SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Will Conservatives Keep Tolerating Mitt’s New Moderation?

PLANK OCTOBER 17, 2012

Will Conservatives Keep Tolerating Mitt’s New Moderation?

BY ALEC MACGILLIS

One of the most striking features of the turn the presidential race has taken since the first debate in Denver is the forbearance of conservatives toward Mitt Romney’s turn toward a more moderate tone. My favorite example of this was the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which just prior to the Denver debate scolded Romney for hiding his tax cut plan under a bushel, and then, after Romney proceeded to hide his tax cuts even further under a bushel that night, followed up a day later with a big editorial... defending Romney’s new, soft-pedaled language on taxes. The explanation was clear: conservatives were thrilled that Romney had scored a debate win against Barack Obama, and were all of a sudden willing to grant him all sorts of leeway if he was suddenly going to have a real shot at winning the White House.

But it was hard to watch the second debate last night and not wonder whether the formerly “severely conservative” Romney was putting the forbearance of conservatives severely to the test. It's one thing to grant Romney a long leash when he’s taking it to the president as he did in Denver. But last night Romney was on the defensive, which surely made more wince-worthy to conservatives lines such as these:

1. Talking up the taxpayer-funded scholarship program he oversaw in Massachusetts and vowing to increase Pell Grants (a reversal of Romney’s campaign plank to cut less needy students from the grant rolls): “When I was governor of Massachusetts, to get a high school degree, you had to pass an exam. If you graduated in the top quarter of your class, we gave you a John and Abigail Adams scholarship, four years tuition free in the college of your choice in Massachusetts, it’s a public institution. I want to make sure we keep our Pell grant program growing.”

2. Talking up the affirmative action he practiced as governor. “And—and so we—we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. I went to a number of women’s groups and said, ‘Can you help us find folks,’ and they brought us whole binders full of women. I was proud of the fact that after I staffed my Cabinet and my senior staff, that the University of New York in Albany did a survey of all 50 states, and concluded that mine had more women in senior leadership positions than any other state in America.” Leave aside the comedic potential of “binders full of women,” or the fact that Romney did not in fact go to the women’s groups, as he describes (they came to him)—what he was doing in this riff is giving a full-throated endorsement of the sort of diversity-in-the-workplace policies many conservatives deride.

Support thought-provoking, quality journalism. Join The New Republic for $3.99/month.

3. Framing his stance in the contraception debate defensively, without the "war on religion" line from earlier in the campaign: “I’d just note that I don’t believe that bureaucrats in Washington should tell someone whether they can use contraceptives or not. And I don’t believe employers should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care of not. Every woman in America should have access to contraceptives. And the president’s statement of my policy is completely and totally wrong.”

4. Seeming to endorse something along the lines of the American Dream Act for young people in the country illegally: “The kids of those that came here illegally, those kids, I think, should have a pathway to become a permanent resident of the United States and military service, for instance, is one way they would have that kind of pathway to become a permanent resident.” In the past, Romney has held out this pathway only for people in the military; here, he stated it much more broadly.

And then there is, again, the matter of Romney’s vagueness on his tax cut plan, which, as Ezra Klein notes, should make conservatives uneasy:

Conservatives should find tonight’s transcript worrying. Romney’s answers were worst when he was describing how he’ll accomplish his key conservative goals. He’s clearly not committed to the kind of tax reforms needed to pay for his tax cuts, and given his insistence that he won’t pass any tax cuts that increase the deficit or cut taxes on the rich, it’s hard to see how he’ll be able to pass large tax cuts at all. The same is true on his spending cuts, where he’s been, if anything, vaguer than on his tax cuts. Again, it’s hard to see a candidate this afraid of trying to sell the American people on the details necessary to make conservative policies work actually following through on those policies.

So, will conservatives keep standing for this? Dana Milbank checked in with some of the usual suspects for his column today, and they assured him they would: 

“I hear all this as tonal,” Grover Norquist, the Republican purity enforcer and keeper of the antitax pledge, told me. Romney’s new pledge that his tax cuts wouldn’t increase the deficit, for example, could be honored simply by using an alternative accounting method, known as “dynamic scoring,” that conservatives favor. “You’re now in the general election and you’ve already convinced conservatives why they should vote for you,” Norquist said of Romney. “You’re now talking to undecided voters, who have a completely different set of issues.”

