As readers of this column and viewers of Fox News Channel may know, I have not hesitated to criticize Gov. Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign and the governor himself. I have argued that his message is muddled and his values are unknown beyond his ardent wish to improve economic conditions through the use of free market mechanisms rather than central economic planning, a position with which I agree entirely.
I have also maintained that his willingness to abandon, or not to accept, first principles has made these questions reasonable: If Romney is elected president, which Romney will show up for work on Jan. 20, 2013? Will it be the Romney who ran to the left of Ted Kennedy in 1994, the Romney who governed Massachusetts as Mario Cuomo governed New York, or the Romney who now claims to be a “severe” (his word) conservative? Will it be the Romney who spent the entire presidential primary season assuring conservative Republican primary voters that he’ll dismantle Obamacare on “Day One” (his phrase), or the Romney who told reporters last week that he approves of a limited federal role in managing health care? Or will it be the Romney who, when caught by the press saying something not intended for public consumption but demonstrably true, sticks to his guns?
A few months ago, at a private fundraiser, Romney spoke to supporters and contributors and observed that 47 percent of Americans do not pay any income tax, and thus his call for not raising taxes (though he wants to eliminate some familiar deductions, which is the functional equivalent of raising some folks’ taxes) will not resonate with the voters in that group. Then he went on to say that this is roughly the same 47 percent who are dependent upon the government for part or all of their subsistence; and to that subsistence of food, shelter, education and clothing, the feds have now added health care. Then he referred to those dependent upon the government as “victims” (his word). Then, among my leftish colleagues in the press, all hell broke loose.
The reason hell broke loose among most of the media is that Romney spoke a painful truth, and often a painful truth is difficult to accept. I have argued that FDR deliberately set out to create dependence upon the federal government — and hence upon virtually all Democrats in Congress and Republicans afraid to resist them — by establishing entitlement programs and inducing reliance upon them. FDR went so far as to lie to Americans when he stated that the federal government will “hold” (his word) your Social Security contributions for you until you retire, and then you’ll receive your nest egg of cash. We know he lied about this, because at the same time he was saying that the money deducted from your pay is yours, he dispatched Justice Department lawyers to argue in a constitutional challenge of Social Security before the Supreme Court that the money deducted from your pay is the government’s money, and the government can spend it as it wishes. The Supreme Court agreed with that argument.
Now comes Romney to say that this has gotten out of hand. The feds have deliberately created a class of persons — 47 percent of people living in America today — dependent upon them. The governor is right. Anyone lulled into a false sense of security is a victim, and any government that has deceived members of the public to get them there is dangerous. Thus, the revelation that the big-government types who have dominated the federal government for 100 years, who want voters dependent upon them so that they can count on their votes, and who have made those voters victims have stung the Obama campaign and its media supporters. Romney was correct to call the 47 percent who are dependent upon the government victims of the government’s deceptions and lust for power, and he is courageous to stick to his guns.
Dependency breeds a sense of complacency and entitlement and fosters a government that — in order to stay in power — will further that dependency. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton agreed on little publicly, but they did agree that when the public treasury becomes a public trough and the voters recognize that, they will send to the government only those who promise them a bigger piece of the government pie.
Then, sooner or later, the government will run out of other people’s money. Romney understands that.
COPYRIGHT 2013 JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO/CREATORS.COM
Be the first to read Judge Andrew Napolitano's columns and other Voice of Sanity articles by signing up today and having them delivered directly into your inbox each morning.
Additional articles by Judge Andrew NapolitanoComment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints. Make your case passionately, but please keep your comments civil and to the point (maximum of 1500 characters). Obscene, profane, abusive, or off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.
If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion. Thanks for your participation.





Wow , thanks for your most insightful article yet.
the way I see it is
the barn door is already been open for too long
the (W)hor(s)es are loose in washington
and everyone is trying to herd cats
Mitt good luck…..
Can you throw a LOW BLOW
I can't wait to read Monica Lewinski's book
I didn't realize the had vibrators in the white house
Clinton's endorsement of O BUMMER
People eat it up
Mediocre is the new "Perfect"
the truth is not subjective
IT IS OBSCENE
Bull, yes. obscene indeed…
The gooobermint has already run out of other people's money which is why the whirlybird whizzer has initiated monetizing the debt perpetually or until he finally gets QE right (don't need real money to do that). Personally, I think we'll exceed infinity before he gets QE right. And if you think getting a camel to pass through the eye of a sewing needle is hard, just try exceeding infinity.
Gill, yep. And Helicopter Ben has promised money to the connected until the default…
Wow… when Gov. Rick Perry (properly) identified SS as a "Ponzi Scheme" he was lambasted by the same people who are now calling it… a "Ponzi Scheme".
I'm thinking of chickens and roosts, for some reason.
BLH, yeah. Well we knew that was going to happen. Perry is no choir boy, but I'd rather have Texas incompetence over Dukakis-lite any day of the work week. Not to mention Bambam…
"…but i'd rather have" – & impose – "texas incompetence over…any day of the work week."
one can only wonder what you reserve for the w/e……
Judge Andrew Napolitano
Amen… never have I agreed with you more.
Unfortunately the public school indoctrinared 47% will always vote for more largess and elect those who will dp it.
<Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton agreed on little publicly, but they did agree that when the public treasury becomes a public trough and the voters recognize that, they will send to the government only those who promise them a bigger piece of the government pie.
hamilton was all about keeping the “public treasury” (guffaw) trough "private" – cronyism, inside dealing, expansion of state by, for, he & his ilk’s private interests, rather than those of the “47%”. corruption & organized criminality, in other words, albeit, as usual, under color of "law", on behalf of his gang. hamilton referred to ‘the people’ as a great beast, that he & his – ‘the other people?’ – would capitalize upon & control (which they did, have, & do).
and voting…the "franchise"…think of that in terms of a business franchise – a grant to exclusive right of control over a territory…was limited in their day. expanding immoral franchise as a ploy to reinvent bread & circuses, bribery & distraction & enervation of the beast, came later.
there is no gov pie. there is only gov theft. and all romney, & the rest of them, hamilton’s heirs all – and their willing & gluttonous ‘votebeast’ (like wildebeest) – understand is force, fraud, & kick the can.
Hear! Hear!
I am so happy that someone has enough courage to speak the truth. I have no problem with Romney's comments. When I heard the buzz about it, I wondered, "why is the media making such a big thing about something that is true. The man knows the truth and he's just facing it as fact.
Thank you Mr. Romney for being honest and thank you Judge for speaking out.
When I heard the re-play of what Romney said, I thought "I don't get it!" What's wrong with the truth? If O'bumer is re-elected, our U.S. Flag will remade to reflect the O'bumer Flag. O'bumer said he wants to redistribute other people's money to the people "he" deems worthy of receiving OPM. If you work, he wants your money to redistribute to those who don't or won't work. Even is you are one of those temporarily getting OPM, you better think about it because when there is no more OPM to redistribute , then what?
Early in Roosevelt's statist promotion of Social Security, many individuals realized that the program would, indeed, be a Ponzi scheme. Rose Wilder Lane and many of her contemporaries could accurately identify a spade before it had struck the soil. Why, then, are the media and so many talking heads of both left and right aghast and scandalized when someone, e.g., Perry, points to the bottomless hole that's been dug during the intervening eight decades and says, "Yep, that's the work of a spade."?