Romney "Gaffe" Simple Truth?

Romney’s recent “gaffe” made at a private fundraiser came through like a breath of fresh air since it was an accurate description of the voting blocs in this country. It had already been said in this corner but Romney reiterated the fact that since 47% of households paid no federal income taxes (and probably not much in state income taxes, either), one could count on 47% of the voters to vote democratic, i.e., for the welfare-state approach to governance.

Considering the fact that virtually 100% of the black vote (though not racist, of course – little joke there), much if not most of it included in that 47%, as well as a sizeable majority of the Latino vote, is automatically locked-up for Obama, as Romney said, he is forced to gain any leverage through adding the “independent” vote to the republican vote. The “mainstream media,” otherwise known as the Obama propaganda arm, has spun Romney’s truth-telling into making him an “unlikeable/insensitive” ogre. He correctly referred to the 47% as merely unreachable for voting purposes, not that he wouldn’t be their president if elected.

The statement was not for public consumption, just as wasn’t Obama’s charge at a private Hollywood fundraiser in 2008 concerning Pennsylvanians’ grasping of their Bibles and shotguns and chasing after Mexican immigrants. Romney’s statement could have sounded harsh, especially if taken out of context (as it was), but Obama’s statement was plainly insulting and anti-religion, totally without defense. He might as well have said “Allah, Akbar,” a la Major Hasan at Ft. Hood, which may have been what he was thinking, considering his childhood background in Islam and his strange performances in Egypt and Saudi Arabia in 2009.

Romney’s allusion to “accepted-victimhood as personal condition” works in probably most cases but not with respect to retirees on Social Security and Medicare or with many of those working-poor. The fact that he didn’t have them in mind doesn’t matter when the “spin” is on, however. No one has divided the nation along “class-lines” more than Obama, but he’ll get a pass by the propagandists while they skewer Romney for being “uncaring.”

As a practical matter, the fact that the “takers” can now vote to determine how much can be confiscated from the “producers” (givers) and redistributed to them poses a serious problem. In the current recession, far from over notwithstanding Obama’s claim to the contrary, the middle class, whatever that is these days, is stuck more than ever with trying to stay afloat while keeping a seemingly perpetual underclass afloat, gratis.

On CNN of 17 Feb. 2012 was the information that $434 billion had been spent on unemployment payments over the last four years, $185 billion by the federal government. People who are unemployed can vote, nevertheless, so they will vote for the “redistribution folks” – Obama’s, in other words. This may or may not apply to retirees, depending upon how much faith they have in the government and pension systems. Obama made it plain as recently as 2008 that he faults the U.S. Constitution for not providing for redistribution of wealth.

According to the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, federal food assistance, including food stamps, amounted to $60.6 billion in 2008. In 2010, it grew to $95.3 billion under the Obama administration, an increase of 57%. The food stamp program alone during 2007-2011 grew by 135% to some $78 billion, with the number of participants increasing by 70% to 45 million, or about one-in-seven Americans.

During the last four years, unemployment has increased exponentially as employers have made deep cuts, thus curtailing the number of jobs available, and people by the millions have simply left the work force, so that the rate is not 8.3% as advertised officially but probably in the 16% range. This circumstance accounts for the inordinate drain on the Treasury for social benefits. Obama’s answer currently is to simply print more money. The Congress, as vapid as ever, agrees, tweaking the system occasionally as it has just done, knowing that it can un-tweak it any time it feels the need.

So, while his choice of words may have seemed harsh, Romney spoke the truth, not just about his chances at being elected but about the direction in which the nation is headed. By economic definition, the population can’t bear the entitlement burden as currently designed. Romney (actually Ryan) has tried to make this point, calling for modifications that will not penalize people over age 55 (concerning Medicare) but will affect those under 55. Social Security is already being modified. The only alternative is to increase the tax rates to prohibitive levels, starting, as Obama would have it, with the wealthy but, as everyone knows, soon affecting the entire population.

What Obama offers (actually prefers) is the status quo that leads directly to Olde Europe socialism, with the people dependent upon government for everything, cradle-to-grave. Romney offers a revival of the entrepreneurship that has made this country the economic marvel of the world. It’s job-creating and it’s that simple. In the process, some will grow wealthier than others – for a lot of reasons – but so what! The tax-break-system is the creature of Congress and the president, not the folks who take risks and create employment.