As long as Romney’s polling surge continues, we’ll be hearing more of the same tolerance. But if Obama manages to get momentum back, I suspect we could start hearing hints of dissatisfaction again. This dynamic matters not just for the depth of Romney’s base support heading into November 6, but also for whatever follows. If Romney wins, conservatives will be sure to make instantly clear to him that the leash has been snapped tight again—a reminder that may not even be necessary to the extent that Romney himself is just fine with reverting to the party’s “severely conservative” agenda.

More interesting will be to see how this dynamic plays out if Romney loses. It’s been assumed all year that conservatives will conclude from a Romney loss that he simply wasn’t conservative enough, even though he had done his utmost to cast himself in that mold. The question is, how does conservatives’ toleration for the recent Moderate Mitt incarnation change that? It would seem a bit rich for conservatives to allow, and even encourage, Romney to go soft in the home stretch, only to turn around and pin a defeat on said softness. But that doesn’t mean they won’t try.

follow me on Twitter @AlecMacGillis
 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 47 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

47 comments

Possibly this will lose him a few votes to the third party guys.

- stanmvp48

October 17, 2012 at 3:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

George W. Bush indulged in similar Orwellian re-phrasing of his policies on tax-cuts in his debates before the election. And after the election abandoned the re-phrasing and implemented the policies as previously stated -- tax-cuts that immediately created huge deficits, an attempt to privatize Social Security, additional deregulation of financial institutions. I find it much more likely that the "20% tax cut for the wealthy" and "revoking Obamacare" and "cutting Planned Parenthood" and appointing a couple of Supreme Court Justices to overturn Roe-v-Wade would STILL happen under Romney, than to bet they wouldn't.

- AllanL5

October 17, 2012 at 3:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Severely conservative" was one of Romney's many lines Obama failed to bring up. That's one of my favorites and should give the "low information" voter some pause.

- tmmats

October 17, 2012 at 3:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

After claiming his tax plan is not a tax cut when questioned about paying for it, I have no doubt that Romney, if elected, would claim a mandate first and foremost to cut taxes across the board by 20%, repeal the estate tax, and allow interest, dividends and long term capital gains to be tax free on incomes up to $200,000.00. There is nothing in Romney's past or present that suggests that anything he has explained in the past or explained presently has anything to do with what he would commit to in the future (with the exception that his decisions consistently tend to benefit himself).

- Nusholtz

October 17, 2012 at 3:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"You’re now in the general election and you’ve already convinced conservatives why they should vote for you,” Norquist said of Romney. “You’re now talking to undecided voters, who have a completely different set of issues.” Yep -- you tell one bunch of suckers one thing, another group of suckers something else, and what you actually plan to do is nobody's f-ing business but your own.

- Fishpeddler

October 17, 2012 at 3:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Romney's campaign really seems like a watershed moment in national politics. 'Tacking to the center' as a political strategy has of course been around for ages, but it usually has meant highlighting different issues or conveying your message in different ways. I don't remember a national campaign where the candidate takes mutually exclusive positions depending on who he is talking to. And even if it has happened before, perhaps it will nonetheless be watershed because of the success Romney is now having with the technique. Welcome to the future.

- Fishpeddler

October 17, 2012 at 4:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Fish, you beat me to it, and said it much better than I. Conservatives will probably ignore anything Mitt says at this point as pandering for votes, because that's what it is and that's what politicians do. It will be interesting to see if they let him lead the country like they seemed to do with Bush Jr., or if they snap the leash tight and tell him where to sign and what to say. I think Reps in Congress will take care of the details (here comes that Ryan budget!), and Mitt's main job is going to be Rubber-Stamper-in-Chief (much like with Mass). On FP, he'll probably let his Sec State and Sec Def take the lead on all things. Overall, bad news.

- GSpinks

October 17, 2012 at 4:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obamaphobia is so complete for about 47% of voters that Romney could make French Fries the national food and it wouldn't make any difference. Well, perhaps not French Fries, but he could promise political asylum for Castro.

- rayward

October 17, 2012 at 4:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But 47% isn't enough, rayward. Romney will lose, and while I don't know whether or not conservatives will blame the loss on his conservative heterodoxy, I sure hope they do. The more the GOP remains wedded to a rigid belief system shared by a shrinking minority of Americans, the longer they will continue to lose elections.

