100% wrong about 47%

My most disappointing moment with Romney probably came when he apologized for the 47% remark. I was appalled by the original remark, but not surprised. When I saw that he was taking it back, I thought maybe he was going to show some signs that he got it.

I was hoping for more explanation about why it was wrong, and that could have been good for other people too, because so many people were jumping right on that bandwagon, talking about the moochers and he was totally right. I believe this was an opportunity for a teachable moment, and no, what we got was more of the same—this is kind of unpopular, so I’m going to back off from it, but in no way that will indicate any change or sincerity or actual care about anyone who is not a huge donor.

So, I’m going to take the teachable moment here. First of all, let’s get some context, because a lot of people defended the comments, admitting that it sounded bad, but suggesting that it was taken out of context and then blown out of proportion. Here is the original question:

Audience member: For the last three years, all everybody's been told is, "Don't worry, we'll take care of you." How are you going to do it, in two months before the elections, to convince everybody you've got to take care of yourself?

The first point to make here is that message is a myth, as bad as the “apology tour”. Really? Who has been saying “We will take care of you?” What, because unemployment benefits have been extended under an economic crisis? Because of the Affordable Care Act? I guess this is the mindset of someone who can afford to go to $50K plate dinners.

This could have been a good teachable moment for the attendees, but this is what we got:

“There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% 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 they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it…These are people who pay no income tax, 47% of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. So he’ll (President Obama) 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 not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the five to ten percent in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not.”

Let’s look at that number. The first problem is that it’s saying that this is one group who both relies on federal aid and favors Obama, and does not pay federal income tax. That is incorrect.

One group that tends not to pay federal income taxes is senior citizens, because they are retired, and no longer making income. They make up about 20% of the 47%. They are often on social security, which could count as aid, but they paid into it, and they paid federal income taxes before, and they often vote Republican. Well, Ryan may have alienated a lot of them, though by threatening that other aid program, Medicare, so maybe some of them will be voting for Obama.

Another group that does not pay federal income tax consists of military members serving in combat zones. Yeah, as their salary comes out of the defense budget, I guess they are dependent on federal aid. They may even hope to use the GI bill or a Veterans Association loan one of these days. And let’s not forget those cushy healthcare benefits that are completely adequate and their always promptly processed disability claims. Moochers! Obviously, that is sarcastic, and most of the military members I know tend to vote Republican. However, I think they are statistically insignificant sample, so we’ll move on. (Also, there is a limit to how long they will be in that zone, and they will eventually be subject to federal income taxes again.)

Next up, low-income families, and even some less-low income families, because of deductions. There are deductions for children, deductions for a mortgage and for property and sales taxes, and this can reduce their federal taxable income to zero, or where it’s low. One interesting point about this is that it was the Bush tax cuts that lowered their tax liability. Again, this is a temporary thing, because most likely their children will stop being dependent before they stop working, and then they are probably going to pay some taxes, but their kids will be costing them less and it works out.

Now let’s talk about those deductions, because many of them are on the chopping block under a Romney-Ryan budget. Many of these deductions were put into place to encourage things that are valued by society. For all of the talk about population growth, the birth rate is falling in a lot of countries, but you do need new blood. There are deductions for children and for childcare. There are deductions and credits for education, because having educated people entering the workforce is helpful. Home ownership is associated with stable communities, so you can deduct mortgage interest and property tax. You can deduct charitable contributions because that is using money to do good. There is value in these things.

Also, notice that I keep mentioning deductions for taxes, because federal income taxes are not the only taxes. There are payroll taxes, state income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and all sorts of ways that people contribute. The brilliant thing about this is that many people who don’t pay federal income tax may not even realize that they don’t, making it easier to view other people as moochers.

Okay, maybe Romney was wrong on the tax issue, but still, look at all those people living it up on government handouts! There are a couple of ways to go with this, and I am already running late, but I did read something interesting about TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) and EIC (Earned Income Credit): they are very effective at moving people into higher income jobs.

Remember, how Romney was criticizing Obama’s eliminating the work requirement for welfare, and he was wrong, and Clinton explained it really well at the convention. Actually they were giving the states more leeway to make things successful, and continued permission was based on success, and all involved more work. So here’s the great news: it works! These programs are turning out to be effective. They are finding ways to help people move up the ladder economically, despite all of the other forces making it harder.

So here we can talk about the things that are making economic success harder, or the tendency to vilify others who are actually quite similar to you. I don’t know in which order it will happen. Right now I need to log back on to the job that actually pays me and try and pick up overtime while it is available (which doesn’t happen often), and with luck maybe I can get another five pages done on my new screenplay.

See, I am working class, and I make less than $50K a year, even when I get overtime, so dinners like that are just out of the question. Well, at least I pay federal income tax.