating more new products/services for the world market that increases the portfolio of opportunities for other individuals to purchase and increase their own utility. They get wealthier, but so does everyone else.

        Inflation is the opposite effect, when you have more money (really, more credit) chasing _fewer_ goods/services, resulting in inflated prices per good/service.

        • Death_of_the_Donkey

          the bottom 20% is back at 1979 real income levels. Capitalism has always had/required “the poor”, it is simply part of the system. And society has decided (for now) that we would rather offer assistance to those that benefit the least from capitalism than have them live a Dickensian type of existence.

    • renl57

      You can’t eliminate the bell-shaped curve.

      In any population you’re going to have 10% who are very bright, and 10% who are very very dumb. The very dumb people (IQ 85 or less) don’t have any intellectual capital. If they’re lucky, they’ve got strong backs and strong muscles with which to work.

      In the past, the very very dumb folks could get jobs as unskilled or semi-skilled laborers. Those jobs are disappearing as automation and robotics eliminate most of them.

      Every modern technological society can’t figure out what to do with its dumb people.

  • The_Rebel
    • The_Rebel

      • The_Rebel

        http://www.patheos.com/blogs/philosophicalfragments/2012/02/01/mitts-very-poor-phrasing/

  • ethos

    “I’m not concerned about the very poor” has an awful lot to analyze, but to do so without taking into account previous statements by Romney only means that what we see in your analysis is your own stuff and and your own issues with Romney. This is not an honest attempt at understanding yesterday’s news.

    • Aaron Gardner

      nt

    • aesthete

      is like trying to interpret one inscrutable koan through the prism of another inscrutable koan.

      • ethos

        I had to look up the work ‘koan’

        • aesthete

          “A monk asked Dongshan Shouchu, ‘What is Buddha?’ Dongshan said, ‘Three pounds of flax.’ “

      • gfrgfr

        Interesting you should bring up Willard The Rat’s blathering, [from wiki]:

        “Romney’s greatest weakness was a lack of foreign policy expertise and a need for a clear position on the Vietnam War. The press coverage of the trip focused on Vietnam and reporters were frustrated by Romney’s initial reluctance to speak about it. The qualities that helped Romney as an industry executive worked against him as a presidential candidate; he had difficulty being articulate, often speaking at length and too forthrightly on a topic and then later correcting himself while maintaining he was not. Reporter Jack Germond joked that he was going to add a single key on his typewriter that would print, “Romney later explained….” Life magazine wrote that Romney “manages to turn self-expression into a positive ordeal” and that he was no different in private: “nobody can sound more like the public George Romney than the real George Romney let loose to ramble, inevitably away from the point and toward some distant moral precept.” The perception grew that Romney was gaffe-prone and an oaf”

        Sound familiar?

    • Death_of_the_Donkey

      all that matters is the soundbite he wrapped up and handed to Obama.

  • The_Rebel

    Anyone even remotely supporting Romney is just raked over the coals. Now it’s Ann Coulter’s turn (not that she remotely supports). I really hope Romney raps this up quickly so we can stop the daily invectives that are not helping our cause for November.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      If this comment in any way indicates what he believes, he is to the Left of about 80% of the GOP electorate. Why on Earth should we nominate this turkey.

      • The_Rebel

        n/t

  • baracksolyndraobama

    Don’t feel confused. The url above is correct. You’re not at Daily Kos. Believe it or not, it’s true.

    Would you believe that the Grand Poobah here endorsed Romney in ’08? Look for his genious commentary on CNN around convention time about his being unable to beat Obama. CNN will likely demand it. Oh, well, Mr. Erickson has bills to pay, like the rest of us.

    Pure. Conservative. Inspiration. Served here daily.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      I was reading Ann Coulter’s most recent cheerleading for your boy.

      http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-02-01.html

    • Aaron Gardner

      Your kung fu it weak.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      Erick didn’t even write this.

    • ethos

      There is a vacuum to be filled due to the ‘Tea Party’ meme, with lots of potential for the idea of ‘small government conservatives’ to take a bigger role in the direction of the Republican party. This will happen regardless of who wins in the struggle to define the movement, but positing Mitt as an antithesis to the movement plays to certain desires of this site. It is no coincidence that Erick Erickson was party to the Evangelical Leadership meeting in Texas in response to this years election, etc. Redstate may indeed be compromised by a political agenda of self interest, but it still provides a good information hub of conservative thought, and as demonstrated by Leon H. Wolf, isn’t entirely run by a hive mind with Erick as the superqueen.

      • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

        If we’re so awful, I’ll spare you the pain of having a working account.

  • tandem

    Just wanted to say I’ve been following this site for a while. This discussion could’ve turned quite ugly, especially given the provided ‘material’ in the original post ( and yes, the ‘rapper’ in the video is being satirical…there a large number of brown people who realize that the welfare state is counterproductive, condescending and ridiculous ) but I am wholly impressed with the level of discussion and intelligent disagreement.

    One more comment: I think it’s important to note that with true adherence to smaller government and free market principles, there is usually the accompanying idea that “care for the poor” should be the role of the private charities and foundations. So in theory nobody would be left to die because non-government groups would be able to care for them at little or no cost. People would be motivated givers if they knew the government wasn’t picking up the tab, thereby making these private charities, places of worships a more viable solution. And the people who are giving, in a ‘free market’ with reduced government spending would be able to give more because they aren’t being taxed to death.

    I think the churches need to live up to their potential and take on the task of helping the poor help themselves. The biggest solution to the poor being ‘lifted up’ are basic principles: 1)get some type of skills that are useful ( use them legally), whether through education or job training or whatever, 2) get married before you reproduce.

    I don’t believe that there are people who are genuinely intellectually inferior (barring the mentally disabled) , although I do believe that there are people who choose not tap into the God given potential they are endowed with.

    And to be honest , the poor don’t want anything that we mainstream folks don’t want: clothes, food, housing , love ( expressed through sex/relationships), however they don’t use the intellectual capital they have to harness their own wealth- creative potential in order to make acquiring said things easier. Government welfare enables unhealthy choices to be made at the expense of all involved, both literally and figuratively,.

    Empowering private entities will create an atmosphere that marginalizes non-normative behavior, thereby helping ‘the poor’ self -correct in order to productively function in society. or unleashing their creative potential. Private charities should be the “safety net, and serve both the middle class when they hit hard time and the poor, to show them how to fish for themselves. I am for welfare abolishment,, not reform.

  • Pingback: look