The Very Caring Mitt Romney

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney was caught saying that he "wasn't concerned about the very poor" because there is a safety net in place for them.

During an interview with CNN, he said that "I'm not concerned about the very poor - we have a safety net there," then, added that "if it needs repair, I'll fix it."

The safety net bit definitely made Romney less a stone-hearted uncaring person as otherwise.  However, his confidence on the safety net is purely self-serving.

First, our social safety net has broken for a very long time and his fellow Republicans are doing their utmost to dismantle whatever was left to serve the middle-class and poor, and the very poor.  Proof lies in how the ultra-conservatives lambasted Romney for admitting the usefulness of safety net.

Second, even during the time when the safety net was largely functional, it still failed to lift up the very poor people.  It did prevent them from dying from hunger en mass, but it did not help them to move up.  Social mobility had generally never included the very poor in this great country called the United States of America.

What Mitt Romney and his fellow Republicans really want, is a fixed social structure, which would keep the poor in their places, which would keep them remain very poor.  The very poor have little chance to become middle class in this country, and despite being squeezed hard, the middle class are still decidedly far better off then the very poor.

Mitt Romney cares for the poor very much.  He would hate to see them die, but he would not lift his Midas finger to lift them up.

He would keep a window-dressing safety net and would not bother to sit down to mend it, because the net is broken and he has just forsworn whatever he had done as governor of Massachusetts, namely Healthcare Reform. 

To ask the super rich to care for the very poor, is like trying to borrow fur from a raging tiger.

This reminded me a story.  A beggar came to a super rich miser's house for alms.  The miser's son said that he would give him a little, in 200 years time.  The miser scolded his inexperienced son: "Why did you make any promise!"

The difference between Mitt Romney and the ultra-conservative is that Romney makes promises he either has no intention or/and is in no position to keep, while the ultra-conservative hate him for make a promise, however hollow.


Image source: abc.net.au

Occupy Wall Street and Super Committee

There are many charges against the movement of "Occupy Wall Street" and one of the major one is that the movement lacks a clear and executable agenda.

Due to the democratic nature the movement, it is inevitable that there have been many ideas floating about without a central core but it is indeed high time for ideas and organizations to congeal and make a clear, reasonable and executable demand.

As this nation is in a crucial juncture, it is disheartening to see that President Obama once again, sits on his hands, and let the so called congressional super committee to come up of a scheme to cut the deficit and put it for a vote in the congress; and if the plan failed to pass, an automatic drastic budgetary cut would be enforced.  How brilliant this idea is.  Since the result of failing to pass any plan the "Super Committee" might put forth is a large budget cut, the Republicans - who have been calling to starve the beast (government) for decades - have all the incentives not to pass any plan.

Since the ill conceived and all powerful "Super Committee" is to dictate the direction of the nation for a long time to come, it is vital for the "Occupy Wall Street" to demand to scrap such "Super Committee".  I call it "ill conceived" because it didn't demand an automatic tax increase on certain group (along side with some large budgetary cuts), therefore creating a balanced incentives for both leading political parties to reach an agreement.

Without that threat of automatic tax increases, it is a good bet that the consequence of any plan from such "Super Committee", or the failure to pass such plan, would only exacerbate the bottom 90% or 99% of the population, meanwhile protecting those on top, sitting on piles of gold and refusing to lift a finger to help the underprivileged and the nation they claim that they love, and the nation has done so much for them - deregulation and tax cuts after tax cuts and still more to come.

To replace such an ill-conceived super committee, the movement of Occupy Wall Street ought to demand a new committee, seating people from all economic spectrum, in proportion to the demographics, so as to come up with a plan to reduce deficit and correct the income inequality, and then put the plan to a national referendum, instead of a congressional horse trading.

President Obama, it's high time for you to lead and please lend your support to Occupy Wall Street.

Domesticity © Matthew Felix Sun

Note: Below is National Public Radio (NPR)'s summary of the Super Committee:

How Super Is The Deficit-Cutting Committee? Twelve lawmakers. More than $1 trillion to shave off the deficit. One Thanksgiving deadline. Can they do it?

The debt-ceiling deal struck this summer created a panel of six Republicans and six Democrats — dubbed the "supercommittee" — to find ways to reduce the deficit. If they can't, "sequestration" — a slew of automatic spending cuts — kicks in. While there are high hopes in Washington for the committee's success, skeptics have trouble seeing how the chosen lawmakers will navigate around the main sticking points: Democrats seem set on protecting Medicare and Medicaid and see increasing revenues as essential.  Republicans would prefer to lower taxes if anything and want to make cuts to the big entitlement programs.