Winning Progressive

(By Mark Bridger, cross-posted at That MansScope)

Atlanta Mayor Kaseem Reed (D) recently said that the reason Mitt Romney is now trailing President Obama is because Mitt Romney is a “defective” candidate who continually makes mistakes.

Actually, Mr. Reed is off by one layer of causality. Mitt Romney is a defective candidate because he is a defective human being. This conclusion became pretty clear as we learned some of his past history, and becomes clearer each day as both his private and public comments receive increased attention.

We have learned that Romney has always been a bully — a quality often reinforced by feelings of entitlement. What can be more entitled than coming from a very wealthy family and knowing that your future would be secure no matter what you did — no college debts to be paid off by a struggling young Mitt. We know about how he and a bunch of his pals attacked a fellow student and forcibly cut his hair — they thought he was effeminate. Unlike his friends who were in on the attack — an act that nowadays would be considered felonious — Romney claims not to remember the incident. The others realized, to their credit, that what they did was wrong, and feel bad about it to this day. Romney tosses off whatever might have happened as just another youthful prank. And there were others for which he was well-known among his peers. He would sometimes impersonate a police officer in order to terrorize couples making out in their cars — things like that, ’cause that’s the kind of guy he was: a barrel of laughs. It was OK because he was rich and entitled — a never-have-to-say-you’re-sorry kind of guy.

I will skip most of the religious stuff. I’ll just add that spending a lot of time evangelizing Mormonism to poor people in the U.S. and overseas is not my idea of a socially useful activity — but that’s just me. Tithing to the Mormon church is a little like contributing to a very wealthy college: generally harmless, but nothing of such societal value as to be worth a tax deduction (though they are given). Of course, for Romney, it lead to another entitlement common to his class: not having to serve in Vietnam. Funny how his kind of people who are so ideologically in favor of such wars are rarely asked to serve in them.

Then we come to his business. “Vulture capitalism” is exactly the correct phrase to describe Bain Capital; maybe “bully capitalism” is equally correct. Bain sought out weak companies either to loot for “consulting fees” or to turn around by cutting employees’ benefits, retirement funds, and jobs. While some survived and prospered, others were destroyed. In all cases Bain Capital made out very well, as did its CEO and owner. When you pick on people weaker than you, that’s how things turn out.

How did Romney get to own and control such a company? He found many willing investors via his contacts within his very wealthy circle and, it now turns out, from South and Central American business people offering very questionable money they wanted to launder. Romney made a point of not knowing too much about the sources of this money, but probing reporters are finding out more each day. As the old saying goes: “Behind every great fortune lies a great crime.” Romney never worried about this, in spite of his supposed religious values, because he was… well… entitled.

Of course, all young folks can “make it like Mitt” even if they don’t have much money personally. When asked how, Romney made it simple: Just borrow money from your parents. Money means nothing to Romney, and he has no conception of how hard most people must work just to make a small amount of it, and that the vast percentage of Americans have very little in savings and retirement funds (he has amassed a virtually impossible $100 million in his IRA.)

We know that Romney made a lot of money and paid a very low tax rate on it. Of course, that’s typical of many rich people who make money that is taxed at capital gains rates. He also has hidden millions of dollars in offshore secret tax havens. These are not necessarily illegal — though we can be rightly suspicious — but indicate a less than patriotic attitude toward giving back anything to a country that facilitated his huge personal wealth. After all, people in public life are always waving the flag and telling us how selfless it is for those in the armed forces to sacrifice life, limb and fortune to serve their country (see his evangelistic draft evasion above). Romney is the anti-selfless person, who thinks that paying “not one penny” above his minimal required taxes is the most presidential — and to his lights, patriotic — thing to do. He is the Leona Helmsley of presidential candidates: taxes are for the “little” folk, not for the entitled.

Minimal Mitt is, effectively, his sobriquet and motto.

Yet, in spite of his minimal taxes, he sneers — in private, amongst his wealthy donors — at the “47%” who pay “no federal taxes”. He says they pay “no federal taxes”, which is of course not true. They may not pay federal income taxes, but all pay Social Security taxes as well as state property, income and sales taxes when applicable etc. Calling them “entitled” is some sort of transference. He is the one who feels entitled — to all that the federal government does to coddle rich folk like him: the special tax rates and tax breaks that he uses to pay a smaller percentage of his income in taxes than Warren Buffet’s famous secretary. He gladly accepts the roads, bridges, police and military and other benefits and protections which he and his businesses enjoy. As Elizabeth Warren has recently pointed out, this country’s financial system is rigged to favor accumulation of wealth by people like Romney; it is he who acts and feels entitled.

A lot of what passes for straightforward campaign incompetence and lack of sensitivity is, in fact, Romney’s arrogance. He has refused to disclose his income tax returns for all but a couple of years, then claims, falsely, that John Kerry did the same. When told by every news source and fact checker about this error, he refused to acknowledge it. When he recently released his 2011 tax return, it showed that he made up for his under tithing  his church in the previous year by giving extra. However, this would make his tax rate percentage outrageously low in comparison to Buffet’s secretary, so he didn’t claim the whole deduction. This in spite of his assertion that he wouldn’t deserve to be President if he paid one cent more in taxes than he had to. Here we see Romney assuming we are all idiots. He didn’t claim the deduction in this election year in order to make his rate seem high, knowing full well that he could refile next year, after the elections, and get the money back.