- AaronW

October 17, 2012 at 9:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Shorter answer: Conservatives won't even complain, because they know this new Moderate Romney doesn't mean what he's saying. Or, that what he IS saying is some Orwellian misdirection. For instance, "I support education for everyone (through cutting education spending, and providing education vouchers that won't cover even a quarter at a private school, but will reduce public education funding further.)" See? He can SOUND moderate, but always leaves himself an out. "I'll remove ALL Capital Gains taxes for everyone (but of course only the wealthy like myself make a lot of their income from Capital Gains)"

- AllanL5

October 17, 2012 at 10:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What I am curious about is who died and made Grover Norquist the king, let alone the Purity Police? Since when do lobbyists run the country? What gives him so much power? Does he threaten people? Bribe them? What? When an entire political party appears to pledge allegiance to some guy, not the country, doesn't this mean our democracy is already a joke?

- Sophia

October 17, 2012 at 10:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm pretty sure that when Romney loses the Repub base will explain it in terms of his not having been "conservative" enough, and like Aaron I believe this will bode ill for the party's future. Along with the demographic trends, this may make 2010 the high-water mark for nut-bag conservatism.

- Robert Powell

October 18, 2012 at 5:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That's IF Romney loses. He's got every external in his favor thanks to Republicans in Congress doing their best to make sure this country doesn't recover from their previous malfeasance ('94 - '06). Sadly, I don't think they're going to be that interested in governing from the middle once they've retaken control of the Executive Branch from the Kenyan usurper.

- GSpinks

October 18, 2012 at 9:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Most of the examples cited from the debate are just posturing--citing what Romney did as governor (involving no pledge for the future) or stating things in very broad, opaque terms. However, MacGillis is right that the tax issue is the thornier problem. As I see it, there are two issues that Romney is deftly keeping separate: middle class taxes and upper-income taxes. Although Romney is veering dangerously close to George H.W. Bush territory in his vow not to raise taxes on the middle class, this vow is always about income tax rates. I think it's possible he intends to keep the middle class burden the same, and conservatives are okay with that. However, when he says he doesn't want to give tax cuts to the wealthy, he's also talking about income tax rates--not interest, investment income, capital gains, etc., where the wealthy really make out like bandits. He's allowed himself plenty of weasel room to get to something that really helps the rich but doesn't directly hurt the middle class. Even his pledge to ensure that the wealthy pay the same share of the tax burden is so malleable as to be simply policy putty. This idea of a cap on deductions is also silly putty: it's crept upward over the past couple of weeks, and I'm guessing would keep creeping upward to $100,000 or more before it ever got enacted. The key thing for Mitt is that he can probably do this (keep middle class taxes the same while drastically cutting them for the rich) and not blow up the budget. How? By drastically cutting federal spending, which he has been consistent about. That's the unspoken promise Mitt is making. That's what I wish Obama would hammer more.

- polcereal

October 18, 2012 at 11:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Polcereal. we need federal spending drastically cut. Welfare proper has just crossed the $1T mark (and it's even larger when you consider the aspects of welfare that are part of SS and medicare). On average, this is $10K per household in welfare that we are spending. More specifically, a guy earning $55K is paying $2500 in welfare. 5% of his paycheck goes to pay welfare. Think about that: We are asking a $55K earner to pay 5% of his salary so that someone can use their earned money to buy smokes and tattoos, and their government money to buy food. This is not right. And not sustainable.

- seattleeng

October 18, 2012 at 12:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's also not reality seattle. The guy earning 55K is paying 5% of his salary so he can go on welfare when he hits retirement age. Ask him. The smokes and tatoos, unlike the approximately $750 billion wasted annually by our healthcare "system" per recent Institute of Medicine study, are not the problem. Most of that excess swag is skimmed off by wealthy docs, insurance and pharma, and other associated genuine Welfare Queens. And that's without even getting into some of the boondogles in the Security/Intelligence/Drug War Complex that Republicans seem to exempt from all Big Government criticism.

- Robert Powell

October 18, 2012 at 1:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

RP writes: "It's also not reality seattle. The guy earning 55K is paying 5% of his salary so he can go on welfare when he hits retirement age. " Retirement is not welfare! Retirement is retirement. That is a separate bucket! Welfare is money we pay to those under age 65 who meet requirements for needing assistance. The guy earning $55K pays a total effective tax rate of 14.2, with 3% of that going to individual income tax, 9.5% of that going to SS, 0.7% going to corp taxes, and 1.0% going to excise taxes. Per the CBO. So, he has paid for his retirement via the SS slice (9%). The 3% + 0.7 + 1% = 4.7% of that goes to run the government: Military, welfare, etc. That means for a $1T welfare bill, the 20M houses in the middle quintile are paying $47B of that. $47B divided among 20M houses is $2350 per household. Every year. And it goes up every year. So, next time you are at the store, and you see someone using a government card to buy a bunch of chips and processed food and sugared drinks. And you see they are on an iphone, and they have $2000 worth of tattoos and piercings.... Remember this: This wasn't all paid for by a rich person. A guy earning $55K worked 5% of the year to pay for this. That's not right.

