-Romney on the “gifts” to Hispanic voters: “For any lower-income Hispanic family, Obamacare was massive, I mean for-the average income for a household in America is fifty thousand dollars a year, that’s the median, fifty K per year. For the Hispanic household, my guess is it’s lower than that, maybe it’s forty thousand a year. For a home earning let’s say thirty thousand a year, free health care, which is worth about ten thousand dollars a year, I mean is massive, it’s huge. So this-he did two very popular things for the Hispanic community.” (ABC-OTUS News 11-15-12, Republicans Return Romney’s Parting Gift, Michael Falcone, Amy Walter)

A few weeks back Harry Shearer had an economist on his weekly radio show who attempted to speak about the “debt crisis” in laymen’s terms. She hinged a lot of her insight on a simple principle: that any given debt on one party’s ledger is an asset on another. She went on to point out that most American gov’t debt is held by (who else?) Americans. Our situation is different than that of the Euro Zone. Yadda, Yadda. This kind of inverse thinking or logic, very reminiscent of Zizek’s approach in The Parallax View, could be applied to Mitt Romney’s post-election recap addressed to his donors and backers. This blog’s previous post attempted to point out that the bewilderment suffered by the losing party had more to do with our culture’s preferred interaction of commitment and allegiance to simulated  reality, than any misunderstanding brought about through polling, self-aggrandizement, etc. Now this.

Romney’s statements were conference call shared with the Republican Governors meeting in Las Vegas. From Philip Elliot, AP 11-15-12, Top Republicans Say Romney Didn’t Offer Specifics, we read:

“”They spent all their time making Mitt Romney unacceptable and making him out to be someone who was untrustworthy and unacceptable to enough of the American people — and it worked,” Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad said in an interview

In the hallways at the conference, the governors and their top advisers uniformly blamed Romney’s loss on an uneven communications strategy. They said Romney allowed himself to be branded a corporate raider who put the interests of the wealthy above those of middle-income voters.

“We didn’t have effective means by which to counter the attacks the Obama-Biden campaign took against Mitt Romney and his team,” Walker said.

“His whole campaign was a fear-and-smear attack to make Romney unacceptable and to blame George Bush for anything that happened while Obama was president,” Barbour said. “This was all personal: that Romney is a vulture capitalist who doesn’t care about people like you, ships jobs overseas, is a quintessential plutocrat and is married to a known equestrian.”

“His campaign was largely about his biography and his experience,” Jindal said.”

Now back to Mitt Romney’s post-election, business accounting analysis of the “real” value of the incumbent’s gifts prior to the election, in dollars and cents of course. Leave aside the rhetorical depreciation of the Hispanic household income’s quick slide (in just three sentences!) from the 50 thousand dollars a year average (a white household, I presume) to 30 thousand (that’s 60% of their fellow citizens’ income in just three sentences!). If they do not have the “free health care, which is worth about ten thousand dollars a year,” it must mean that a family is really working hard to make ends meet on 30 thousand a year without, well, health care. 3 folks (or more) probably, but I guess that kind of figuring on number of “people” gets lost in the emphasis on dollars and cents cost analysis. What are the odds they are willing to go into debt on 33% of their income, just for health care insurance coverage, for one year, year after year after year? Consider the economist from Harry Shearer’s insight: what is a debt on one party’s ledger is an asset on another’s. Most “responsible” people, in that situation, would go without and hope for the best, pay cash in the worst. Of course, if the yearly cost of health care insurance is 5-10% of a family’s income, it certainly would be irresponsible to forego it. So I guess if 10 thousand dollars a year is a third of your annual income, your family had just better stay healthy, as insurance becomes a luxury they will need to do without..

I’m shocked to find myself writing the following (especially after writing the previous posting quite earnestly detached):

Maybe, just maybe, Mitt Romney really IS “a vulture capitalist who doesn’t care about people like you”.

Oh, Poopyhead? That’s Grover Norquist’s  post-election description.

Tags: , ,

One Response to “Poopyhead”

  1. Alex Jones Says:

    In politics there is going to be a winner and a loser.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: