What Does it Matter?

If you would pardon me for a moment, I’m going to use this space to ruminate on whether or not I believe that Mitt Romney’s absurd wealth makes him more or less a candidate for my vote -- or perhaps it’s entirely irrelevant? 

First, and foremost in my mind, the man is (roughly) self-made. His parents had the funds to send him to Harvard Law School, but his current fortune is his own, the results of a lucrative job out of college and dozens of years at the helm of a multi-billion dollar investment group. His tax bill (of only 13.9%) bothers me all but none because he hasn’t actively avoided the higher tax rates paid by most wealthy Americans, he simply falls into the category of people still receiving incentives from the government to invest (a long-outdated tax policy, if you ask me, but irrelevant to his moral standing and has no sway on my personal vote).

This Bain Capital bothers me, though. It’s an investment house, but not in the sense of Warren Buffet or the like, Bain profits largely at the expense of smaller investors -- buying faltering companies and either selling them piecemeal or cutting operating costs at the expense of jobs. For the longest time, I’ve thought of these people, using their advantages to create disadvantages for others, to be less than upstanding. If nothing else, they certainly fail to represent the face that I wish to show to the rest of the world.

Ultimately, I don’t believe that Mitt Romney’s financial success should play any part in this election. Even if he is wonderful at running a business, Congress is nothing like a board of directors, and the president is not a CEO. And the perception that he doesn’t understand the plights of the common man, while possibly true, really won’t impact his ability to understand the numbers that represent them if he makes it behind the guarded doors of the Oval Office. To me, the real question is whether or not Mitt Romney is the man that I wish was the face of my country. The answer is no, because he seems produced -- too spit-shined. I imagine he’s ready to burst at any moment, but I suppose I digress.

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/moneymag/0712/gallery.candidates.moneymag/6.html

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/mitt-romney-paid-a-139-effective-tax-rate-in-2010.php

In Reply to Angela

I agree that Americans should hold our elected officials to a greater ethical standard, though I will propose a counterargument for both of our benefit -- to encourage empathy, I suppose.

A politician is a public figure, and subject to the constant scrutiny of the media and the citizenry that they represent. This is a good thing, but it also serves to both magnify transgressions, and cause extreme levels of stress. Even Martin Luther King, according to some not entirely unbelievable sources, was an adulterer (I link to wikipedia for expediency's sake, but the cited sources are listed). This is one black mark on an otherwise untouchable legacy, and I do not for a moment believe that it makes MLK any less of a leader. Similarly, John Kennedy is another unethical, but very well beloved, former President. I doubt greatly that many people would disregard the benefits that both of these men have brought to our nation due to the ethical shortcomings of their personal lives.

I argue that what is truly important for a president (and to a lesser degree, for a member of congress) is not necessarily ethical fibers stronger than the rock of gibraltar, but a sense of decency that transcends individual transgressions. With enough digging, and under enough pressure, any man, woman, or child will lash out at whatever happens to push their buttons. In a news conference, she’ll say something insensitive because she’s angry that no one wants to talk about the important questions, or perhaps he tried drugs in college and got caught, or she married the wrong man and found out two years too late and one drink too many. What I want from a President is humanity, plain and simple. I want them to have made mistakes in their past because if they haven’t made mistakes then they haven’t learned from them. I want them to have a temper, because if they can’t stand up for what’s right, then what good are they? Ultimately, I believe that the seat of power needs to have a small amount of volatility -- the President’s job is to be the tipping point of the nation and the voice of the people, and someone who’s never lived cannot speak for me.

Obama: Raising Taxes on the Wealthy?

You know, I recently went up a tax bracket. Had a bit of a windfall and now I earn additional income from investments plus my usual salary. I did very little to earn it, but it was a proud moment none the less; after taking for most of my life, I’m finally a real American, paying my due and complaining about how the government spends my money in a non-ironic sense, as they no longer give all of it back to me once a year. It’s like I’ve leveled up my life and now the experience cap has been raised. If I ever make it into the 1%, my chin will be high and I will gladly write the government a check for whatever amount they need to make the new players in the game have an easier time while they get their feet under them. That’s part of the American dream, and it’s what I expect our government to work towards.

So when President Obama says that he wishes to raise the taxes paid by the wealthiest fraction of a percent of Americans in his most recent stump speech to begin his reelection campaign, I say “Hell yeah, Big O; names are taken, you know what to do next.” All of the buzzwords were present and accounted for -- schools, loans, one percent, taxes -- and more and more President Obama is returning to the platform that propelled him into the White House in 2008. We shouldn’t perpetuate the status quo, he says, instead we should move forward and fight for progress. It’s great that now that we have an election coming up, he’s back into the rhetoric that brought him here, but what of it? Can the President even make such things come about in a divided congress? I don’t think so. Can Obama unite the Democrats to take back the House and Senate? Again, I don’t think so. So what does all of this accomplish? Do the speeches and the fancy language and backhanded compliments to his opponents even result in a blip on the American conscience? In a way, that last bit is the only positive outcome to expect -- conversation in the form of pundits and watercooler chatter disseminating through the American public until everyone has the idea of financial equality planted in their heads and no longer recalls where the seed originated.