Blogocentric Formulations

47%

By now, most of you have probably heard about Mitt Romney's rather inelegant comment about nearly half the country's population, which he's apparently written off and doesn't have a whole lot of respect for. If you haven't heard about it (or heard the comment) yet, Romney was at a $50,000 a plate fundraiser dinner where someone surreptitiously recorded a portion of his speech, the video for which shows him saying:

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.

I have a couple of thoughts about this. The first is that I think I know what he intended to say. I think he meant to comment on the fact that there are some people in this country who feel like they should be taken care of... that want a free ride and choose not to work, pay taxes, or otherwise productively contribute to the economy. And because the Republicans have a "less government in your lives" platform, it's probably a foregone conclusion that they'll vote for Obama, the candidate with a platform of more government programs and assistance.

However, one of the major problems with the comment is the breakdown of that "47%" he's quoting. If he did truly mean to say that there are deadbeats who are a drain on the economy and are getting tax breaks while also siphoning off precious resources from the rest of us, I don't think he's taken into account that the majority of those 47% get significant tax breaks because they're either receiving them for educational purposes (and will eventually pay income tax when they get jobs), unemployed (and will eventually pay income tax when they get jobs), retired (and have paid income tax during their working years), or get a tax break based on their income level, size of their family, etc.

There's actually a great breakdown of the 47% of which Mitt Romney speaks, found here:

http://news.yahoo.com/mitt-romneys-47-percent-breakdown-070451942--election.html...

The far greater problem, however, is the way in which he said it. I'll concede that everyone, at one time or another, inarticulately expresses themselves. And sometimes it makes them sound incredibly stupid. So maybe that's the case here. But Romney is fighting an image battle, where much of the nation finds him to be dull, impersonal, not particularly charismatic or passionate, and worst of all, suspect he may be an out of touch old rich guy. And one of the few candid comments we actually hear him make is to derisively dismiss people "who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it?" That sure sounds a hell of a lot like he thinks human beings in one of the wealthiest countries in the world shouldn't expect to have to basic human services like food and medicine and a place to sleep without earning it! Does that mean he thinks students, the elderly, veterans, the unemployed, the disabled and other people who may be unable to work should have to fend for themselves and don't deserve any kind of support?

There are undoubtedly some people who want a free ride. Who try to capitalize on public assistance programs and choose not to be a productive member of society when they have every ability to be one. But I hardly think that category of people accounts for forty-seven percent of the American population. Does he really think that nearly every second person in this country is a freeloading loser who doesn't work hard enough to deserve basic human necessities like food and shelter? And he makes this comment at a $50,000 a plate fundraiser at the private estate of a billionaire constituent for a select group of ultra-rich supporters?

With his history as a successful businessman in the investment world, Romney is already fighting an uphill battle to prove that he's not like the infamous 1% ... the rich fat cats who put the economy into a tailspin with their greed and shady business dealings. I'm not sure Romney's clearest path toward a better public image is to make a comment like this in a crowd of other one-percenters.