Mitt Romney doesn’t like the way many Americans seem to want free stuff from the government:
By the way, I had the privilege of speaking today at the NAACP convention in Houston and I gave them the same speech I am giving you. I don’t give different speeches to different audiences alright. I gave them the same speech. When I mentioned I am going to get rid of Obamacare they weren’t happy, I didn’t get the same response. That’s ok, I want people to know what I stand for and if I don’t stand for what they want, go vote for someone else, that’s just fine. But I hope people understand this, your friends who like Obamacare, you remind them of this, if they want more stuff from government tell them to go vote for the other guy-more free stuff. But don’t forget nothing is really free. It has to paid for by people in the private sector.
Romney was accused of racism for this remark. But this isn’t right. As Jon Chait observes in a nice post, Romney criticizes other claimants, such as white college students, on similar grounds.
Of course the central hypocrisy remains. The core of the current GOP coalition are older white voters who are receiving large actuarial subsidies through Medicare and Social Security. And thus Romney has attacked President Obama for alleged cuts to Medicare. (GOP rhetoric is misleading on these issues, but that’s another story.) Romney himself receives lavish carried interest tax breaks and that $77,000 deduction for a dressage horse. Jon Stewart deliciously notes that this seems pretty free-stuffy, too.
Chait suggests that ” ‘Free stuff’ is just a way of describing government benefits for other people.” That’s true. But George Carlin beat him to it, with the most succinct analysis I have seen of this question.
Classic.
The tax write-off thing really bugs me. Because, oh no, how is my not paying taxes a way of getting free stuff from the government?!!!
Well, probably the same way not paying for your meal at a restaurant is getting a free meal.
Oh, but the government is doing all sorts of things that I don’t want it too!!!
Well, welcome to the club. It’s called democracy. I pay for your bombers, you pay for my social services (mostly for other people, mind you…!).
The conservative framing of a transactional government is really disgusting.
Note this fallacy: “It has to paid for by people in the private sector“. It’s an article of conservative faith, worthy of the physiocrats or Soviet central planning, that services cease to have intrinsic value once they pass from the private into the public sector, and become transfers. Of course police services have to be paid for – by everybody else, wherever they work. There’s no fundamental difference from a private-sector service like insurance. The price may or may not be optimal, the payments mechanism may or may not be distorted. Productive public-sector workers like teachers pay taxes to support policemen, same as Joe the Plumber, who can’t afford Mitt Romney’s tax planners.
“vote for the other guy-more free stuff”
I genuinely believe that some other countries have health care systems which are superior in many ways to the one in the United States. Unfortunately, those systems are not currently available in this country. If I want to purchase a product which the free market is unable or unwilling to provide, that does not make me some kind of parasite. It isn’t a question of “free” stuff, it is a question of “different” stuff.
Maybe they like Obamacare because it bends the cost curve on healthcare spending and shaves back some of Medicare? How does Mitt know this? Can he read the minds of the audience?
Restructuring under bankruptcy protection – mo free stuff! Getting the pension benefit guarantee corp to pick up those inconvenient legacy costs – mo free stuff!
Looks to me like Mr. Romney likes his free stuff too.
Restructuring under bankruptcy protection – mo free stuff! Getting the pension benefit guarantee corp to pick up those inconvenient legacy costs – mo free stuff!
Looks to me like Mr. Romney likes his free stuff too. No?
The thing about the $77K for the horse is that it isn’t even an actual deduction, because the horse didn’t generate enough income. It’s a tax-loss carry-forward, which will become useful only if the horse generates income in excess of expenses in some future year. And with Romney’s wealth and income, this is like an ordinary person making their accountant fill out a stack of extra forms on the odd chance that it might save them a few hundred dollars in taxes five years from now.