- seattleeng

October 18, 2012 at 3:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh boy seattle now you're veering into outright racism.

- Sophia

October 18, 2012 at 4:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One trillion dollars, Seattle? Republicans really do live on an entirely different planet than the rest of us. "Welfare," that being the aid program which conservatives so hated and loathed, rather than the "welfare programs" that Powell reasonably assumed you were referring to, effectively ceased to exist in 1996. Those millions and millions of undesirables aren't getting your hard-earned cash anymore, just a few desperately needy families for a maximum of 60 months under the new TANF program, about 1 million total beneficiaries and an annual budget of $17b. What is it with you and tattoos, anyway? I remember ages ago, you railing against how the ACA would lead to hospitals being onerously forced to provide care to sketchy tattooed individuals without first being able to check how worthy they are of receiving it. Were you mugged as a teenager by some guys with ink, or what?

- janus

October 18, 2012 at 4:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't get the point of these articles. Let the conservatives worry about Romney, you guys just worry about getting Obama reelected :)

- Nicomachus

October 18, 2012 at 4:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sophia writes: "Oh boy seattle now you're veering into outright racism." Over what? Janus writes: " Those millions and millions of undesirables aren't getting your hard-earned cash anymore, just a few desperately needy families for a maximum of 60 months under the new TANF program, about 1 million total beneficiaries and an annual budget of $17b." The US government has 83 means tested programs. In fiscal year 2011, they added up to $1.03T. That does not include ANY part of SS, Medicare or the means-tested veterans pension programs. You really have no clue what we're spending, and yet you want more? You really had no idea the number was this big? You thought the total of our means tested programs was $17B? Are you freaking kidding??? Your brain believes our handouts are 1/50th of what they actually are? Could you possibly be any less informed on the topic? Tattoos, cellphone with data plans, etc, hold a special place in my heart because they are purely optional in life. If you have an iphone but no health insurance, then that is YOUR fault for not having health insurance. If you have sleeves of tattoos that cost $2000, but you don't have enough money to buy food, then that is YOUR fault. If you have enough each week to spend $50 on cigs, but you dont' have enough money to buy food, then that is YOUR fault. How can anyone look at someone with so many frivolities in life and demand that a single mom earning $55K from 2 jobs should give you more? It boggles the mind.

- seattleeng

October 18, 2012 at 4:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Janus, let me ask this question: If a person has a 1.5 pack/day smoking habit ($250/month) and they receive $400/month in help from the government, wouldn't you agree that the government is overpaying them by $250/month? In other words, the government is enabling them to smoke. And we should not be doing that. Agree?

- seattleeng

October 18, 2012 at 5:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"We are asking a $55K earner to pay 5% of his salary so that someone can use their earned money to buy smokes and tattoos, and their government money to buy food." Oh, yes, "someone." Seattleeng is all impressive-sounding facts and figures and hard data until the chance comes to make unsupported moralizing generalizations about the working poor. (I was, however, startled by the concession that this putative tattooed parasite might actually have some "earned" money.) Me, I object, for example, to the percentage of my $55K that gets spent by the federal government when "someone" rips off the Department of Defense, or again to the "pro-job-creator" tax policies that let "someone" frolic in a McDuck-y pool of gold while his failing business lays off workers. Conservatives like to obsess hyperbolically about the way that our political and economic system funnels billions of dollars away from hard-working Americans and into the pockets of people who might somehow be morally unworthy, but really, that's not a conversation that they should want to have.

- frippo

October 18, 2012 at 6:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So, how do you feel Frippo when $2500 of your earnings goes to tax money which then goes to pay someone to smoke? Welfare is now almost 2X larger than the military. Let that soak in.

