With the “revelation” of a video of Mitt Romney saying that 47 percent of Americans will vote for Barack Obama this November at a campaign dinner in May, some would have you believe that the GOP candidate has shamelessly written-off half of the country as dependent on government. What they don’t want to you to realize is this: according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 49 percent of Americans live in a household in which at least one person receives some form of government assistance, and we have a government that doesn’t think that’s enough.
While Romney certainly lacked eloquence in his off-the-cuff remarks to donors in May, he pointed out a startling truth that few in the media would point out to you. Nearly half of the country pays no income tax (not including payroll tax), but then nearly half of the country needs the help of the government to survive. While some say that it’s the role of government to “protect the least among us,” at what point did the least among us total to nearly half of our population? It gets worse though, as our own government seems to think that this isn’t nearly enough. According to USA.gov, only 15 percent of the American population turns to government for help during tough times, and they “want to make sure you know about benefits that could help you.” Forty-nine percent of the population is receiving government assistance, only 15 percent are asking for it, and somehow, we’re supposed to think nothing of the government saying more people need to ask for government assistance? Well, that was two months ago, and nobody’s talking about it.
Romney made his perhaps oversimplified remarks on a very basic principle: If you’re getting more out of the government than you put in, why would you vote for someone who wants to give you less, or make you contribute more? Forty-seven percent of Americans would vote for Obama because he’s the champion of big government that provides for them. But don’t take my word for it, just look at what he’s said. In a story far less mentioned, in 1998, Obama said that he was for redistribution. On camera. That’s redistribution as in, to quote Karl Marx, [taking]-from-each-according-to-his-ability-[giving]-to-each-according-to-his-need redistribution. But the Obama campaign says that it was from 1998, and the media leaves it at that. You only have to look at what Romney said in May to see that not only does Obama still believe in redistribution today, he’s employing it, and it’s working. We’re not talking about a government that protects the least among us anymore; we’re talking about a government that bribes its own people with the confiscated wealth of successful individuals and businesses. If the Soviet Union was any indication, punishing the successful doesn’t benefit the “lowest among us,” it just punishes the successful and benefits the government.
Is it the role of government to protect the least among us? Indeed, as Matthew 25:40 says, it is our duty to watch out for those less fortunate than us. But isn’t that a personal responsibility, instead of a government one? You aren’t doing a good deed if you are coerced into doing it, and you certainly aren’t doing a good deed by reaching into somebody else’s wallet to help the less fortunate. That’s plain theft, and that’s against the Ten Commandments. It’s our job individually to help the less fortunate, not the job of the mob to take from the rich and give to the needy. Personal responsibility and freedom always trump coercion and theft. That’s what’s at stake in this election, and at least Romney understands that.