There is this quite incredible focus on Mitt Romney having said in a closed forum in May that almost half the American public does not pay income tax. And the way it is portrayed it is as if Romney were trying to say something behind closed doors that he would not have said in the open.
In actual fact, Romney had already written on what he recognised as a problem for Republicans offering to cut taxes in a community where around half the population pay little or no income tax already. This is from Mitt Romney’s No Apology which was published in 2010 (page 303):
In light of the challenges faced by the country, I am puzzled by those who align themselves with a political agenda that may be well intentioned, but that weakens the country and hazards our freedom.
First, however, there are people who correctly presume that they will get more money from governments if it is run by Democrats. I understand these kinds of Democrats very well. Adam Lerrick of the American Enterprise Institute calculated for The Wall Street Journal that under candidate Obama’s tax plan, 49 percent of all Americans will pay no income tax. Added to that number are 11 percent who would pay federal income tax of less than 5 percent of their income. So for 60 percent of Americans, spending restraint and lower taxes championed by Republicans may not mean a great deal to them personally – at least in the short term, even though the lower taxes promote economic growth, good jobs and higher incomes.
Seems perfectly sensible to me.
LOL:
Graph of the week…
GALLUP ON Romney’s “Terrible” Month.
Jim Messina now telling media to ignore the polls.
C.L.
23 Sep 12 at 1:35 pm
Difference being that in his book he still considers them his constituents.
Behind closed doors he is saying they are victims and his job is not to worry about them.
Ihad thought he would keep race out of this election though. very poor taste to dress in brown-face for his Univision appearance.
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/mitt-romneys-tan-draws-media-fire-makeup-artist/story?id=17290303
Rex
23 Sep 12 at 3:46 pm
The claim I don’t get is that those who receive government benefits automatically support the left.
Sure there’s an intuitive logic, but the single largest group of those accepting some form of government support are the elderly, who are generally more conservative than the average voter (Ie. They were the only group to clearly back McCain over Obama in 2008 -http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1 ).
The next largest group, households with the lowest wages (ie most likely to get some form of support) are, in the US, some of the least likely to vote.
There are obvious explanations for this. The Reagan-Howard model was to peel off low income voters/the elderly with their social conservative policies. Which has worked to a reasonable degree. Yet Romney’s claim seems to suggest that this pitch actually failed, that anyone on government support will choose Obama over him, whatever their other views.
Ie. Romney’s advocating a simple empirical claim (government support is the primary determinant of voting intention), and yet from what I can see also simply wrong.
Unless someone has a study that can demonstrate otherwise?
Andrew Carr
23 Sep 12 at 3:55 pm
He isn’t saying that. He seems to be saying that if you take the proportions alone, then Republicans will inevitably lose every election since once you add the 49% to the 11% those who seek to build a strong economy for the future will inevitably lose to those who will not give up their transfer payments of the present. He is saying, instead, that an enlightened self interest and a view of the future should convince many who are currently receiving such transfers to vote for him. If he didn’t believe that, he would have no grounds for running since there would be no way he could win with the arithmetic so fully against him.
Steve Kates
23 Sep 12 at 4:14 pm
Correct. But the whole discussion what he meant only underlines that he was extremely clumsy in his statement to the donors. As he partly admitted himself.
Boris
23 Sep 12 at 4:16 pm
The political stupidity of the comment was the assumption that 47% who pay no federal income tax (note – not NO tax) would never vote for him. In fact about half of that – the elderly, veterans etc, are likely natural republican supporters. He just called a big group of his own supporters spongers and victims. How to piss off your own constituency! Dumb, very dumb. If you can’t see it was a dumb thing to say, you are equally dumb, very dumb.
SteveC
23 Sep 12 at 4:31 pm
remember http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_the_Plumber
Jim Rose
23 Sep 12 at 4:47 pm
Spreading the Wealth Around: Reflections Inspired by
Joe the Plumber by N. Gregory Mankiw for a nice discussion of optimal taxation and the distribution of
income. mankiw notes that
going on to argue for a just deserts theory because people are rarely outraged when high incomes go to those who obviously earned them.
People should get what they deserve. A person who contributes more to society deserves a higher income that reflects these greater contributions. Society permits a higher income not just to incentivise because that income is rightfully his.
