A Closer Look at 'Redistribution' Amid the fallout over Mitt Romney's comments that 47 percent of Americans believed they were "victims" and are dependent upon government, the Republican Party is stepping up attacks that President Obama favors redistributing wealth, citing a 1998 audio clip of him saying, "I actually believe in redistribution." The Republican National Committee released a video Wednesday that plays a carefully clipped audio segment containing the remark. The Romney campaign also seized on the quote, with its campaign manager, Matt Rhoades, saying Mr. Romney "has a different idea" - "to foster growth and create wealth, not redistribute wealth, if our economy is to grow the way it has in the past." Part of the recording, though, might surprise critics who believe Mr. Obama has an unalloyed love of government largess: He also suggested in his comments that he agreed, at least to some degree, with attacks on "the possibility of government action and its efficacy." "I think some of it has been deserved," Mr. Obama said, citing poor policymaking at the Chicago Housing Authority and Chicago public schools. Moments later, Mr. Obama, then a state senator speaking at Loyola University in Chicago, uttered the words Republicans are using against him: "I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution, because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody's got a shot." But what still is unclear is precisely how the two candidates' views on redistribution differ. Does Mr. Romney, for example, believe the current federal tax system is too redistributive? If yes, does that conflict with his assertion that his own tax proposal will retain the progressivity of the tax code? An aide to Mr. Romney did not respond to those questions on Wednesday. Instead, the aide repeated attacks on Mr. Obama's economic record and his "vision of a government-centered society" that includes redistributing wealth. What is paradoxical about the sudden focus on redistribution worries is it seems to ignore data that demonstrates that the nation has seen a significant redistribution of incomes over the past generation - from the poor and middle class to the rich, and especially to the very rich - all while government policies have also become less redistributive over the same period. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, in 1979, for example, 7.4 percent of after-tax income flowed to the wealthiest one percent of the population, but by 2009 that figure had grown to 11.5 percent. This rise came despite a stock market crash that decimated portfolios of the wealthy at the tail end of the period surveyed: In 2007, the richest one percent had received 16.7 percent of income. Over the three decades the share of income received both by the poor and middle class fell. Only the wealthiest one-fifth of Americans saw their share of after-tax income rise, with gains concentrated among the richest five percent. In a report last year, the C.B.O. found most of the shift was due to trends in salaries, business income, capital gains, pensions and other "market income." But the C.B.O. also noted that "government transfers and federal taxes became less redistributive." Of course, the government continues to redistribute wealth, such as through progressive income taxes: The more you make, the higher your bracket. But on Wednesday, the Romney aide did not say whether Mr. Romney believes the current federal tax system - or specific policies Mr. Obama has enacted - are too redistributive.