Presidential candidate Mitt Romney recently
expressed his concern about what he perceives as a growing
"entitlement" society:
"In an entitlement society, everyone
receives the same or similar rewards, regardless of education, effort, and
willingness to take risk. That which is earned by some is redistributed to the
others. And the only people who truly enjoy any real rewards are those who do
the redistributing—the government. The truth is that everyone may get the same
rewards, but virtually everyone will be worse off."
"Entitlement" has become a dirty
word, but the word "entitle" actually appears in the Declaration of
Independence. Thomas Jefferson argued that these rights were
"self-evident" and granted by our "Creator," but even if
you aren't religious, it seems clear that the American experiment is based on
entitlement. If you're not entitled to anything, then the world is essentially
might makes right and Jefferson and his supporters would have had no moral
position upon which to base their desired break with Britain
But I digress -- Romney's statement also
illustrates how distinctly differently he and I view the economic system in
this country. His new stump speech has the typical conservative poor-bait: Poor
people are stupid ("regardless of education"), lazy ("regardless
of... effort") and want to take what you have worked so hard to build
("same or similar rewards").
I especially take issue with
"willingness to take risk." Who do you think Romney considers
"risk takers"? I'd bet $10,000 of his money that he means
entrepreneurs, small (and large) businessmen, and investors. That's not an
incorect description but it defines risk metaphorically -- perhaps the loss of
money or position -- rather than literally -- loss of life or limb.
When Romney talks about "that which is
earned by some is redistributed to the others," I'm sure that gets his
supporters' blood boiling. Man, those poor people again -- sitting at home watching
their big-screen TVs and cashing their welfare checks while honest Americans
are at work. They probably don't consider how Romney made his fortune. It's all
through investments. His private equity firm Bain Capital had stakes in
Domino's Pizza, Staples, and The Sports Authority, among others. Here's how it
works: The employees at these companies create a product, which generates
revenue, which goes into the pockets of the investors. Sounds like wealth
redistribution to me. The workers are paid upfront for their efforts but don't
share in the wealth if the company does well. They merely are the first to
share in the misfortune if the company does poorly. That's hardly equal
"risk" to folks like Romney. It's about as much risk as a plantation
owner determining which slave is the largest and most likely to work the
hardest and longest before dying of exhaustion. This also sounds like the same
retirement plan that Romney would offer the average American worker.
Romney claims that the only people who would
benefit from wealth redistribution is the government. Wealth redistribution
already exists, as part of the rigged game in which the CEO of "Dangerous
Construction Company Unlimited" makes millions while the people actually
doing the work barely get by. Romney rightly would fear government regulation
because the average person has a direct stake in government. They can vote and
steer policy so that the good of everyone is considered as opposed to the good
of a few. Why would the American aristocracy support that? Romney's policies,
especially regarding the estate tax, would ensure that the current entitlement
culture continues -- the one in which his children and grandchildren, who have
a blind trust valued between $70 to $100 million, could choose to never work a
day in their lives... "regardless of their education, effort, and
willingness to take risk."
Of course, the larger question is that if
an entitlement society existed in which everyone had equal rewards and equal
outcomes... would that be so bad? OK, I know your socialist sense is tingling,
but if you were a lawyer and made $250,000 a year, would it really bother you
if a firefighter or construction worker made the same? Even half would greatly
alter their lifestyles for the better.
Romney does not seem to argue from the
position that such "wealth redistribution" flatly won't work but
rather that we should be offended on the face of it. He says "everyone
would be worse off." Really? Is he honestly concerned about a scenario
where a sanitation worker is going to be paid less? Or he is worried about the
American aristrocracy of which he is gold-card carrying member? Countless CEOs
make enough -- even as part of exit packages when they almost ruin their
companies -- to secure a comfortable living not just for themselves but for
their grandchildren who don't even exist yet. This happens while the "rank
and file" employees (I've worked someplace where that term was used daily,
generally to describe why they weren't receiving a benefit my colleagues and I
were) get by on pre-chewed peanuts.
The fatuous response is to say that this is
simply how the market works, and the government cannot legislate
"fairness." However, public companies represent the interests of
their shareholders (most of whom don't work at the company) rather than the
interests of all their employees. The board of directors are like pirate who
loot the futures of their employees and share their bounty with each other and
their closest subordinates. This is not capitalism. It's theft.
So, when Romney presents himself as the
president who will prevent the creation of an entitlement society, he's
engaging in a pathetic and craven sleight-of-hand to distract you from the one
that already exists, the one that has slowly destroyed the U.S.
