While Republicans, along with some Blue Dog Dems, such as Cory Booker and Bill Clinton, consider Mitt Romney’s means of “making a living” beyond discussion, Prof. Robert Reich shows just how wrong they are — and how out of touch. Yep, even Bill, feel-your-pain Clinton is out of touch. He doesn’t get why we would criticize Mitt and his buddies who earn their money through private equities. Duh! It’s the mess left for the 99% to clean up, stupid. (Wasn’t it Clinton’s team who said it’s the economy, stupid?) Sometimes it is hard not to like him. Other times you just want to say, why don’t you just stay out of it. He’s not helping.
So here is my test: Disregard whether it is legal. Can you watch this video and not get what is wrong with the way Mitt Romney earns his living? If you get it, you have your head screwed on straight and your interests focused on 99%.
No, I do not always expect everyone to agree with me. But this is so fundamental. You either support a reasonably fair and balanced system or you support a predatory one which exploits the 99%. And you can steward the 99% while striving to be fair to corporations. But if all you care about is exploiting tax law to pile up capital while savaging companies, leaving the taxpayer to pick up the mess, and then railing about “Big Government,” then to heck with you. You are harming America. Along with way you are harming our party’s chances in 2008. Sorry to my friends who think that, outside of his marriage, Bill can do no wrong. Sorry also, my GOP friends. But you are not thinking. You are still repeating “Reaganesque” aphorisms in your head, which even he did not believe in.
The upshot is, what Romney does is legal (though the legality of it is a perversion of tax law), but that doesn’t make it right. It is wrong for America. The job of president is to serve the whole country not just the 1%. We have a difficult enough time getting our side to keep their heads screwed on straight. Mitt’s side is a lost cause. Thank you, Prof. Reich for illustrating so succinctly how to refute the Mitt-Method.