In politics, you can get into a lot of trouble if you're caught telling a lie.
There's only one thing worse: getting caught telling the truth.
That's what happened to Mitt Romney when that video surfaced of him chatting about the "47 percent of the people who will vote for President Obama no matter what."
In the leaked video of him addressing Republican donors, Romney went on to describe the 47 percent as people "who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them" and so on.
That was certainly an indelicate way for a political candidate to describe almost half the electorate. And Romney's getting pilloried by the Democrats for his comments.
But I imagine the Dems say the same sort of thing behind closed doors. I sincerely doubt if there's a single Democratic consultant out there who doesn't agree with Romney's assessment that "the president starts off with 48, 49 ... he starts off with a huge number"
Unfortunately for Romney, that number may be even higher. Greg Mankiw, a widely respected Harvard economist who is an adviser to Romney, recently posted on his blog figures showing that
only the top two-fifths of American taxpayers are giving the government more in taxes than they get back in transfer payments.
Mankiw concluded that "the middle class, having long been a net contributor to the funding of government, is now a net recipient of government largess."
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2012/...transfers.html
How can a Republican win in that environment? He can't, says Reid Holloway.
Holloway is a stock trader from Connecticut with the solidest of conservative credentials. He served on the legendary Grace Commission on government waste during the Reagan administration. He's a market-oriented guy who criticizes Obama as "just another tax-and-spend Democrat."
In 1996, Holloway started predicting elections based on the same sort of economic data Romney referenced. He's been right every time. And more than six months ago, he predicted Obama will cruise to re-election with 325 electoral votes to Romney's 213.
"I usually don't make my predictions till July," he told me when I phoned him yesterday. "But I made that one in April and I'm sticking to it."
The reason is the change in the economy. Normally, an incumbent president is in trouble if he can't produce growth in the private sector. A Republican could always oust a Democrat by promising economic growth, as Ronald Reagan did in 1980.
But that model has broken down, he said. A lot of people no longer trust that "a rising tide lifts all boats," particularly aging Baby Boomers.
"Imagine an aging boomer approaching retirement who's dispirited about getting kicked out of job at 55 or 59," he said. "He doesn't want to take a risk by voting for a traditional conservative who believes in free-market job creation."
What he wants is to get on some government program, such as disability, and ride it into retirement. The Obama administration has been packing such programs with people. And these people aren't going to vote for Romney no matter how much they may agree with him on social issues, Holloway said.
All that stuff about religion, guns and abortion is great fun for us media types, he said. But people vote their pocketbooks.
Holloway assesses the race in terms of a figure familiar to New Jerseyans. "Its kind of a Tony Soprano relationship that most governments have with the people," he said. "People down on their luck look to government as benefactors a lot like people looked at Tony Soprano."
The only good news for Romney — from Holloway's perspective — is that this video can't really harm his chances. Thanks to the demographics, he doesn't have much of a chance anyway.
"You don't have many options when you're seven weeks out to the elections," he said.
No, you don't. Romney seems on his way to becoming a victim of the very problem he cited. But in Holloway's view, and mine, it's a very real problem.
We, as a country, are never going to get our finances straightened out if a majority of voters have an incentive to support ever-increasing spending.
That is a debate we need to have. Even if Romney can't finish it, at least give him credit for starting it.