- seattleeng

October 18, 2012 at 6:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Huh? http://www.usfederalbudget.us/welfare_budget_2012_4.html Welfare 12%, Defense 25%

- ironyroad

October 18, 2012 at 7:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

FYI2010 military spending was $683B. The Congressional Research Service today just published a report stating that welfare spending was over $1T. So my point is correct. What you linked to is the welfare program itself, but it ignores the means-tested benefits for low income people in all areas of government. Look at the report. www.scribd.com/doc/110366590/Spending-for-Federal-Benefits-and-Services-for-People-With-Low-Income-FY08-FY11 BTW, if we believe that 25% of the households in this country needs help, then that is $1T shared among 25M households, or $40K per household. Think about that! That means with today's spending, we could make sure that our poorest 25% below the age of 65 could get $40K/year. How awesome would it be to ensure we had a floor like that for folks that had been dealt a seriously bad hand. That is a lot of help! But keep in mind too that much of this is skimmed off by the government. Again highlighting just how poor the gov is at helping people. What actually gets to the people that need help is very small.

- seattleeng

October 18, 2012 at 9:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Pretty shocking seattle. You count spending on education as well as Republican initiatives like the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Credit as welfare? That linked memo includes a whole lot of programs that any decent American would not only support, but insist on as measures that keep us from descending into Third World conditions. Your remarks here represent the worst kind of class warfare.

- Robert Powell

October 19, 2012 at 9:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And so what? You don't wish to count these transfers as welfare? The EITC exists to offset the burden of retirement taxes. Think about that. If that isn't welfare, what is? Europe would laugh in our faces over that one, since they tax a guy making $30K a year at a ball crushing 25% rate. And incredibly, we GIVE that guy money? Look, all these programs seem great on the surface. But when we're out of money, we're out of money. You can say, "Hey, just raises taxes a bit and we're good. You know spread the wealth around" But as we already seen, this has no end. And we arrive at a point where we are asking a $55K earner to pay for someone on welfare to smoke. Do you think it's fair a single mom working 2 jobs to make $55K a year should have to pay $2500/year for someone to smoke for free???

- seattleeng

October 19, 2012 at 11:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Your smoking obsession is getting more than a little weird. I prefer to focus on how the current system of taxation lets the wealthiest Americans destroy the economy without government oversight or penalty and then minimizes their obligation to help care for the people who suffer the most as a result. But yeah, I guess I can see that fixing that isn't worth the risk that my labor might accidentally enable someone somewhere to buy some smokes now and then.

- frippo

October 19, 2012 at 12:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Frippo, It's not just smokes you need to worry about. It's titty bars, and booze, and pot, and iphones, and TVs. All the normal time and money wasters in society. Welfare is supposed to make sure the most needy have what they need to live. It's not to guy buy something frivolous you otherwise couldn't afford. But that is how it's being used. It's not right to have an able bodied man that doesn't like working use their EBT card to go to a titty bar and smoke when the funds to permit that fun night out were provided by a single mom working two jobs to make $55K a year. Surely you must agree with that.

- seattleeng

October 19, 2012 at 12:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's true; absolutely *no* welfare money is being spent on providing the needy with what they need to live. I am particularly shocked to hear that some welfare recipients might be buying *telephones,* as if they were real people who might need to contact other people. Presumably, they use these mainly to call up their Uncle Sam for another cash infusion and then to arrange to meet their dealer at the titty bar. Meanwhile, I'm sure you'll agree that corporate tax breaks and government subsidies to already profitable industries are not being used to invest in growth, production, and job creation, but instead to give executives massive bonuses that they spend on private jets, hookers, and blow, at least until they move overseas, close the local plant, and lay that single mother off from one of her jobs. If only there were some kind of program that would help her until she can get back on her feet -- but no, she'll just spend it on cigarettes.

- frippo

October 19, 2012 at 1:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, absolutely, let's get rid of all subsidies. But dont' confuse those that PAY and want to pay less (via subsidy) with those that pay nothing and want more free stuff. Exxon PAYS loads in taxes. A subsidy means they pay a bit less. But they still PAY A LOT. A $100K earner PAYS taxes. A subsidy means they pay a bit less. BUT THEY STILL PAY A LOT. Meanwhile, the guy who doesn't want to work and gets $15K from the gov, and wants to get $16K so he can buy more stuff...he doesn't pay a dime. He wants to take more from others. Worse, the more stuff he wants is often frivolous stuff that didnt' even exist 15 years ago (cellphones, xbox games). Or he shouldn't be doing (smoking, tattoos) That is wrong. PS. If you took the top 500 execs and took their average annual pay of $5M and gave it to the bottom 25%...it'd be $100 per family. Sigh. You really dont' understand the numbers at all, do you...But that's why I'm here!

