Mitt at a Minimum: A Sign of Romney's Moral Defensiveness [Wall St J Editorial Hammers Romney]

Wall St. J ^ | February 03, 2012

[Steelfish]

FEBRUARY 3, 2012 Mitt at a Minimum A Sign of Romney's Moral Defensiveness.

Serves us right. Yesterday we tried to defend, or at least explain, Mitt Romney's remark that he didn't worry about the poor because they had the government to help them. Then Mr. Romney tells the world he favors a rising minimum wage indexed for inflation that really would hurt the poor.

Mr. Romney reaffirmed his minimum-wage views to reporters as he tried to extricate himself from the controversy over his "poor" remarks. (See "What Mitt Really Meant," Feb. 2.) It was a classic political gotcha moment, and Mr. Romney's response was more troubling than his earlier marks.

Few policies are as destructive as the minimum wage at keeping the young and least skilled out of the job market. By setting an arbitrary wage floor, politicians make it impossible for businesses to hire people for many entry-level positions. The jobs simply disappear.

In 2007 the Pelosi Congress passed a minimum-wage increase in three stages that coincided with the recession. The jobless rate for teenagers has since exploded to 23.1% from under 15%, and for minorities to 15.8% from close to 9%. For black teenagers, the jobless rate is still an incredible 39.6%.

But even the Pelosi Democrats didn't index the minimum wage automatically for inflation. That would only increase the incentive not to hire those in society who have the hardest time finding work.

A higher minimum wage always polls well, though it is rarely a major issue for voters. It's worrying that Mr. Romney, who has based his candidacy on his ability to create jobs, would endorse a policy that would make it more expensive to hire people.

[livius]

That’s true...but in reality, he has no chance of winning and even the WSJ must see this. So I assume that means what they really want is 4 more years of Obama. But since Wall Street was a massive contributor to Obama’s campaign, I guess that’s not a surprise.

[freemarketsfreeminds]

Imagine how far left he’ll move should he win the nomination, and then the Presidency.

[WayneS]

I think Mitt Romney's remark about his lack of concern for the "very poor" was simply a verbal faux pas.

I sure he has no more lack of concern for the 'very poor' as he has for the 'regular' poor and the middle class...

[PMAS]

*

[Praxeologue]

The only thing I don’t understand is his magic. Why are they so devoted to him?

They being the WSJ.

IMO, the WSJ editorial board has few, if any, core conservative principles. They are pro-business and free enterprise. Therefore, for example, they have minimal concern about illegal immigration, because it is good for business and clamping down is onerous on employers both because of higher wage costs and administrative problems. The welfare of the populace and adherence to the rule of law and the Constitution is secondary to business interests. I also think back to their support for Mike Milken in the late '80s: he broke a thousand "little" securities laws, but they were willing to overlook that in the name of free enterprise. So, the WSJ editorial board and Romney are two peas in a pod.

The problem is that, come elections, when everyone gets to decide, they and Romney must twist themselves into verbal contortions trying to put a principled face on what is essentially libertarianism for business only.

Think also of all that Bain fodder for the Fall. Romney's lack of core principles opens him to scurrilous attacks, since he cannot articulate conservative principles. The Dem ads will say: "Romney says it's OK to close factories and good to fire people because because we have a minimum wage and a safety net for those people." This is unfair and inaccurate, but the Dems will get away with it because Mitt is philosophically bereft.

Romney would be torn apart. It is essential that we do that job now, rather than leave it to the Dems for their nefarious purposes.

[loveliberty2]

Thanks for this post, Steelfish.

Would suggest that readers of this WSJ thread by Steelfish also read his contribution of Jonah Goldberg's observations on Romney's "not speaking the language naturally," meaning he doesn't speak the language of conservatism.

My post there points out that the problem is much deeper than "language," as this matter of his full embrace of the idea of the minimum wage illustrates.

In the same manner, his revealing comment about "the poor" was not just a gaffe. Such a comment, in its full context as revised by him, did not distinguish the conservative solution to "helping the poor" from the redistributionist idea of "helping the poor" in any manner whatsoever.

Rather, his natural philosophy, as evidenced by these and other debate answers, are just indications that his well of thought on America's core constitutional philosophy is not very deep--and certainly does not include a grounding in the Founders' ideas sufficient to rebut, rebuke, and reveal Obama's firmly-held ideology.

As a result, his "private sector" experience, while impressive and to be commended, has not prepared him for preserving the ideas which made possible his personal success in the Founders' system.

[loveliberty2]

You are right that the remark didn't indicate a callousness to "the poor." What it did fail to do, however, was to take advantage of the opportunity he had to present a case for a truly conservative solution for helping 'the poor' and all other citizens.

And, to win the battle for the minds and hearts of citizens, the nominee needs to be someone whose quickness of mind and readiness of familiarity with founding principles can refuse to "class" people by "rich," "middle class," "poor," etc. That is Obama's playground. It is how the collectivists/redistributionists classify and divide us, and it is how they avoid accountability for providing real solutions in economic matters.

Romney, as Krauthammer has pointed out, seems "incapable" of responding with and explaining conservative ideas.

To restore America's greatness will require leaders who, like America's Founders, have thought through the ideas which made America great, for it is the restoration of those ideas to the American mind which can give freedom back to the citizens and wrest power from the hands of "rulers" who use "poverty" as their vote-getting mechanism.