During a private reception with wealthy donors this year, Mitt Romney described almost half of Americans as “people who pay no income tax” and are “dependent upon government.” Those voters, he said, would probably support President Obama because they believe they are “victims” who are “entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.”
In a brief and hastily called news conference Monday just after 10 p.m., Mr. Romney acknowledged having made the blunt political and cultural assessment, saying it was “not elegantly stated,” but he stood by the substance of the remarks, insisting that he had made similar observations in public without generating controversy.
The video of Mr. Romney, the Republican presidential candidate, was made in May, offering a rare glimpse of his personal views. Mr. Romney told reporters that he had been “speaking off the cuff in response to a question” at the fund-raiser, and said he wanted “to help all Americans — all Americans — have a bright, prosperous future.”
Democrats quickly condemned the remarks as insensitive, and Mr. Obama’s campaign accused Mr. Romney of having “disdainfully written off half the nation.”
The video surfaced as the campaign enters its final 50 days and as Mr. Romney sought to restart his campaign with new ads and new messaging, in response to calls in his campaign and from outside for him to be more specific about how his policies would fix the nation’s economy and help the middle class.
Now, the video has raised the possibility that Mr. Romney’s campaign will be sidetracked, with attention focused again on his proposed tax cuts for the wealthy, the release of his personal tax returns and his ability to connect with middle-class voters. With its unvarnished language, the video seems to undermine what aides have argued is an enduring attribute that would appeal to independent voters: a sense that Mr. Romney is, at base, an empathetic and caring man.
Snippets of the video of Mr. Romney were posted online Monday afternoon by Mother Jones, a liberal magazine, which said it had obtained the recording and had confirmed its authenticity. The magazine said it was concealing the identity of the person who had recorded the video and the location and time of the recording.
The author of the Mother Jones article, David Corn, said on MSNBC that the video was shot on May 17 at the Boca Raton, Fla., home of Marc Leder, a financier, who held a $50,000-a-person fund-raiser for Mr. Romney that night.
In one clip, Mr. Romney describes how his campaign would not try to appeal to “47 percent of the people” who will vote for Mr. Obama “no matter what.” They are, he says, “dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them.”
He says those people “pay no income tax,” and “so our message of low taxes doesn’t connect.” Mr. Romney adds: “My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
The comments were much more stark than Mr. Romney’s usual remarks, though he typically talks in public about supporters of Mr. Obama’s wanting big government to take care of their problems. He often accuses Mr. Obama and his supporters of wanting to bring a European-style socialism to the United States. In the video clips, Mr. Romney says his campaign is concentrating on the “5 to 10 percent in the center” whom he described as “thoughtful” voters.
Mr. Romney addressed the video, somewhat awkwardly, at a fund-raiser Monday night in Costa Mesa, Calif., summoning reporters with a few moments’ notice to walk through the Segerstrom Center for the Arts, which was filled with guests sipping drinks at tables elegantly draped in blue cloths.
Mr. Romney said his comments addressed “a question about direction for the country: Do you believe in a government-centered society that provides more and more benefits? Or do you believe instead in a free-enterprise society where people are able to pursue their dreams?”
Asked whether he delivers different, starker messages to wealthy donors than he does to ordinary voters at campaign rallies, Mr. Romney said he was offering the same message, though he has never used the language in the video at a public event.
But Mr. Romney acknowledged that he wanted to offer donors a candid sense of his strategy, given the role they play in his campaign. “That’s something which fund-raising people who are parting with their monies are very interested in — knowing can you win or not and that’s what this was addressing,” he said.
Mr. Romney, who has been under fire for releasing only two years of his tax returns, was quickly attacked by the Obama campaign. Jim Messina, Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, said in a statement Monday evening that it was “shocking” that Mr. Romney would “go behind closed doors” to describe nearly half of the country in such terms.
Late Monday night, Mr. Messina sent out a fund-raising appeal to Mr. Obama’s supporters, saying that someone “who demonstrates such disgust and disdain for half of our fellow Americans” does not deserve to be president.
Mr. Romney is not the first presidential candidate to be caught speaking candidly at a fund-raiser. Four years ago during the Democratic primary campaign, The Huffington Post published Mr. Obama’s remarks at a San Francisco fund-raiser, saying small-town Pennsylvania voters, bitter over their economic circumstances, “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them” as a way to explain their frustrations.
The Romney video was unearthed apparently with help from James Carter, a grandson of former President Jimmy Carter. Mr. Carter, who lists “oppo researcher” on his Twitter bio, told New York Magazine that he had helped find the videos and get them to Mr. Corn. He is credited with “research assistance” on the Mother Jones Web site. Mr. Romney has repeatedly compared Mr. Obama to President Carter, suggesting both were failures.