Jim Rose
23 Sep 12 at 4:54 pm
The political stupidity of the comment was the assumption that 47% who pay no federal income tax (note – not NO tax) would never vote for him. In fact about half of that – the elderly, veterans etc, are likely natural republican supporters.
No, this is a rather tendentious interpretation of his comment at a private gathering. He’s obviously not including the elderly or veterans; and very few if any of those who fall in this group who also vote Republican will be offended by his remark because they know they are not the people being referred to above. The other point is that they were remarks at a “private gathering”; remarks given under Chatham House rules, so to wonder whether the remarks were politic or not is to entirely miss the point.
dover_beach
23 Sep 12 at 5:24 pm
Strange how The Dun King’s major gaffes this week are being ignored again.
1. Obama is corrected by the State Dept by saying Egypt is not an ally.
2. On Letterman he admits he doesn’t know what the defective is.
3. His spokesman laughs at the idea is a problem the Prez of the US skips security briefings, then tries to hide the backflip after an ambassador dies
4. Ambassador to UN & press spokesmen continue saying for 9 DAYS the Libya attack was due to movie in face of mounting evidence
5. Revealed Libyan embassy in Benghazi guarded by unarmed British contractors, not Marines, even though ambassador known to be on Al Queda hit list.
That is all in 1 f&$king week, and instead the world dwells on what Romney meant by a statement that 47% of rusted on Obsma voters will not vote for him.
Token
23 Sep 12 at 5:44 pm
Defectivedeficit (stupid autocorrect)Token
23 Sep 12 at 5:46 pm
There is a serious question about the taps considering 2 min ghave been tactically snipped
Token
23 Sep 12 at 5:48 pm
Token, you are right. However, the porblem for Romney is that foreign policy is last on voters’ mind in this election. The September events haven’t changed that.
Boris
23 Sep 12 at 7:10 pm
d-b at 5.24
That’s obviously not correct because then you don’t get to 47%. Romney said the 47% who pay no federal income tax would never vote for him. Which almost certainly wasn’t true before, but may be true now!
If you make a comment at a 50,000 per head presiential race fundraiser, and expect it to be “private” then the dumbness just continues. Chatham house rules – you’ve got rocks in your head if you think that argument holds water.
SteveC
23 Sep 12 at 9:33 pm
Romney said the 47% who pay no federal income tax would never vote for him.
Really? So you believe that Romney believed that no one on a aged pension or veteran would vote Republican? And you believe this because of the number 47? Anyway, the attempt to knock Romney out in the first round has failed. Time to find a new strategy.
If you make a comment at a 50,000 per head presiential race fundraiser, and expect it to be “private” then the dumbness just continues.
Really? So comments said in a private home, closed to the general public, during a fundraiser involving Republicans who have paid $50,000 for the opportunity to hear Romney, and without journalists present, isn’t private? A conversation between Mitt and Ann on the marital bed?
dover_beach
23 Sep 12 at 9:55 pm
We’re back on this stupid non-story.
An ambassador got assassinated and the white house tried to whitewash it. That’s a story. This is not a story, other than for the love media.
dd
23 Sep 12 at 9:58 pm
d-b you just need to be realistic. Whether comments made at a private function SHOULD be private is irrelevant. The guy is running for president so try to be real. Kate Middleton topless sunbathing over 1km away from nearest vantage point SHOULD be private, but it simply isn’t.
SteveC
23 Sep 12 at 10:02 pm
d-b you just need to be realistic. Whether comments made at a private function SHOULD be private is irrelevant. The guy is running for president so try to be real.
I’m not really fussed about the invasion of privacy, so I’m being ‘realistic’ and ‘real’.
dover_beach
23 Sep 12 at 10:09 pm
d-b, which other 47% was he talking about? Take the cotton wool out of your ears and listen to what he said.
It was a dumb thing to say.
SteveC
23 Sep 12 at 10:09 pm
Now your not making sense:
SteveC
23 Sep 12 at 10:10 pm
It was a dumb thing to say.
Nope. It was on the money. This was a dumb and ignoble thing to say:
Now your not making sense
I’m making perfect sense. I made an observation; the taping of the event was under Florida law illegal, and yet, I’m not fussed. Romney’s powered through this, and the polls have been uninfluenced by the media’s tendentious presentation of this distraction.
Time for a new strategy, SteveC; this one’s bombed.
dover_beach
23 Sep 12 at 10:40 pm