Mitt Romney: Will Direct His Policies to the "Middle Class" -- Not the "Very Poor"

Mitt Romney has created a stir with comments he made during a CNN interview today. Romney stated that his policies will not focus on the "very rich" or the "very poor." Instead, he would direct his energy and policies toward middle-class Americans. When the interviewer asked Romney to explain his position, he elaborated that the country already has a safety net that protects the most impoverished Americans and that if it needed repairing, he would do so.

Liberal commentators have pounced upon these statements, claiming that they demonstrate Romney's indifference to poor folks. I have a few responses.

FIRST, Romney's critics are correct. His comments show a stunning disregard for poor folks, including the working poor who cannot qualify for many government benefits. Even though he also said that he was not concerned about very rich folks, the President of the United States should have a deep concern for the plight of poor folks.

SECOND, Although Democrats have not said anything as politically sloppy as Romney with respect to poor folks, their rhetoric often focuses on the middle-class as well. President Obama, for example, created a Middle-Class Task Force during the first month of his presidency.  He did not, however, create a similar task force for poor people. Also, when Obama tours important swing states, his speeches usually stress the plight of middle-class Americans above all others. Basically, both parties are chasing large chunks of middle-class voters who live in states such as Ohio, Florida, Missouri, and other "purple" jurisdictions. If the "very poor" were a larger voting bloc and antipoverty programs had more support among voters, then both parties would pay more attention to the needs of poor folks.

So, Romney has made a very troubling statement. But it is hard to say that Democrats are doing all that they can do for poor people. Democrats' policies, however, do more for poor people than the policies advocated by most Republican politicians.

Not Exactly "Socialism": While Government Pumps Trillions of Dollars Into Banks, States Forced to Slash Aid to Vulnerable Persons

These are the kind of stories that make people question the nation's priorities. An article in the New York Times reports that 34 states have been forced to slash spending for indigent and vulnerable individuals. Because the "stimulus" package only covers 40% of the state budget shortfalls, states must either make budget cuts or raise taxes -- or both.

But securing the nation's safety net and investing in human capital seem like a smart uses for federal assistance. Human capital investments could help retrain people and prepare them for a modified, post-recession economy. Instead, the approach of both the Bush and Obama administrations has centered around rescuing banks, rather than individuals. Once the banks start lending again, the country will "live happily every after." This narrative sounds like a repacked and updated version of the heavily maligned "trickle-down economics" theory advanced during the Reagan era.

Here is a clip from the New York Times article:

Battered by the recession and the deepest and most widespread budget deficits in several decades, a large majority of states are slicing into their social safety nets — often crippling preventive efforts that officials say would save money over time

Perhaps nowhere have the cuts been more disruptive than in Arizona, where more than 1,000 frail elderly people are struggling without home-care aides to help with bathing, housekeeping and trips to the doctor. Officials acknowledge that some are apt to become sicker or fall, ending up in nursing homes at a far higher cost.

Ohio and other states face large cutbacks in child welfare investigations, which may mean more injured children and more taken into foster care. Despite tax increases, California has ended dental coverage for adults on Medicaid, all but guaranteeing future medical problems.

“There’s no question that we’re getting short-term savings that will result in greater long-term human and financial costs,” said Linda J. Blessing, interim chief of the Arizona Department of Economic Security, expressing the concerns of officials and community agencies around the country. “There are no good options, just less bad options.”

Important stories like these barely receive coverage. Well, at least we know that the President has a new puppy!

Looming Issue: The Fragile Safety Net

During the Republic Windows and Doors labor action, I argued in a series of articles (here's an example) that progressive activists focused on the wrong issues. Although they rightfully focused on the workers' rights under federal and state law, their advocacy missed the boat in other areas.

First, they demonized Bank of America even though the company, which relocated and dumped its workforce, was the only culpable party. Furthermore, they failed to pay any attention to the overly burdened and insufficient economic safety net. With unemployment and rates of uninsured rising, these conversations need to take place. We can use the bailout as an analogy for that discussion, but bailout money cannot solve this part of the economic crisis -- which seemed to be an assumption of much of the activism surrounding Bank of America.

Today's San Francisco Chronicle reports that two think tanks have released studies on the declining safety net. One of the studies covers the State of California exclusively, but another, prepared by the Urban League, is national in scope. Here's a snippet from the article:

The Urban Institute reports paint the recession as the worst downturn in decades, and suggest that its severity will shock workers under 40 who have become accustomed to a relatively strong job market.

Simms said the hardest hit segment will be workers at the low end of the wage scale who are more likely to get laid off and less likely to collect unemployment benefits under current rules. Federal estimates suggest only 36.3 percent of unemployed people nationwide received benefits in 2007. Eligibility rules are set by the states, some of which have made it easier for low-wage workers to claim benefits.

And recently, the New York Times reported that many states' unemployment insurance funds are becoming insolvent as the number of people seeking benefits surges:

With unemployment claims reaching their highest levels in decades, states are running out of money to pay benefits, and some are turning to the federal government for loans or increasing taxes on businesses to make the payments.

Thirty states are at risk of having the funds that pay out unemployment benefits become insolvent over the next few months, according to the National Association of State Workforce Agencies. Funds in two states, Indiana and Michigan, have already dried up, and both states are borrowing from the federal government to make payments to the unemployed.