Castagnera on Risk Management in Higher Education… and more: Can this man represent only half of the American people? Is that what we want?

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Can this man represent only half of the American people? Is that what we want?

Romney (Photo credit: Talk Radio News Service)

Clearly, Romney won't represent seniors, such as me, who are eligible for Medicare and Social Security. He won't represent people who earn so little that they don't owe income tax. He won't represent those who need to go to an emergency room for healthcare. He won't represent those who are homeless.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/17/mitt-romney-47-percent_n_1892227.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk1%26pLid%3D206889

The media cause celebre this week was Mitt Romney’s comment, surreptitiously taped at a gathering of his big-money supports, to the effect that nearly half of all Americans believe they are entitled to food, clothing, shelter and/or healthcare. The implication, if not the express meaning, of the remark is that people should be provided with the opportunity to try to succeed and prosper… and if they fail, well, that’s just too bad.

This is the sort of remark that can be made only in front of an audience of those who have succeeded (or inherited) lavishly, and therefore have no fear of what tomorrow may bring them on the financial front. It can only be made to an audience of people who began life’s race at a starting line that’s literally miles in front of the starting position where most Americans were seeded.

It can only be made in front of an audience that never wonders whether a civilized, compassionate society ought to care if the least of its citizens have food, clothing, shelter and healthcare.

Believe me when I say that I’m not in favor of handouts to folks who are capable of taking care of themselves. Some 30 years ago I published a column in the University of Texas student newspaper, when I was on the faculty in Austin, arguing for a mandatory work-requirement for welfare recipients. In the 1990s a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress wrote such a requirement into the law. I applauded them then and I hold that view today.

But when you pull down the safety net and leave people dangling, the results are bad for them and bad for all the rest of us, too.

My family and I have become obsessed with a TV series called “Breaking Bad.” The anti-hero, Walt, is a high school chemistry teacher with a touch of cancer and no medical insurance. Why would Walt, who teaches in a public school, not have medical insurance? Is it because he’s in a right-to-work state and has no union to fight for him? We don’t know.

Suffice to say that Walt’s way of breaking bad is to become the number one crystal meth manufacturer in the state. He puts his college education to work, becoming an entrepreneur of the first order. Mitt and friends should applaud him. He is fulfilling their version of the American Dream. Never mind that he leaves a trail of corpses and addicts in his wake.

I think it would have been a whole lot better for Walt, his family, and our society, if he had been provided with the healthcare he needed to cure his cancer. But, hey, maybe that’s just me.