In an audio clip posted online from the same fund-raiser, apparently by the person who gave the videos to Mother Jones, Mr. Romney is heard joking that he would have an easier time winning the election if his father had been born to Mexican parents.
“My dad, as you probably know, was the governor of Michigan and was the head of a car company,” Mr. Romney says in the audio clip. “But he was born in Mexico, and, uh, had he been born of, uh, Mexican parents, I’d have a better shot at winning this.”
But the most striking part of the video is Mr. Romney’s characterization of nearly half of the country. His assessment of the “47 percent” echoes a line of conservative thinking that is championed by his running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin. Mr. Ryan has long argued that nearly half of the people in America are either “dependent” or “reliant” on the federal government.
Mr. Romney’s figure of 47 percent comes from the Tax Policy Center, which found that 46.4 percent of households paid no federal income tax in 2011.
But most households did pay payroll taxes. Of the 18.1 percent of households that paid neither income taxes nor payroll taxes, the center found that more than half were elderly and more than a third were not elderly but had income under $20,000. Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the center, wrote in a blog post last summer that about half of those were off the rolls because they had low incomes.
your original argument was the "silver spoon" designation and you cited the mitt giving away his inheritance as proof. unfortunately, the mitt was close to 50 when his father died and WAS 50 when he got the inheritance (which he gave away, in his own words, because he figured they already "had enough"). a portion went byu, a tax write off, the rest went to his kids, another tax dodge. as for the mitt, he was a governor's son, raised in bloomfield hills, went to cranbook...that's a pretty silver spoon background. and self made?
by the way, i've got a bridge i'll sell you really cheap, tootsieroll.
Mitt Romney released his 2010 tax returns and an estimate for 2011 showing he is likely to pay $6.2 million on income of $42.5 million over the two-year period.
Romney's tax information -- covering more than 500 pages -- can be found on his website.
The tax records show Romney and his wife, Ann, paid an effective tax rate of 13.9% on their adjusted gross income in 2010. The estimate is 15.4% for 2011.
How does Romney's effective tax rate compare with other Americans? The average effective tax rate of American taxpayers is 11% on adjusted gross income, according to an analysis by the non-partisan Tax Foundation. Millionaires pay about about 25%, the foundation says.
President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama paid about $454,000 in federal taxes in 2010 on adjusted gross income of about $1.73 million. That translates to an effective tax rate of about 26%.
Romney Says "I Didn't Inherit Money From My Parents." Really?
—By Nick Baumann
| Thu Jan. 19, 2012 7:30 PM PSTTweet.At Thursday night's Republican primary debate on CNN, Mitt Romney told the audience he "didn't inherit money from my parents." Romney's dad, George Romney, was the CEO of the American Motors Company and governor of Michigan during the 1960s, so it's hard to believe he didn't have money to bequeath his son Mitt. As it happens, the younger Romney explained what happened to his inheritance in more detail in an interview with Reuters in December [emphasis added]:
"What I got from my parents when they passed away I gave away to charity and to my kids. And so what I’ve earned has been earned through my education, my values, living in the greatest country in the world, through some luck and through hard work," he said.
Passing your inheritance on to your children is not the same as not inheriting money at all. And it actually makes me a bit curious: a common estate-tax reduction strategy known as a dynasty trust relies on skipping generations. Did Romney pass on his inheritance to his kids for tax reasons? It's hard to know without seeing his tax returns—and that's another reason why he should release them.
now, where ARE those pesky tax returns?
- "sugarbuns"
- "sugardoodle"
- "sugarsnatch"
Now THAT is humorous!
Thanks guys for the re-orientation of what can be taking this whole discussion all too seriously!
LMAO
The problem is that it's bad politics. Here's another poor Wall Street multimillionaire who isn't paying his fair share griping about how the working poor with kids aren't paying theirs, either. Considering that Mitt already has an empathy problem because of his enormous wealth, this doesn't sit well. And it also may not play well with key groups that the GOP needs to win the election: Notably female independent/middle class voters (soccer moms) and Hispanics. It plays OK with the GOP base, but the GOP base isn't going to win Mitt the election.
all i get is a 404 error page not found message with your link. probably a white house plot to keep "the truth" from getting out, right?
as far as comparing tax rates, what else can you base "fair share" on? if everyone is giving their fair share, rates SHOULD be comparable, regardless of where income is from. that's the whole idea behind INCOME tax.
if the mitt can afford to donate 15 million to the mormon church, wouldn't it follow that he'd have no problem paying taxes at a comparable rate...say, 31% like others in his income bracket? the people you cite as comparisons don't have nearly the private fortune that the mitt has so it would probably be a real problem for them to donate 15 million...whish has nothing to do with paying taxes, anyway, except in the form of deductions.
