The debate over Romney's 47 percent comment

I understand that Romney's statement was politically stupid and that it confuses the fact that a lot of people are pressured by the government to behave differently than would otherwise be in their interest to behave.  If it were me, I would blame the government pressure, just as I blame the government for the break up of the African-American family.  But if Romney had said that farmers tended to vote for politicians who support aid to farmers, would that have been OK?  Why would this be any more surprising than the fact that unions support politicians who help out unions or that the NRA supports politicians who support their positions?  Would the national media had come down on Obama if he had lost and blamed it on the NRA?  Wait, didn't Clinton already blame the NRA for loses in 1994 and 2000?  Well, I suppose those cases are different, right?  I would hope that someone will explain the differences to me.

In addition, Romney's comments sound like a lot of academic economics papers on this regulation and generally how government operates.  See for example, Sam Peltzman's 1976 paper in the Journal of Law and Economics or Gary Becker's comment.  From Politico:
Mitt Romney told donors Wednesday he blamed last week’s loss to President Barack Obama in part to “gifts” the Obama administration gave to key voter blocs, including African Americans, Hispanics and young women, according to media reports. 
“The president’s campaign focused on giving targeted groups a big gift — so he made a big effort on small things. Those small things, by the way, add up to trillions of dollars,” Romney said on a conference call with donors, the Los Angeles Times first reported. 
The “gifts,” according to Romney, included forgiving college loan interest, free contraceptive coverage and the part of Obamacare that allows people 26 and younger to be covered under their parents’ health care plans. 
“You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free healthcare, particularly if you don’t have it, getting free healthcare worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity. I mean, this is huge,” Romney said, the New York Times reported. . . .

Labels: ,


Blogger Suburban said...

He's wrong because he's not far enough left for them - "Haters gonna hate."

11/16/2012 11:34 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home