Correct, and Very Foolish Thing to Say
Mitt Romney had to deal with some hecklers at the Iowa State Fair. Democrats who were there to get him off his game. At one point, during a discussion of entitlement reform, they succeeded.
Romney was discussing whether Social Security needed to be reformed as part of deficit reduction. He pointed out that entitlements consume over half of Federal spending; the hecklers shouted that Social Security doesn't factor into the Federal deficit (a technicality that is a Democratic talking point). Romney then started to enumerate the alternative approaches to improving the solvency of Social Security; when he mentions raising taxes on people, the hecklers shout "CORPORATIONS!" Clearly their concept is that there's no need to raise taxes in individuals if corporations can be taxed instead.
Romney reflexively responded, "Corporations are people, too, my friend." Now, this is correct on two levels, but an incredibly stupid thing to say at a political event.
Legally, corporations have the status of persons. But as Romney went on to explain, corporations are owned by people and thus taxes on corporations are taxes on people.
But to say, "Corporations are people," is to fall right into the trap the hecklers set. It creates a sound bite perfect for the Huffington Post, MoveOn.org, the DailyKos and Organizing For America. It makes Romney sound like he values impersonal corporations equally with human beings.
Nothing wrong with Romney addressing this point when the hecklers interrupted him. But it required a bit of finesse, and by all means it required avoiding a snap answer with a rotten sound bite.
- Comment (30)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Dec '10
Re: Correct, and Very Foolish Thing to Say
I'm not a Romney partisan, but I can't blame him for not being perfectly articulate at such a setting. They not only shout, they change the subject in the middle of their question. The better response is that no corporation has ever paid any tax. Either the consumers or the workers pay or the company shuts down or moves. Secondary response: "Like Obama's buddies at GE?"
Re: Correct, and Very Foolish Thing to Say
The video isn't available in Turkey, so I say this commenting only on your description of it. Based on your description of it, I disagree. It's true, and the business of infantilizing the electorate because they can't handle the truth has to stop. That corporations are made up of people is a truth so obvious it should be a soundbite.
Mar '11
Re: Correct, and Very Foolish Thing to Say
I understand where your going here, Stuart, because I've heard the leftist rants about the Citizens United decision and the "perversity" of treating corporations like individuals in cases of political speech. You are probably correct that this soundbite will appear in a DNC ad.
Nevertheless, I think this it is easy enough to clarify what Romney means here and I don't think this is fatal to his campaign. It is not a well-crafted answer (he should not have said "corporations are people" but rather "corporations are made up of people"), but if anyone can bring clarity about what a corporation is, I suspect it is this creature of corporate culture.
Oct '10
Re: Correct, and Very Foolish Thing to Say
Someone had to say it - for years, the left has been telling us the federal government is just another word for 'the people'.The mindless demonization of corporations has to stop or we'll have our own London riots here soon.
The question is, will Romney backtrack? I have a feeling he will be asked about this at the next debate, so he needs to really think through what he's going to say.
May '10
Re: Correct, and Very Foolish Thing to Say
I'm with the others.
We should be much more concerned with correcting the false impression that taxing corporations doesn't hurt us than with the lies and spin that will be built around an out-of-context soundbite.
I'm glad Mitt took them on. What I liked less is his talk of progressive indexing so "wealthy people" get less. That seemed to me a bit of a cave.
I shook his hand yesterday in New Hampshire, BTW.
Edited on Aug 13, 2011 at 6:01amNov '10
Re: Correct, and Very Foolish Thing to Say
I'm in agreement with the other comments. Again, not a fan of Romney, but he said the right thing here. If we spend our days trying not to say something the the Democrats will turn into a sound bite, then we'll end up sounding like a Lewis Black set without the swearing.
I thought Romney made the right point, but he certainly could have made it better. He went on to talk about progressive indexing, which ought to have made those democrats happy.
Aug '10
Re: Correct, and Very Foolish Thing to Say
I'm not a Mitt fan at all - but I liked his response, and am not at all concerned with how it may be spinned.
Nov '10
Re: Correct, and Very Foolish Thing to Say
We do need to attack this meme because it is a key part of a Democrat sleight of hand. First yell "tax the rich". That divides the electorate nicely in their favor. But that is not enough revenue. So the next beat of the mantra is "corporations are rich". This ignores what Romney was trying to say that all corporate taxes are eventually paid by people. The people paying those taxes are not confined to the rich. Thus a new source of revenue is tapped that does indeed tax the middle class and poor and yet it is done under the banner of not doing so.
Re: Correct, and Very Foolish Thing to Say
Like most of us, Mitt Romney has strengths and weaknesses, and he tries to use the former to offset the latter. He is not quick-witted. If surprised in a debate, he is apt to flounder, and in the past he has displayed an astonishing insensitivity to occasion. Both at the Hillsdale College graduation and at the National Review banquet back in the last election cycles, he gave standard stump speeches -- where attention to the occasion and audience was required. In this situation in Iowa, he was surprised, and he responded foolishly. He should not have said that corporations are people. He should have said that corporations are owned by our fellow citizens and managed by them, that they employ a great many of our fellow citizens, and that countries, such as the Soviet bloc, where an attempt was made to do without the benefits of free enterprise produced nothing but poverty.
Romney's compensating strength lies in methodical planning. He and those who work for him have planned out this presidential run in fine detail. No one who was fully in the race yesterday stands a chance. Rick Perry, who announces today, might.
