Letters: Parsing Romney's '47 percent' talk
Perhaps one positive thing that might come from Mitt Romney's contentions about dependence on the federal government will be a comprehensive debate about all levels of dependence, entitlements and expectations across the entire voter spectrum ["Romney wrong about the 47%," Editorial, Sept. 19].
What was so noticeably left out of the reaction so far has been the relationship between the government and large corporations and mega-wealthy individuals, supported by their lobbyists and tax attorneys. Tax shelters, depletion allowances, tax caps on capital gains and dividends, amortizations, business tax incentives, holding companies -- the list goes on and on. These are exclusive financial advantages that have been available to industry and the seven-figure crowd through the election of representatives who do their bidding and write the tax code. What is Romney's position on the dependence of this part of the electorate on the federal government?
I remember the old oil depletion allowance that compensated oil companies for the day that their fields dried up. I wondered why the rest of us weren't given a human depletion allowance that would compensate workers for fewer productive years as they got older.
If Romney and others believe that this age of entitlement should come to an end, then let's make it truly democratic.
Paul Jacobs, Huntington
Newsday's editorial, instead of presenting a fair analysis, disturbingly took Mitt Romney's comments way out of context. When he said that his job is "not to worry about those people," he was referring to an electoral strategy -- not his governing policy.
Romney's implication was that those on federal assistance would likely vote for President Barack Obama no matter what; therefore he needed to target other, undecided voters to win office.
I expect this type of skewed analysis from the prime-time crew on MSNBC -- not from Newsday.
Andrew Targovnik, Syosset