- seattleeng

October 19, 2012 at 2:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Your numbers are reasonably okay seattle. What's missing is something more than a cartoon version of what life is like for a family living on 20-30k in the US. Trust me, it's no hammock. We shouldn't be enabling dependency and self-destructive lifestyles, and since Clinton's welfare reform we are doing so much less. There's more work to do, but the real Welfare Queens both in terms of dollars and negative impact are in the boardrooms and executive suites much more than in the hood. Let's start reducing subsidies at the top and work our way down.

- Robert Powell

October 19, 2012 at 3:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'll concede, seattle. I was looking at the projected budget numbers for 2012-13. The actual percentages for welfare and defense, respectively, in the financial years 2006-2011 (same link, just click a different tab): W: 13% D: 24% That changes everything!

- ironyroad

October 19, 2012 at 4:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But RP, the average take home pay in France is USD$28K ($22K euros) after all taxes. Sure, in France you get health care. But you still must find a house and food and living expenses with that $28K. Now, if you earn $25K in the US as a family, then your takehome is actually a bit more when you consider the subsidies you get. And you also have free health care at the $25K wage level. So, our family living off $25K is in the same situation as an average person in France, are they not? Plus, the cost of living in the US is generally better than Paris. Why must we pity our $25K earner when they are in the same boat as the average citizen in France, Germany, and most all of the EU? www.langlophone.com/20100526_edition/20100526_EU27_data_table_flipped.pdf

- seattleeng

October 19, 2012 at 4:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

www.langlophone.com/20100526_edition/20100526_EU27_data_table_flipped.pdf Sorry, it ate the link. Sorry, it ate the link. Sorry, it ate the link. Sorry, it ate the link. Sorry, it ate the link. Sorry, it ate the link. Sorry, it ate the link. Sorry, it ate the link. Sorry, it ate the link. Sorry, it ate the link. Sorry, it ate the link. Sorry, it ate the link.

- seattleeng

October 19, 2012 at 4:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No one is suggesting pity as the appropriate response to the situation of our working poor seattle. Contempt, however, is even more inappropriate (tatoos, smokes, etc). Having lived in Europe for over a decade I can attest that you're making essentially an apples/oranges comparison in your last post. Life is not a bowl of cherries for any family living in any modern city on 25k or so, but in general the social ammenities over here amount to substantial compensation--much better healthcare, excellent public transportation, cheaper and usually better education, etc. On the other hand, someone starting out in the lower income percentiles has a much better chance of breaking out in the US.

- Robert Powell

October 20, 2012 at 5:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

RP, I'm not suggesting contempt. But I am suggesting if someone has enough money to buy a $2000 tattoo, then they really have no business asking a mom making $55K to help them fund a $400/week EBT card. Surely you can agree with that. I suspect our difference lies in the fact that you believe the welfare roles are 95% filled with those that genuinely need the benefits, while I suspect that only 50% really do. This I will need to research more at some point. PS. Your observations still don't change the fact that $25K is the norm in Europe, while we look at $25K in the US with pity. Health care and buses don't really change the equation much. As I noted, the $25K earner in the US gets medicaid (and free high school education). Plus, the EU family has a big VAT stamped on everything they purchase with their $25K. So, why does a US earner making $25K deserve government welfare in the US, but the EU family living on $25K gets even more taxes (VAT) shoved in their face?

