Conservative pundits are ripping Mitt Romney over his stated willingness to fix the safety net for poor people who are 'falling through the cracks.' Why didn't he renounce dependency on government? they ask.
It isn’t just the left that’s attacking Mitt Romney for saying he’s “not concerned about the very poor.” The right is also in high dudgeon – and not just because Mr. Romney made it easy (again) for his detractors to portray him as an out-of-touch rich guy.
From talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh to The Wall Street Journal editorial page, conservative pundits are coming down hard on the Republican presidential front-runner over the second part of Romney’s point: that the poor have a safety net, “and if there are people that are falling through the cracks, I want to fix that.”
A gasping Mr. Limbaugh could barely contain himself.
“The safety net is one of the biggest cultural problems we’ve got!” Limbaugh said. “We had better be worried about it just like we had better get angry over Obamacare. Obamacare is worth getting mad about. Mitt said that it wasn’t. This biz, ‘I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there’? Right, the safety net is contributing to the destruction of their humanity and their futures!"
The Journal was more measured, but just as negative.
“There's a half-century of creative conservative thinking on antipoverty transfer programs, and it's too bad Mr. Romney didn't mention some of it,” the paper editorialized. “One note to strike is about growing dependency on government and its corrosive effect on human dignity.”
Refundable tax credits, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, food stamps, and other programs for the poor are almost 50 percent more generous to individuals than they were in 2007, the editorial stated.