![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
malasadas.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsBy now Governor Mitt Romney's increasingly ersatz presidential campaign has spent another full news cycle trying to repair damage from the candidate's own mouth and has lost more ground trying to convince voters that the Republican nominee is capable of expressing human emotions.
The controversy emerged when Mother Jones Magazine published a secretly recorded video of Mr. Romney speaking to would be donors in May where he stated:
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
It's important to examine WHY 47% of Americans owe no federal income taxes, and the bottom line is: it is NOT because they are all "dependent upon government, who believe they are victims." According to the Forbes article, 17% are students, people with disabilities that keep them from working full time, the long term unemployed or other people with other exemptions such as military personnel deployed to combat zones. 22% are retirees with very modest incomes. A whopping 61% are working full time and pay payroll taxes but are otherwise exempted from owing federal income tax.
How did so many people who work full time end up owing no federal tax beyond payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare? The simple answer is they owe no income tax because of tax policies championed by Republican Presidents and supported by bipartisan majorities in Congress. The Earned Income Tax Credit was enacted in 1975 as a means of helping the working poor and leading people into the labor market. President Reagan included expansion of the credit in his 1986 tax reform legislation and said:
Millions of working poor will be dropped from the tax rolls altogether, and families will get a long-overdue break with lower rates and an almost doubled personal exemption. We're going to make it economical to raise children again. Flatter rates will mean more reward for that extra effort, and vanishing loopholes and a minimum tax will mean that everybody and every corporation pay their fair share. And that's why I'm certain that the bill I'm signing today is not only an historic overhaul of our tax code and a sweeping victory for fairness, it's also the best antipoverty bill, the best profamily measure, and the best job-creation program ever to come out of the Congress of the United States.
President Bill Clinton sought another expansion in 1993 and again a bipartisan majority came together to expand it. According to the NPR link, the number of households owing no federal income tax was about 25%. It rose to 36% during President George W. Bush's term fueled by an additional child credit. Those policies, combined with higher unemployment an expanded tax cuts under President Obama has led to the current record high number, a number expected to drop if economists are correct and 12 million new jobs are added in the next four years.
So what COULD have Mr. Romney said about the tax status of 47% of Americans that would have been substantive and thought provoking? He could have discussed if we can pay for what the administration wants to pay for with a substantially reduced tax base, for starters. Payroll taxes pay for Social Security and Medicare so almost 2/3 of that 47% pay into the retirement programs they will eventually access, but the rest of the federal discretionary budget is paid by either business or personal income taxes. The President's most ambitious revenue increasing plans still only raises taxes on incomes above 250,000 dollars and will only bring the combined federal debt down to 75% of GDP. That's a start, but a pretty modest one. Mr. Romney could have discussed the need for much GREATER prudence in the federal budget since increasing it would necessarily inflict either broadly based tax increases or continue to try to squeeze more and more tax revenue out of a smaller slice of the electorate.
If he wanted to break ranks with President Reagan on the EIC, he could have questioned if the federal government's use of exemptions and tax credits have contributed to a pattern of stagnant wages. Middle class and working class families alike have a wide array of exemptions and credits that lower the amount of tax they pay. That's good for them, and has probably kept many families afloat in an era of increasing productivity but low wage growth when adjusted for inflation.
On the other hand, it is would probably not be hard to find an economist or two who would argue, with data, that all of these exemptions have created disincentives for workers to push their employers for higher wages that more effectively keep up with the cost of living.
Simply put: there are intelligent conversations to be had about tax policy that Mr. Romney COULD have had.
But, of course, that's not what he said. What he said was 1) stupid and 2) offensive.
1) It was stupid because he all but said that the entirety of that 47% was in the can for President Obama. Mr. Romney has taken a lot of heat for saying it wasn't "his job to worry about those people". In context, he means he should not worry about them as a CANDIDATE because he cannot get their votes. That's not necessarily callous, but what it is is monumentally stupid.
This graph shows that only 40% of 70 year olds are paying federal income tax. If Mr. Romney plans to be President of the United States, he had better how that his support in that demographic is way above 40%. John McCain won Arkansas by 20 points in 2008 and the state is considered so sure a win for Governor Romney that it has hardly been polled in 2012. If there is anyone who can argue that Mr. Romney's base of support in Arkansas does NOT include a lot of working poor families, I'd like to hear it.
So Mr. Romney's comment about the 47% all being a mortal lock for the President is ridiculously stupid -- what he was doing was casting about for a reason to explain to rich donors why he won't be able to do much better than 50% of the vote in November...and he settled on a mind-bogglingly stupid reason.
2) It was offensive because his portrayal of the people in that demographic is purely defamatory. Retirees living on very fixed and modest incomes have worked their entire lives and are drawing upon fairly meager support from federal programs they paid into. The two thirds of that 47% who contribute to payroll taxes are employed and are paying into systems they will eventually use. These are the working poor that President Reagan found time to praise in his speeches, but Mr. Romney has characterized them as having a victimhood mentality and that they won't take "responsibility for their lives". If there is any kind of a comment that is more insulting to people who are, in fact, playing by the rules and working hard but who are not enjoying high wages for that work, it is hard to imagine it.
Mr. Romney's fairly callous characterization of people feeling "entitled" to what amount to the necessities of SURVIVAL is also offensive -- not only for the implication that working poor and lower middle class families think they are NOT working for those things, but also for the abandonment of principles espoused by both Presidents Reagan AND Clinton: By expanding the refundable earned-income tax credit, we will make history. We will reward the work of millions of working, poor Americans by realizing the principle that if you work 40 hours a week and you've got a child in the house, you will no longer be in poverty.
