The Mitt Romney of the second debate, to use Mike Huckabee’s memorable phrase, “looks like the guy who fires you.” He exposed, once again, his biggest fault: that he has no idea what it’s like to be middle-class and struggling in 2012 America.
To take just a couple of examples, here was Romney explaining the benefits of his tax program, the breaks that you’ll get on your stock dividends and mutual funds. As he outlined it with all the mercenary gusto of the visiting suit with a PowerPoint, Romney said, “Every middle-income taxpayer will no longer pay any tax on interest, dividends or capital gains.” And, a bit later, “If you’re getting a statement from a mutual fund or any other kind of investment you have, you don’t have to worry about filing taxes on that.”
No kidding. In Romney’s world, and throughout his own tax return, the money earned from money — as opposed to money earned from working — is the chief source of wealth. And it’s already taxed at a lower rate than middle-income earnings. Getting rid of those taxes altogether does nothing for the warehouse manager, schoolteacher or insurance sales person taking home a salary and being taxed at a full rate for making a living. But it’s great for someone living off mutual fund dividends.
Why hasn’t the media—and the Obama campaign!—been talking about that capital-gains/dividends/interest policy statement of Romney’s? Isn’t that a very big deal?
Is Egan the only one who noticed this? Anyone who matters, I mean? I was stunned when Romney said that on Tuesday, and assumed that that would play as big news. When it didn’t, I forgot about it.
Egan reminded me. And maybe he reminded the Obama campaign, too.
Shouldn’t Obama point this out when he campaigns in, say, Ohio and Wisconsin?