- seattleeng

October 20, 2012 at 11:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"If a person has a 1.5 pack/day smoking habit ($250/month) and they receive $400/month in help from the government, wouldn't you agree that the government is overpaying them by $250/month? In other words, the government is enabling them to smoke. And we should not be doing that. Agree?" ... "I am suggesting if someone has enough money to buy a $2000 tattoo, then they really have no business asking a mom making $55K to help them fund a $400/week EBT card. Surely you can agree with that." No, seattle, we do not agree. Not in the slightest. Can you imagine why? It's because your fantasy world in which recipients of government assistance are comprehensively assessed to make sure they are just, virtuous and good in all respects, in addition to being asinine, would require a bureaucracy so complex, monolithic, and dismissive of the realities of human life that it would make Soviet Russia look like a libertarian paradise. What would you do to ensure not one penny of tax money was spent on the undeserving, exactly? Tattoos are just one fun example. Would every TANF office and emergency room have forms on the wall, where hopeful recipients could detail every tattoo they have, how much it cost, and when it was received? Oh, that one was gotten back when you made enough money not to need help, so that one's okay. That one was paid for by a boyfriend? How much was he making at the time? What about piercings? Strip-searches for inventory, perhaps, followed by the same kind of pricing history? Just make sure that when the forms are filled out, you include the description and price of any earrings or studs you keep at home, not just the ones you're wearing. I imagine we'll have to work with the AMA for some kind of addendum to the hippocratic oath to emphasize the importance to society of withholding medical care until all the relevant forms are completed, to ensure that only the just are treated. Pregnant mothers trying for Medicaid will be especially delightful. What were the circumstances of the pregnancy? A full history of all acts performed will be required, of course, with dates, locations, and the names of addresses of all involved. Naturally, you'll understand that if any of these acts took place within a two-mile walking radius of any free condom distribution, benefits are forbidden, as this pregnancy then occurred entirely by choice. We don't agree with you, seattle, because it's the view of sensible people that government not be in the business of watching every moment of every day of the life of its citizens, watching and waiting for an excuse to abandon them for not measuring up to someone else's petty, capricious judgment of what constitutes "the right choice." Thank you, however, for reminding me what the oft-professed conservative love of freedom really means: a desire for unending, unyielding, merciless authoritarianism based in a staggering hatred of the freedom of others. "Tattoos, cellphone with data plans, etc, hold a special place in my heart because they are purely optional in life. If you have an iphone but no health insurance, then that is YOUR fault for not having health insurance. If you have sleeves of tattoos that cost $2000, but you don't have enough money to buy food, then that is YOUR fault. If you have enough each week to spend $50 on cigs, but you dont' have enough money to buy food, then that is YOUR fault." And here we come to the crux of the matter: conservatives' search for fault. We don't agree with you, seattle, because the judgments you're making are irrelevant. Did the person in the line ahead of me at the grocery store with a SNAP EBT card blow their money this week on cigs? Or on that tattoo I can see on their arm that looks fresh? Maybe. Maybe not. But let's say they did. Let's say that person ahead of me made a stupid, stupid decision this week and spent money they shouldn't have. Should they starve to death for that stupid decision? How about the newborn or elderly grandparent that person's buying food for with that EBT card? At what point is it obvious that such a search for fault is a ridiculous waste of time and effort, rather than just saying that yes, we are a society with enough sense of decency and plentiful resources such that no one should ever suffer for lack of food? I think that it's self-evident at the point of bringing it up; you obviously don't. The vast majority of the country I think disagrees with you, for which I'm grateful, because I'm pretty sure that in the society you wish we lived in, we'd all be in various states of suffering and death, having been continuously watched, evaluated, judged, and eventually, inevitably, found wanting.

- janus

October 20, 2012 at 6:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So, Janus, where does it stop? Assume my plan in life is to do nothing but collect gov benefits. And while collecting them I'll spend them on whatever I want. Strip clubs, cigs, tattoos, booze, smartphones. And each year I'll bleat for more. Will you oblige? How do you know when to stop? Your mentality is why socialism has always failed. You keep granting more benefits because you are a nice guy, and those that are working their ass off to pay for them eventually decide it's better to stop working, take a slight paycut, and enjoy the benefits. And then you raise taxes to cover the wave that just quit working, and the cycle continues. Thatcher was right: Socialism is a great idea until you run out of other people's money. Hint: We've run out.

- seattleeng

October 20, 2012 at 9:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hm. You're asking where what stops? Giving government benefits? Maybe that stops with us providing basics to people who need it, like food and medical care, and stopping direct handouts of money that can be wasted as you describe. Oh, look, we did that. 16 years ago. When does your complaining about welfare queens stop? And quoting Thatcher just proves that her understanding of what socialism is was as confused as yours is. If ever we're giving serious consideration to government owning factories and other means or production, then maybe we should have a chat. 'til then, crying "Socialism!" just proves how irrelevant your positions are to reality. Oh, and good job not addressing the point that the oversight you apparently want would involve immense expenditures and expansion of government payroll. If you think it's not worth discussing, consider this: Up until a few months ago, Federal employees in the DC area receiving a transit subsidy for the Metro system sometimes used the money put on their Metro Smartcard to pay for parking instead of actual rides on the Metro. This was considered waste and abuse of the transit subsidy privilege, even though it actually wasn't; if it costs employee X $100 a month for travel to and from work, and he receives a $100 transit subsidy, but uses $5 of it one day to pay for metro parking, what happens? He has to get home anyway, so he pays $5 out of his pocket. Money might be reallocated, essentially, but since money can't be taken off the Smartcards once on, it can't actually be stolen or used for anything but Metro services. This wasn't sufficient for some high muckity-mucks who were incensed by this frivolity, however, and so they approached Metro about a solution to this exceedingly silly problem. Their solution? They paid MILLIONS of dollars to Metro to rewrite the software governing Smartrip cards, so that Federal employees using the transit subsidy have the funds deposited in a separate sub-account, which won't disburse funds to the parking machines. Millions of dollars to solve a so-called "problem" that was actually costing taxpayers literally nothing. The checks and judgments you'd want government to perform would cost billions, Seattle, possibly even trillions. The claim that America is broke is a common lie on the right, but we're certainly looking at our spending a bit more carefully these days. How could you justify such massive new expenditures for little or no benefit, praytell?

