Elections, reason have little to do with each other

With barely 40 days to go before the presidential election, Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate, may have destroyed his chances with his own words. At a US$50,000-per-plate private fundraiser in Florida, Romney told prospective donors of his campaign vision: "Well, there are 47 per cent of the people who will vote for the President no matter what. All right? There are 47 per cent who are with him. Who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they're entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it." Then he added: "These are people who pay no income tax. So my job is not to worry about those people," and he concluded: "I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

The comments sparked outrage and disparagement, even from some conservative supporters. But Romney's most ardent defenders (and some foes) argued that he just told the truth. Of course, it depends on whose truth you're talking about.

That trope, that nearly half of Americans pay no income taxes and therefore they are

"moochers," or "takers", while the burden of income tax falls on the upper 53 per cent and that the rich pay all the taxes and are the "makers", the "job creators", has long been the sustaining theme of the Republican argument. The 47 per cent are thereby labelled as "lacking in responsibility" or "not having skin in the game" - in other words, morally deficient. The words associated are "dependency" and "government handouts" and "entitlement programmes" all suggesting that the 47 per cent are relying on the enforced largesse of the 53 per cent through taxes. It follows that if you lower taxes on the upper income earners there will be less to give away to the "takers". Right.

To understand better the condescension inherent in these sentiments and their bases in a false appraisal of tax inequality in the US, one needs first to ask who are the 47 per cent - 150 million Americans - those "freeloaders". Is it the Iraq war veterans getting free medical care for a disability from a Veterans' Hospital? Is it the student getting a low-cost loan to go to college - a loan he must repay even if he becomes bankrupt. Is it the retiree receiving social security (superannuation) based on taxes paid during a working life. Is it the grandparent getting Medicare (the senior medical government insurance programme).

Most of the government benefits go to white, working-class or middle-class people and seniors. The majority do pay taxes that are automatically deducted from their pay. And property taxes. And sales taxes. And, ironically, a majority of these people are Republican voters, Romney's own natural constituency. Further, ironies include the fact the cumulative tax burden on these lower earners is actually greater than the 14 per cent Romney acknowledges paying on his admitted US$20 million annual income. Of the 150 million - the 47 per cent - only the bottom 20 per cent, the poor and the unemployed don't pay income taxes. Even they pay sales taxes.

A parallel for New Zealand is the effect of GST on low-income earners. After all, $100 is pain to a poor person but chump change to a millionaire. And, just as Romney casts his moral opprobrium on those he says won't take responsibility for their lives, so John Key says the poor are poor because they made bad decisions.

Reason might dictate that Romney's brand of social Darwinism, the spawn of a twisted version of Calvinism wed with the crypto-fascist doctrine of Ayn Rand, a confirmed atheist, would lead to total rejection at the polls. But reason and elections have little to do with each other. Who knows, Americans might yet have to live with the sanctimony of Willard Mitt Romney for four years. They voted for George W Bush, didn't they?