Edited on Aug 13, 2011 at 7:30amApr '11
Re: Correct, and Very Foolish Thing to Say
If Social Security doesn't technically figure into the federal debt then how could Obama have threatened a hold-up in SS checks? When Obama said that, absent an increase in the debt ceiling, SS checks may be delayed, he gave the game away: the lock box is stuffed with nothing more than IOUs. Seems like a GOP talking point to me.
Re: Correct, and Very Foolish Thing to Say
Since we all seem to be picking sides, I'll agree with Stuart who authored the post.
Corporations aren't "people." The law that treats them as such first defines it as a "legal fiction" before pointing out that they can be sued like people, profit like people and taxed like people. "Like" poeple. They aren't "people."
It's not hard to say "Corporations are owned by poeple" which is right in all respects instead of "Corporations are people" which is right only with the help of a "legal fiction." As Stuart said - a lack of plitical finesse.
Paul Rehe is right - he isn't quick witted.
This won't kill his campaign, but a cumulative effect of several gaffs like this can.
Edited on Aug 13, 2011 at 9:22amSep '10
Re: Correct, and Very Foolish Thing to Say
Corporations are "legal persons" which is distinct from "personhood". Otherwise, bankruptcy courts would be abortion mills.
Sep '10
Re: Correct, and Very Foolish Thing to Say
Nice move by Romney to replace Bachmann as the gaffe machine and reinforce the Republican image of being in the hip pocket of Eastern elites. What he should have done was elaborated on a point Peter Drucker made many years ago: through pension ownership of stocks, people were already ringing as much corporate profit out of corporations as they could get and taxing them more meant less distributions to their own union pension funds, so who gets hurt the most?
Still think he's part android.
May '10
Re: Correct, and Very Foolish Thing to Say
I suspect this is probably a gaffe, but it may not be. At this juncture, with the Obama socialist fail in such stark relief, it may be viable, and valuable to say exactly what he did. Romney is, at some point, going to advocate lower tax rates for corporations (and hopefully repatriation of profits; what Cain said at the debate). As a predicate for doing so, people have to be disabused of the notion that Corporations just horde money and keep it away from "real people." Saying what he did could start that enlightenment.
But yes, it was likely not something he would have said, in retrospect.
Re: Correct, and Very Foolish Thing to Say
Pseudodionysius: I bow to your awesomeness!
Jan '11
Re: Correct, and Very Foolish Thing to Say
On a rerun of "Blue Bloods" last night, the main character, Tom Selleck, said that a bad decision is one you have to talk yourself into.
That's how I am with Romney. All things being equal, I wouldn't choose him for my "leader." I don't hate the guy, but he doesn't fire me up, either. I appreciate his organizational skills, but to vote for the guy, I'd have to talk myself into it.
By November 2012 we're all going to be soured on what liberalism can offer, so this is the ripe moment to put forward a real conservative. We have a Carter now, so we want to follow with a Reagan. But I doubt that Romney is that guy. For all his assurances, his record is not a principled conservative. We're worried that a guy who could shift with the winds once will shift again.
Instead of having all of us rave about how sharp his answer was, we're excusing it. I don't want to apologize for my leader anymore.
Aug '10
Re: Correct, and Very Foolish Thing to Say
I both agree and disagree with the good Professor Rahe. He is correct, at least based on my observations of his campaigns, that Romney isn't often quick witted and can flounder when confronted by hecklers and such. Where I disagree is in the Professor, and Tommy for that matter, falling for the "Corporations aren't people/they're a legal fiction" trap. As if that makes a difference.
Corporations ARE people. Many corporations are comprised of a single person, or a small number of partners. Corporations are Freelance Illustrators, Bookstore Owners, your local Mechanic. Thanks to things like S-Corporations and LLCs, single individuals are often corporations. All that the "legal fiction" does is allow that individual to mitigate the risk they are taking by entering into business by adding a layer of legal protection between themselves and the financial risks they are taking.
Romney needs to run a series of "I am Cindy Liu and I am a Corporation" ads. People are Corporations. Corporations are People. The fact that some C-Corporations are massive doesn't matter. Americans need to wake up to the fact that many of them are Corporation owners through 401ks or actual ownership.
Re: Correct, and Very Foolish Thing to Say
In an S Corporation the tax passes through to the single owner. Ditto for the LLC. So I understand why those corporations pay no tax. Those are a bit more like alter egos of their owners.
How does Exxon Mobile, neither an S corp nor an LLC, make billions and pay no federal income tax?
Edited on Aug 13, 2011 at 10:01amOct '10
Re: Correct, and Very Foolish Thing to Say
A profound distinction, Thom cat! And one often blurred in modern society; compounded by the differences in the understanding of incorporation under common law (which extends from the medieval synthesis of Anglo-Saxon and Roman law in England) and modern statutory law, which is derived from the King's law (the courts of equity), a feudal development subsequent to the Norman invasion. Under common law a corporation consists of natural persons who retain all of their natural rights as persons (a remnant of the common law of corporations exists in the form of the Massachusetts or Common Law Trust). Corporations formed under statutory law are entirely artificial and are regulated by the State with no recognition of the natural rights of the persons (members) who make up the corporation: It is a legal reification of a family that lives on in legal perpetuity after the death of its original members.
Edited on Aug 13, 2011 at 10:08amMay '10
Re: Correct, and Very Foolish Thing to Say
Of course true. But I didn't take him to be saying "according to our laws, a corporation is a person", rather I took him to mean that they're composed of people. When they take a hit, it's people taking a hit.