- janus

October 20, 2012 at 10:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Janus writes: "Oh, and good job not addressing the point that the oversight you apparently want would involve immense expenditures and expansion of government payroll. " The solution is simple: A person can have up to 2 years of emergency social security payout (paid weekly) any time in their life. If they never use it, then congrats, they retire at 68 instead of 70. If they hit a few rough patches, then the gov is there to help. The key is that lifetime benefits need to be tracked. Easy enough to do. I don't care what you spend it on as long as it's capped. Of course, this requires accountability, which means you will be against it. I understand that. But it also allows us to put the Nazi nirvana wet dream you have behind us. Nobody needs to inspect your tattoos or piercings. If you want to spend your emergency SS on pot, no problem. Do it. But after the 2 years of free living is gone, then that's it. But we cannot have half of the able bodied population on the take with no limit to the benefit. The numbers just don't work.

- seattleeng

October 21, 2012 at 12:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The solution is simple: A person can have up to 2 years of emergency social security payout (paid weekly) any time in their life...The key is that lifetime benefits need to be tracked...I don't care what you spend it on as long as it's capped. Of course, this requires accountability, which means you will be against it. I understand that." I am not most certainly not against accountability; your assumption that I am simply demonstrates how little you understand your opposition. Your new proposal at least an alternative to inspecting each purchase and person, forever; it is, nonetheless, a heartless and monstrous idea. Any system where simple circumstance condemns people to death when it absolutely need not be so is not one that I'm going to support, and I don't think the country I love will ever do so, either.

- janus

October 21, 2012 at 1:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Janus, we've already established the poor in the US have more disposable income than the middle class in the EU. We've already established the poor in the US have free medical care, just like the EU There's no debating that our poor are among the best fed in the world. And here I am saying that 2 years on the dole should be available to anyone that wants it. And for you, it's still not enough. How about 10 years on the dole? Still not enough? 20? A lifetime? Let me guess: It will NEVER be enough for you. And therein lies the problem

- seattleeng

October 21, 2012 at 1:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I've stated" is not quite the same as "we've established." And your thoughts of time "on the dole" prove that you haven't understood a word I've said. My mother, partially paralyzed from her stroke, or my nephew, with his blindness and degenerative spinal condition-what would be "enough" help for them before we as a society say that they've wasted too much of their lives in hospital beds, and they really should've just sucked it up and recovered? When would it be "enough" for us to say it's not our problem anymore and abandon them to their fate? For many conservatives, it's easy to define "enough," because their basic assumption is that anyone who isn't rich or who is in poor health is in that condition because they chose to be. Their conception of government isn't at all about helping one another, but is instead about nothing more than finding fault and punishing it. And therein lies the problem.

- janus

October 21, 2012 at 9:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You need to refute the cites I've provided if you dont' believe them. If you aren't going to accept a data point, then say so and provide a counterpoint to refute it. But the data is very clear here. You'll have a tough time refuting it. Your mother is disabled. We have mechanisms to care for the disabled. Can they be improved? Sure. But that's not what we're talking about here. What we're talking about here are the those that are fit and of working age. But they don't want to work. How long are you willing to support someone that is fit and of working age, but just doesn't want to work???

- seattleeng

October 22, 2012 at 12:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"How long are you willing to support someone that is fit and of working age, but just doesn't want to work???" As long as it takes, if there's any danger that trying to cut off Imaginary Lazy Guy X's access to free cigs and titty bars ends up cutting off access to necessities for someone in genuine need. There's a case to be made for some measure of reform and verification, and there's a case to be made that current numbers are unsustainable. The way to make that case, however, is not to demand arbitrary, massive cuts to government spending based on a stereotype that welfare recipients are lazy, vice-ridden parasites. (Come to think of it, those of us who believe in Keynesian stimulus are also unmoved by your allegedly grim spectre of accidentally subsidized iPhones and XBoxes.)

- frippo

October 22, 2012 at 5:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close