The best defense of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s
instantly notorious “47 percent” remarks at a May fundraiser is that he
made a bad point badly.
Romney mixed up three separate groups of
people: the roughly half the country that will inevitably support
President Barack Obama, the half that doesn’t pay federal income taxes
and the half that receives government benefits. Then he declared them
all a collective lost cause. He will never win them over, or convince
them to take responsibility for their lives. Next question.
In reality, these are three distinct groups. Many Obama
supporters are rich. Indeed, we can be fairly certain all the attendees
at the president’s fundraiser with Beyoncé and Jay-Z in New York City
the other day have hefty tax bills. Meanwhile, many of Romney’s
supporters — especially the elderly — don’t pay federal income taxes and
receive government benefits.
As a political scientist, Romney is an excellent former governor of Massachusetts.
Romney didn’t come up with this construct on his own, however. On
taxes, he was repeating a conservative talking point about the perils of
47 percent of the people not paying federal income taxes — though to be
precise, 46.4 percent of “tax units” don’t pay income taxes, according
to the Tax Policy Center. Romney took this line of argument and
blundered his way through it.
George Will says Romney speaks conservatism as a second language. At
times, he sounds like the English-speaking German in a World War II
movie who’s infiltrated American lines and is asked who won the World
Series. Even if he memorized the answer, he sure as hell can’t tell you
anything about Stan Musial.
But the point Romney messed up isn’t particularly convincing to begin
with — though it has been made by serious conservatives, like Romney’s
own running mate Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan . The argument is that if
people aren’t paying federal income taxes, they are essentially
freeloaders who will vote themselves more government benefits knowing
that they don’t have to pay for them.
As my colleague Ramesh Ponnuru has pointed out, there’s no evidence
for this dynamic. It is true that the number of people without a federal
income tax liability is up — it was just 28 percent in 1950. It is
mainly the poor, seniors and lower-income families with children who
don’t owe income taxes. The poor lean heavily Democratic, but that’s
always been so. Seniors, meanwhile, have been swinging Republican, and
there’s no indication that families with children are becoming more
liberal.
George Will says Romney speaks conservatism as a second language. At
times, he sounds like the English-speaking German in a World War II
movie who’s infiltrated American lines and is asked who won the World
Series. Even if he memorized the answer, he sure as hell can’t tell you
anything about Stan Musial.
But the point Romney messed up isn’t particularly convincing to begin
with — though it has been made by serious conservatives, like Romney’s
own running mate Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan . The argument is that if
people aren’t paying federal income taxes, they are essentially
freeloaders who will vote themselves more government benefits knowing
that they don’t have to pay for them.
As my colleague Ramesh Ponnuru has pointed out, there’s no evidence
for this dynamic. It is true that the number of people without a federal
income tax liability is up — it was just 28 percent in 1950. It is
mainly the poor, seniors and lower-income families with children who
don’t owe income taxes. The poor lean heavily Democratic, but that’s
always been so. Seniors, meanwhile, have been swinging Republican, and
there’s no indication that families with children are becoming more
liberal.
George Will says Romney speaks conservatism as a second language. At
times, he sounds like the English-speaking German in a World War II
movie who’s infiltrated American lines and is asked who won the World
Series. Even if he memorized the answer, he sure as hell can’t tell you
anything about Stan Musial.
But the point Romney messed up isn’t particularly convincing to begin
with — though it has been made by serious conservatives, like Romney’s
own running mate Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan . The argument is that if
people aren’t paying federal income taxes, they are essentially
freeloaders who will vote themselves more government benefits knowing
that they don’t have to pay for them.
As my colleague Ramesh Ponnuru has pointed out, there’s no evidence
for this dynamic. It is true that the number of people without a federal
income tax liability is up — it was just 28 percent in 1950. It is
mainly the poor, seniors and lower-income families with children who
don’t owe income taxes. The poor lean heavily Democratic, but that’s
always been so. Seniors, meanwhile, have been swinging Republican, and
there’s no indication that families with children are becoming more
liberal.
By RICH LOWRY