Mitt Romney's 'poor' choice of words: Who's really struggling in America?

Mitt Romney was in damage-control mode Wednesday after the multimillionaire candidate said he's 'not concerned about the very poor.' He said he's concerned about those who are 'struggling.'

Charles Dharapak/AP
Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, celebrates his Florida primary election win at the Tampa Convention Center in Tampa, Fla., Tuesday.

Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney, fresh off an important primary victory in Florida, found himself quickly in damage-control mode Wednesday after the multimillionaire candidate said he's "not concerned about the very poor."

Mr. Romney's full comment, made in a CNN interview, emphasized his concern for the difficulties faced by ordinary working Americans.

"I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich. They're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling," Romney said.

Later, the former private-equity executive reiterated that "my energy is going to be devoted to helping middle-income people."

Still, the "not concerned" comment lands Romney in some hot water with many of the voters he would face if nominated by Republicans to run against President Obama this fall. Already, one of Romney's prime tasks is to persuade voters he understands them and doesn't live in a separate world of the ultrarich.

The remark also raises a question: Which groups of Americans are really "struggling" the most now?

Political analysts and economists could slice and dice the electorate in various ways to explore the answers, but here's a look based on the parameter Romney himself mentioned: income.

Last fall, a Gallup survey asked Americans to rate their own personal finances. In that poll, 47 percent of all respondents with incomes of less than $30,000 rated their own finances as "poor." That was a much larger share than for other income groups. About 16 percent of those with income between $30,000 and $75,000 rated their finances poor. And 3 percent of those with incomes above $75,000 called their financial position poor.

Similarly, Americans in the lower-income group in Gallup's October poll were much less likely to say their finances were getting better (26 percent said that). And while large numbers in the other income groups said their finances were worsening, the below-$30,000 group was the only one with an outright majority (60 percent) in that camp.

The poll is one indicator that Romney may be on thin ground asserting that it's especially middle-income Americans who are struggling.

Census data also point in that direction. In the most recent annual report on incomes and poverty, the Census Bureau found that poverty rose in the US between 2009 and 2010, with 46.2 million people classified as poor (a rise of more than 2.5 million people).

In all, 15.1 percent of Americans are classified as poor, or about 1 in 7.

This doesn't mean Romney's remark is without any grounding in reality.

It's true that there's plenty of financial discontent among middle-income Americans. Obama has deployed a task force on that issue, seeking answers to everything from college debts to challenges saving for retirement and paying for health care.

And it's also the case that America does have a significant array of safety net programs. Romney mentioned food stamps, Medicaid, and housing vouchers. The list could go on, including disability insurance, unemployment insurance, and the earned income tax credit.

"My first thought was: hey, I’m glad he recognizes the existence of and need for the safety net," former Obama administration economist Jared Bernstein wrote in a blog post Wednesday. "My second thought was … um … he’s gonna shred it" through his proposed spending restraint.

With Romney in the news for the gargantuan investment-earnings on his tax return, the candidate's comment appears likely to linger as fodder for critics in a possible general-election campaign.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.