Why Mitt's Wealth Matters: It's Policy, Not Envy

[Pirate Smile]

Why Mitt's Wealth Matters: It's Policy, Not Envy

Jonathan Cohn
January 30, 2012

The purpose of President Obama's visit to the the University of Michigan on Friday was to promote the administration's new, and genuinely innovative, program for making college more affordable. But, along the way, Obama made a point about his own biography – and, implicitly, about Mitt Romney's:

Michelle and I can still remember how long it took us to pay back our student loans. ... Your President and your First Lady were in your shoes not that long ago. We didn’t come from wealthy families. The only reason that we were able to achieve what we were able to achieve was because we got a great education. That’s the only reason. And we could not have done that unless we lived in a country that made a commitment to opening up opportunity to all people.

You can expect to hear a lot more of this if, as seems likely, Romney becomes the Republican nominee. You can also expect Romney and his allies to get angry about it. They think critics who talk about Romney's wealth, even indirectly, are practicing the “politics of envy.” And they would have a point if the critics were simply trying to stoke resentment towards the wealthy. They'd also have the public on their side, according to my colleague Alec MacGillis.
But Obama was actually making an argument about policy on Friday. Specifically, he was making the case for strong public programs – not only as a safety net, for those who face financial difficulty, but also as a ladder of upward income mobility, for those who can’t move up on their own. Here was the crucial passage, which came just before the remarks about Obama’s student loans:

-snip-
As Greg Sargent has observed, this is the same argument that liberals like Elizabeth Warren have been making for a while now. And it is relevant because Romney has said repeatedly that he wants to gut those same programs, as a new report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities confirms.
In a major campaign promise that has drawn surprisingly little scrutiny, Romney has vowed to cap non-defense spending at 16 percent of gross domestic product – a goal that would, by his own admissions, require about $500 billion in cuts in 2016. A few weeks ago, I suggested that, based on preliminary calculations, that would lead to massive reductions in programs – with student financial assistance a likely target. (Remember, House Republicans have tried to cut that already.) The Center’s report confirms that:



-snip-
Romney should be proud of what he’s accomplished. His success in college, graduate school, and business are testimony to his work ethic as well as his natural talents. But Romney also benefited from the lottery of life – among other things, by being born into a family that could afford to provide him with the very best education at every step of the way.* He seems unaware of that fact and the possibility that others, born into less fortunate circumstances, might need some of the government programs he's promised to undermine.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/100207/romney-wealth-matters-obama-michigan-speech-college-tuition

[UCmeNdc]

1. Mitt Romney Buys the election with 17 million dollars

Money is the life blood of US elections. Mitt Romney and his wealth and connections just proved that fact. 17 million dollars alone in a primary election in one state. Wealth buys elections. Mitt Romney will buy each state as he goes along.

[TBF]

2. It is the systemic issues that need addressing - not particularly folks and their wealth.

As long as we have capitalism there are going to be the Romneys and the Buffetts. BTW, I see those men as EXACTLY the same. They both have obscene amounts of wealth, no matter how they acquired the money, whether from "working" or "inheriting".

Should any one person have that much wealth when others are homeless? That is the question we need to be asking. It is not whether they are "generous" or "unaware" or whatever ... it is the fact that we are supporting a system that encourages this behavior rather than replacing it with a system that would look out for the basic needs of all.

And these are the questions the status quo will fight tooth and nail to keep us from discussing. They will pit us against each other in any way they can to keep us from asking those questions.