A friend suggested to me not too long ago that there was nothing Governor Romney could do or say that would make me likely to vote for him. I don't think he meant it as a compliment, but I admit there's some truth to that assertion. That said, I did resent the implication that my political leanings had no real foundation. I was reminded of this exchange when I heard Mister Romney's just released comments from a private fundraiser earlier this year where he seemed inclined to write off nearly half the electorate.
"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.
And, I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, he starts with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. So he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean, that’s what they sell every four years.
And so my job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
What surprised me wasn't the substance of the remarks. They present a candidate who not only doesn't understand a large segment of the American people but also doesn't seem to feel that they're worth understanding. Rightly or wrongly, these comments come across as consistent with the persona he's presented to date.
What really amazed me was how angry his words made me. Partly, it was the thought that this man who presumes that he has what it takes to lead one of the most diverse countries on earth was so ready to disparage millions of people when he thought no one was listening. Above all, though, it was the fact that he was disparaging me to benefit his campaign. With that in mind, I'd like to make some things clear.
First off, I am no more "dependent upon government" than any other citizen who depends on our military, firefighters, the FDA and any number of other institutions that make our lives better and safer. Nor do I "believe that mmgovernment has a responsibility to care for [me]." I will concede that I believe that I am "entitled to health care" - provided I pay for it. As for food, housing and the ill-defined "you-name-it" to which the governor referred, I pay for those things as well.
I also pay income tax, contrary to Mister Romney's perplexing suggestion that those who support President Obama don't pay taxes. I do this willingly because I know that it pays for valuable things like those brave firefighters and that mighty military that makes all but the most eschatological of our enemies think twice. I also understand that it pays for things that I thankfully don't use like "food stamps" and other elements of the so-called "social safety net". I'm OK with that because I believe that it's what a moral society does for the less fortunate.
Does that last bit make me some sort of naive idealist? Perhaps, though considering my view on most foreign policy issues is "bomb them", I suspect the idealists wouldn't want me in their camp, which brings us to practicality. Going back to Governor Romney's comments, does my support of President Obama mean that I don't believe that people "should take personal responsibility and care for their lives"? Suffice it to say, if you think that, I think you're a jackass.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Better Off?
The man with the cool demeanor and the great hair thinks I should vote for him in the upcoming presidential election. The crux of his argument seems to be that his opponent, the current president, can't tell me that I'm better off now than I was four years ago and the reason for that is the current
president's economic policies. The man with the great hair is really trying, but I'm afraid his pitch is lost on me for one simple reason. I am better off than I was at this point in 2008.
I don't just mean that as far as intangibles like emotional well-being. I'm talking in empirical terms. Not only is my salary higher today than it was in September 2008, I've also benefitted in the short term from a tax cut thanks to the much-reviled Recovery Act (aka "the failed stimulus"). On top of that, my retirement account is worth more now than it was in September 2008.
A key factor in the latter point is that the majority of my 401(k) is devoted to so-called S&P 500 Index Funds. On September 12, 2008 the S&P 500 closed at 1251.70 down around 20% from the all-time high set in 2007. Yesterday it closed at 1465.77, which is not only within striking distance of the historical high but also 75% higher than when the current President took office in 2009.
Taking a step back, I certainly understand that no single statistic can possibly encapsulate an economy as diverse and despite its challenges vibrant as America's. That said, the performance of the S&P 500 reflects the state of a significant slice of American business. Therefore, it begs the question of why is it that, if the current President's policies are so bad for business, so many businesses are doing better now (by at least one widely accepted metric) than they were when he took office?
As I hope folks realized well before this point, I'm poking a bit of fun here. What I hope is equally obvious is that I'm doing so with serious intent. Unless you're an arms dealer, the current round of sound-bite skirmishes are doing little or nothing to benefit anyone. Unless you're talking to people on the extreme ends of the economic spectrum, asking someone whether they're better off today than they were just before the previous election borders on insulting, because it pre-supposes that there's actually been enough substantive discussion from either side of the aisle to enable the electorate at large to give an informed answer.
I'm not oblivious to the large number of people all over the country who are struggling to find work and make ends meet. On the flip side, I know a lot of people with friends and family in Michigan whose lives are less anxious than they would be otherwise because "The Big Three" are still alive and kicking. Both say something about where the economy is, but which one tells the real story? Moreover, considering that the President generally gets a disproportionate degree of credit and blame for the state of the economy relative to their actual ability to impact it, what does any anecdote really say about who should take the oath of office four months and four days from today.
Certainly, I don't claim that my situation is necessarily representative of where the country is economically. At the same time, in a climate where sound-bites are trumping analysis - let alone honesty - on all sides of the debate, what makes my story and by extension my intention to reelect the current President any less valid?
president's economic policies. The man with the great hair is really trying, but I'm afraid his pitch is lost on me for one simple reason. I am better off than I was at this point in 2008.
I don't just mean that as far as intangibles like emotional well-being. I'm talking in empirical terms. Not only is my salary higher today than it was in September 2008, I've also benefitted in the short term from a tax cut thanks to the much-reviled Recovery Act (aka "the failed stimulus"). On top of that, my retirement account is worth more now than it was in September 2008.
A key factor in the latter point is that the majority of my 401(k) is devoted to so-called S&P 500 Index Funds. On September 12, 2008 the S&P 500 closed at 1251.70 down around 20% from the all-time high set in 2007. Yesterday it closed at 1465.77, which is not only within striking distance of the historical high but also 75% higher than when the current President took office in 2009.
Taking a step back, I certainly understand that no single statistic can possibly encapsulate an economy as diverse and despite its challenges vibrant as America's. That said, the performance of the S&P 500 reflects the state of a significant slice of American business. Therefore, it begs the question of why is it that, if the current President's policies are so bad for business, so many businesses are doing better now (by at least one widely accepted metric) than they were when he took office?
As I hope folks realized well before this point, I'm poking a bit of fun here. What I hope is equally obvious is that I'm doing so with serious intent. Unless you're an arms dealer, the current round of sound-bite skirmishes are doing little or nothing to benefit anyone. Unless you're talking to people on the extreme ends of the economic spectrum, asking someone whether they're better off today than they were just before the previous election borders on insulting, because it pre-supposes that there's actually been enough substantive discussion from either side of the aisle to enable the electorate at large to give an informed answer.
I'm not oblivious to the large number of people all over the country who are struggling to find work and make ends meet. On the flip side, I know a lot of people with friends and family in Michigan whose lives are less anxious than they would be otherwise because "The Big Three" are still alive and kicking. Both say something about where the economy is, but which one tells the real story? Moreover, considering that the President generally gets a disproportionate degree of credit and blame for the state of the economy relative to their actual ability to impact it, what does any anecdote really say about who should take the oath of office four months and four days from today.
Certainly, I don't claim that my situation is necessarily representative of where the country is economically. At the same time, in a climate where sound-bites are trumping analysis - let alone honesty - on all sides of the debate, what makes my story and by extension my intention to reelect the current President any less valid?
Thursday, September 6, 2012
That's a Bill I Don't Mind Getting
I was left with two key impressions after listening to what might be the greatest speech of Bill Clinton's political life tonight at the Democratic convention. The first is that, whatever his faults, the former President really does embody American values - imbued with almost impossibly lofty ideals yet constantly striving to meet them, generally for the benefit of America - not to mention the world. The second is that getting the Rumours-era line-up of Fleetwood Mac back together remains one of his greatest achievements. Forget dealing with a Republican-controlled Congress in 1995, the acrimony between some of the band members in 1992 was beyond even the toxic levels reached during the making of Rumours. Now, that's politics!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)