That's what Bill Clinton said in 1993 about expanding the EIC -- if Mr. Romney has a reason why he thinks that people working full time SHOULD be in poverty, maybe he ought to explain it.
The controversy emerged when Mother Jones Magazine published a secretly recorded video of Mr. Romney speaking to would be donors in May where he stated:
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
It's important to examine WHY 47% of Americans owe no federal income taxes, and the bottom line is: it is NOT because they are all "dependent upon government, who believe they are victims." According to the Forbes article, 17% are students, people with disabilities that keep them from working full time, the long term unemployed or other people with other exemptions such as military personnel deployed to combat zones. 22% are retirees with very modest incomes. A whopping 61% are working full time and pay payroll taxes but are otherwise exempted from owing federal income tax.
How did so many people who work full time end up owing no federal tax beyond payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare? The simple answer is they owe no income tax because of tax policies championed by Republican Presidents and supported by bipartisan majorities in Congress. The Earned Income Tax Credit was enacted in 1975 as a means of helping the working poor and leading people into the labor market. President Reagan included expansion of the credit in his 1986 tax reform legislation and said:
Millions of working poor will be dropped from the tax rolls altogether, and families will get a long-overdue break with lower rates and an almost doubled personal exemption. We're going to make it economical to raise children again. Flatter rates will mean more reward for that extra effort, and vanishing loopholes and a minimum tax will mean that everybody and every corporation pay their fair share. And that's why I'm certain that the bill I'm signing today is not only an historic overhaul of our tax code and a sweeping victory for fairness, it's also the best antipoverty bill, the best profamily measure, and the best job-creation program ever to come out of the Congress of the United States.
President Bill Clinton sought another expansion in 1993 and again a bipartisan majority came together to expand it. According to the NPR link, the number of households owing no federal income tax was about 25%. It rose to 36% during President George W. Bush's term fueled by an additional child credit. Those policies, combined with higher unemployment an expanded tax cuts under President Obama has led to the current record high number, a number expected to drop if economists are correct and 12 million new jobs are added in the next four years.
So what COULD have Mr. Romney said about the tax status of 47% of Americans that would have been substantive and thought provoking? He could have discussed if we can pay for what the administration wants to pay for with a substantially reduced tax base, for starters. Payroll taxes pay for Social Security and Medicare so almost 2/3 of that 47% pay into the retirement programs they will eventually access, but the rest of the federal discretionary budget is paid by either business or personal income taxes. The President's most ambitious revenue increasing plans still only raises taxes on incomes above 250,000 dollars and will only bring the combined federal debt down to 75% of GDP. That's a start, but a pretty modest one. Mr. Romney could have discussed the need for much GREATER prudence in the federal budget since increasing it would necessarily inflict either broadly based tax increases or continue to try to squeeze more and more tax revenue out of a smaller slice of the electorate.
If he wanted to break ranks with President Reagan on the EIC, he could have questioned if the federal government's use of exemptions and tax credits have contributed to a pattern of stagnant wages. Middle class and working class families alike have a wide array of exemptions and credits that lower the amount of tax they pay. That's good for them, and has probably kept many families afloat in an era of increasing productivity but low wage growth when adjusted for inflation.
On the other hand, it is would probably not be hard to find an economist or two who would argue, with data, that all of these exemptions have created disincentives for workers to push their employers for higher wages that more effectively keep up with the cost of living.
Simply put: there are intelligent conversations to be had about tax policy that Mr. Romney COULD have had.
But, of course, that's not what he said. What he said was 1) stupid and 2) offensive.
1) It was stupid because he all but said that the entirety of that 47% was in the can for President Obama. Mr. Romney has taken a lot of heat for saying it wasn't "his job to worry about those people". In context, he means he should not worry about them as a CANDIDATE because he cannot get their votes. That's not necessarily callous, but what it is is monumentally stupid.
This graph shows that only 40% of 70 year olds are paying federal income tax. If Mr. Romney plans to be President of the United States, he had better how that his support in that demographic is way above 40%. John McCain won Arkansas by 20 points in 2008 and the state is considered so sure a win for Governor Romney that it has hardly been polled in 2012. If there is anyone who can argue that Mr. Romney's base of support in Arkansas does NOT include a lot of working poor families, I'd like to hear it.
So Mr. Romney's comment about the 47% all being a mortal lock for the President is ridiculously stupid -- what he was doing was casting about for a reason to explain to rich donors why he won't be able to do much better than 50% of the vote in November...and he settled on a mind-bogglingly stupid reason.
2) It was offensive because his portrayal of the people in that demographic is purely defamatory. Retirees living on very fixed and modest incomes have worked their entire lives and are drawing upon fairly meager support from federal programs they paid into. The two thirds of that 47% who contribute to payroll taxes are employed and are paying into systems they will eventually use. These are the working poor that President Reagan found time to praise in his speeches, but Mr. Romney has characterized them as having a victimhood mentality and that they won't take "responsibility for their lives". If there is any kind of a comment that is more insulting to people who are, in fact, playing by the rules and working hard but who are not enjoying high wages for that work, it is hard to imagine it.
Mr. Romney's fairly callous characterization of people feeling "entitled" to what amount to the necessities of SURVIVAL is also offensive -- not only for the implication that working poor and lower middle class families think they are NOT working for those things, but also for the abandonment of principles espoused by both Presidents Reagan AND Clinton: By expanding the refundable earned-income tax credit, we will make history. We will reward the work of millions of working, poor Americans by realizing the principle that if you work 40 hours a week and you've got a child in the house, you will no longer be in poverty.
That's what Bill Clinton said in 1993 about expanding the EIC -- if Mr. Romney has a reason why he thinks that people working full time SHOULD be in poverty, maybe he ought to explain it.