Another reason why he is a defective human being.

Recently, Romney, who once decried emergency room treatment of the medically uninsured as socialism, now tells us that it’s really OK, and would fit in just fine with his and Paul Ryan’s plan to kill universal coverage and lay a heavier cost burden on Medicare — if only they can.  (I won’t even get into Paul Ryan’s obvious human and intellectual deficiencies here.)

Can you find any reason not to say that Mitt Romney has been weighed in the balance and found wanting?

As has been widely reported, Mitt Romney revealed his disdain for 47% of Americans during a $50,000 per person campaign fundraiser held at the mansion of Marc Leder, a controversial private equity hedge fund manager.   A secretly recorded video of the event shows Pink Slip Mitt saying, among other things:

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. . . . . [M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

Unpacking this statement a bit, Romney essentially categorized the nearly half of Americans who benefit from social programs and/or pay no federal income taxes as moochers who are failing to take personal responsibility for their own lives.  And while this statement is phrased more harshly than what Romney typically says in public, it is consistent with the Romney/Ryan campaign’s rhetoric and plans regarding abolishing Medicare, starting down the road to privatizing Social Security, eviscerating Medicaid, etc.

Given that tens of millions of hard-working Americans benefit from sensible and popular government programs, it is important to find out exactly who Romney considers to be a “dependent . . . victim” who needs to be convinced to “take personal responsibility and care for their lives” presumably by taking away the benefit they have been received.  As such, in this latest installment of Questions for Mitt Romney, we urge reporters, debate moderators, and voters to ask and demand answers from Romney and his campaign on the following questions:

* Is an 89 year old with late stage dementia who relies on Medicare to pay for her medical care  a “dependent victim”?  Should that dementia patient be deprived of the guaranteed coverage of Medicare so that she can instead “take personal responsibility” by seeking insurance in the private market?

* Are our service members who return home from Iraq or Afghanistan with physical, mental, and/or emotional injuries that necessitate the use of the Veteran’s health benefits or disability compensation failing to “take personal responsibility”?

* Is the parent who works two minimum wage jobs yet still needs food stamps to make ends meet and Medicaid/CHIP to ensure her child has health care failing to “take personal responsibility”?

* Is the young adult who uses federal student loans to be able to afford to be the first person in her family to attend college failing to “take personal responsibility”?

* Is the senior citizen who uses his Social Security benefits to help him be able to afford to stay in his own home failing to “take personal responsibility”?

* Is the laid off factory worker who collects unemployment benefits to make sure her family does not become homeless while she is looking for a new job failing to “take personal responsibility”?

Conservatives are correct that the number of people who receive government benefits of some sort has increased considerably over the past 50 years, and spiked over the past few years.  But those increases are not a sign that Americans are somehow too dependent on government or failing to take personal responsibility.  Instead, the increase is due to three facts.  First, we realized in the days of the New Deal and Great Society that individuals, our economy, and our society are better off when we have a basic social safety net and government efforts to support a strong middle class through Social Security, Medicare, etc.  As such, we expanded and strengthened those programs to serve additional people who need the assistance. Second, the vulture capitalism practiced by companies like Bain Capital caused many middle class Americans to lose their job security and pensions, thereby forcing them to turn to Social Security, Medicare, and other government programs to help sustain our middle class.  Third, conservative economic policies led to the Bush Recession in 2008, which created a short term spike in people needing food stamps, unemployment benefits, etc.  Romney’s alternative explanation that nearly half of Americans are just irresponsible victims who do not take personal responsibility is offensive and disconnected from reality.

Romney’s statement regarding 47% of Americans paying no federal income tax is similarly off-base.  Romney should be required to answer the following questions about that statement:

* Do you realize that those 47% pay other taxes besides income taxes, including sales tax, property tax, payroll taxes, etc.?  Does the payment of such taxes rule these 47% out of the category of people focused on dependency and victim hood rather than on independence and personal responsibility?

* If payment of income taxes is a sign of personal responsibility rather than dependency, what does that say about the fact that you paid only 13.9% in taxes in 2010, while most working people pay a higher rate?

* Do you believe that taxes should be raised on the 47% of Americans who pay no federal income tax?  Would raising these people’s taxes make them less focused on dependency and victim hood and more focused on independence and personal responsibility?

* Do you believe that big corporations and billionaires who pay little to no federal taxes and/or who benefit from federal programs should similarly be categorized as entities more interested in dependency and victim hood rather than independence and personal responsibility?  If so, what specific loopholes or tax increases would you propose to ensure that corporations and billionaires contribute their fair share? And what specific programs would you end or curtail to ensure that big corporations and billionaires are not becoming dependent victims?

There is no doubt that we can and should be having as part of the 2012 Presidential campaign a careful debate about where government social programs are headed, how much we should spend on them, who should be enrolled, who should pay, etc.   Romney’s statement at the fundraiser, however, shows that he is not the person to lead such a debate in a serious and productive way.  Instead, as with his opportunistic grandstanding on the Libya embassy attacks, Romney’s crass dismissal of 47% of Americans shows that he is simply not qualified to be President of a nation where the vast majority of people are in far harder economic straights than Romney ever has been or ever will be.