David Brooks of the New York Times lifted his hind leg on Mitt Romney this morning calling him Thurston Howell Romney for his comments in Boca Raton, Florida this past May (see: Brooks Opinion Piece). Then and there Romney rightly pointed out that 47% of Americans pay no income taxes and therefore are likely automatic voters for that man who promises to keep writing their government checks. To set the op-ed stage Brooks said, "Even after adjusting for inflation, entitlement transfers to individuals have grown by more than 700 percent over the last 50 years." And yet he implied that Mitt Romney is a 1% elitist with no sympathy for our downtrodden. Somehow, I just can't square this circle (particularly after the testaments to Romney's charitable heart that were shown at the recent Republican convention.) We are a country with starving children and "food deserts," yet we also suffer from out of control obesity. I can't circle this square either ...
Yes, there a great many middle-class WASPs (like me) who receive government transfers. But I still will vote for Romney if he will reduce this fire-hose largess across the board. It's called shared sacrifice. Perhaps he should have said it that way? If we don't do this, we clearly can't survive as a nation.
Maybe David Brooks can find an equally dismissive pejorative for that 1%-er (with the great crease in his trousers) curently living in the White House?
2 comments:
Of course we can survive as a nation. You and Rush will, of course, be moving to Costa Rico where the Costa of living is better anyway. Go welfare state.
Mr. Anon.,
And if we don't survive as a nation, can I tap into your IRA? Costa Rico? Is that somewhere between Costa Rica annd Puerto Rico?
Post a Comment