With all the negative ad attacks being leveled against Mitt Romney about Bain Capital and just how many jobs did he really create, it seems he’s decided to spruce up his reputation a bit. In South Carolina yesterday, Romney said, “I’m concerned about the poor in this country. We have to make sure the safety net is strong and able to help those who can’t help themselves.” [....] (Really.)
In December, however, Romney publicly stated with just as much sincerity he mustered up yesterday his support for the stark plans and budget proposals of Rep. Paul Ryan (chair of the House budget committee) that would decimate those poor now and shrink the middle class from a majority to a minority. When Ryan introduced a plan in December 2011 that would radically change the Medicare Program and replace it with a voucher rumored to be worth about $8,000, Romney praised it. Ryan also talked about converting Medicaid from an entitlement to a block grant. If Ryan’s plan is adopted, ”most of the risk of future health-care cost increases would be shifted onto the shoulders of Medicare beneficiaries.”
During a presidential debate in December, Romney stated his support of Ryan’s budget proposal and said, “Actually I spent a good deal of time with Congressman Ryan. When he [his] plan came out I applauded it as a very important step. I said my plan would be a little different or would be different in some respects but that we were on the same page.” Romney also said he would sign the Republican budget plan as is, and he fully supports Ryan’s health care plan.
Then there’s Romney’s stance on the Bush-era tax cuts, capital gains tax and more.
According to ThinkProgress:
[The] Center for American Progress Director of Tax and Budget Policy Michael Linden noted: Republican presidential candidate Romney’s plan for federal taxation begins with a hefty portion of Bush-era tax policy: Permanently extend all the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003, including those that mainly benefit the extremely wealthy. Then Romney layers on a heaping batch of new tax cuts for the rich, including a full repeal of the estate tax—which is currently paid by only the richest 0.14 percent of estates—and a massive corporate tax cut.
The result is a tax code that asks even less of the rich than George W. Bush’s did.
Does Romney really expect us to believe he is sincere about helping the poor and the middle class? Only if that is what he thinks we need to believe about him in order to elect him president. Does his penchant for seemingly switching gears mid-air make him a flip-flopper? No, it doesn’t. So what is this? In my opinion, elitism and pure arrogance. The kind of arrogance that says it’s perfectly okay to say one thing to the morning crowd and the opposite to the evening crowd as long as the candidate’s words apeases the crowd before him or her. Even more insulting is the notion that such actions are the correct way to run a political campaign. Clearly, Romney perceives our economy as a 30 or 60 second sound bite.
Perhaps the highpoint of Romney’s elitism and arrogance was this past Wednesday during an interview with NBC “Today” host Matt Lauer. Lauer questioned Romney about the validity of his claim during his victory speech in New Hampshire that the President is engaging in the “bitter politics of envy.” He said:
I think it’s about envy … I think it’s about class warfare. I think when you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America based on 99 percent vs. 1 percent, and those people who’ve been most successful will be in the 1 percent, you’ve opened up a whole new wave of approach in this country which is entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God.”
When Lauer asked Romney if there were no fair questions that could be asked about wealth distribution without tying it to envy, Romney said, ”You know I think it’s fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms …”
You know I think Romney sees himself as the Squire, America as “his” Manor and the 99 percent as the serfs, field hands, cooks, footmen, upstairs and downstairs maids and valets. Together, we’re all stuck in a time warp in the late 1800s early 1900s awaiting direction on our next thought from Lord Romney the Squire of the Manor who knows what’s best for us.
It’s beyond arrogance to tell the American people when it is appropriate, and by whom, to discuss lofty, complex issues such as wealth distribution and when it’s not. By saying whatever is momentarily expedient based on what he perceives is the level of wealth, clout and societal status of the people in front of him (not around him — in front), Romney’s trivialized the American Dream and the life struggles of those who seek to make that dream a reality no matter how much or how little money they may have.
The President is rightfully talking about the widening gap between the haves and the have nots and how we change that. Romney, however, is firmly grounded in growing that gap. Imagine if Romney ever got elected president; he’d help the poor alright. He’d immediately sign into law Ryan’s budget proposals and grow the poor by eliminating the middle class. That kind of “help” we can all do without.
