By now everyone is familiar with the hypocritical Romney, as in Romney the fire-breathing conservative. After all, he was the Governor of Massachusetts who proposed and pushed through the "universal coverage" legislation which became the model for so-called "Obamacare." Many folks, most especially those among the radical right, think of this quite pale imitation of a liberal position on the issue as being an extreme example of left-wing policy making. And Romney today claims to be in steadfast opposition to such wild-eyed liberal market meddling. So, okay, for the sake of argument, let's accept that Obamacare is an example of liberalism run amok, even though most of us see it largely as a massive sellout to insurance and drug companies.
That provides a rather telling backdrop for Romney's recently articulated position on the issue of child care subsidies for poor working women. He is all for it, and in whatever amount it takes to get impoverished mothers out of the house and strapped to the wheel, in any old cheap-ass, hell-hole place of employment which fails to pay sufficient compensation to allow them to care for their children without government assistance. So, pray tell, dear reader, exactly to whom is the benefit of the subsidy flowing, the poor working woman who no longer is a stay-at-home mom, or the stingy Scrooge of an employer who pays poverty level wages which come short of providing for basic needs? And to whom do you really think Romney sees it going? Liberals would say the first question is a rather sticky one; both parties really could be said to benefit. But there can be little doubt Romney sees the business welfare side quite clearly. He is once again revealed as a liberal when it suits him.
More on this in the next post, when time permits a look at the opinion of Adam Smith, the founder of classical conservative economics.