and glad you got a giggle at the wife crack, i did too! of course, SHE'D probably have a problem with you being on here, if she knew. what IS such a fine upstanding conservative such as yourself doing on here, anyway? i'm sure the mitt wouldn't approve.
here's a link to wiki bio of the mitt. son of a governor, attended cranbrook, lived in bloomfield hills...jesus, what an impoverished childhood!!! can't find any reference to him being st. francis of assisi and giving away his wealth, tho, maybe you can enlighten us. and his father worked for nixon! the apple don't fall far from the tree, do it, babydoll?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Mitt_romney
the posting came from a blog, don't remember which but it didn't have a byline. sweet of you to be so concerned! but there's a difference between plagarizing and redistributing informatin. if i had signed the posting as my work, that would be plagarizing. posting a video, lyrics or essay from another source is redistributing. happy to educate you on that point!
anyways, we found something we can agree on! i wish the mitt would use that clip in a commercial, also. boy, do i! romney pays 13.9% income tax...is that his fair share? gingrich, for contrast, pays 31%, the top percentile. funny how these things work.
the wife must have left for work early today, sweet cheeks, you're online already................
Have had numerous other people come to me with similar situations. You really get a view of the terrible situation people are in when it comes to their tax returns.
I have nothing against EITC - just that we relate it to tax returns when it is welfare - pure and simple. I well know what people can do with EITC. Hell, I have people who plan whether to have another child or not based on how much income they should have and how much EITC will mean on their tax return. My only point is that we should call it for what it is - it has NOTHING to do with income tax - rather, it has everything to do with redistribution and is welfare (by another name).
Contrary to the suggestion noted by another poster I do NOT like our tax system. It is "progressive" - meaning that people in the lower income brackets pay proportionately more in taxes. That makes the whole system unfair. Frankly, I think we should scrap the present system and do something like simply declare that any family with earned income of $25,000 or less do not even have to file. We need a bold new tax system in this country. I actually like the system in some other countries where what is earned is reported to the government and the government simply sends the taxpayer a bill. I like the simplicity of such a system - but these countries tend to be socialist and people pay more (because of the number of governmental programs provided to the people)... thus, the tax rates are considerably higher than in this country...
FWIIW
i'm interested in hearing more about your "welfare cadillac" family. are they paying taxes? if so, at what percentage level? the federal poverty guideline for a family of 5 is 26,170, so 45,000 is not a high income level. they must be fantastic money managers. also, if he's receiveing disability and she's receiving ssi, that indicates that they both have a solid work history in the past. did you ask them where they went on vacation? 2 weeks at disney world or 2 weeks at a family member's? and did you ask them their monthly payment on a new van? once again, they must be fantastic money managers. what does receiving the benefits which you have earned under federal law have to do with the entitlement mentality? i assume you receive some sort of pension...is that the entitlement mentality in action? you seem to think that anyone who is not au courant with tax law, as you are, is somehow morally inferior. could you explain why?
We have a country where something like 53% don't pay tax. As a tax preparer I find many examples in my tax office.
For example: The EITC (earned income tax credit) is a social program for redistribution via the tax system. It has nothing to do with taxes. I find it incredible that a person with $16,000 or so of earned income with three qualifying children can walk out of my tax office with about $6,000 refund (of course some small amount is tax withheld). This is using the tax system for welfare purposes. Let's call it what it is. I have nothing against welfare BUT I do have a problem with linking the tax system to the welfare system...
There are two kinds of credits on a personal tax return: refundable and non-refundable.
Non-refundable tax credits reduce tax liability. If because of income and family size a person is at zero tax liability the non-refundable credits won't work (one exception is some of the child tax credit may shift to the additional child tax credit and become refundable).
Refundable tax credits are based on their respective criteria and whether a person has tax withheld or not, can result in a refund. The two most notable are EITC and ACTC (additional child tax credit).
The tax system is but one indicator of an entitlement mentality in this country. I see it all the time at my tax table when I serve people wanting to file their tax return. People sit down (man and woman) and the woman whips out a fist full of social security cards. She says "here honey, you claim these two and I will claim these three..." At that point I take a few minutes to educate them about the realities of tax law. To begin with I need to know whether they are married or not... If not, that is fine but there can only be one head of household at the same residence. The next thing is the relationship of the kids to either or both of the people sitting in front of me... These are always difficult moments but they are real. The mentality is, for example, that "head of household" gets a person more money (not true). I always get a chuckle out of the person who declares "well, I am single but head of my house!" To that, I say "well, God bless you... but let's talk tax..."
I have no problem about using the tax code to get every cent I can legitimately put on a tax return. I just don't care for the tax code to be a giveaway program disguised as "tax" when it isn't...
In Michigan we have two credits: the homestead property tax credit and the home heating credit. Neither of these credits have anything to do with tax. They could as well be run by the welfare office as the tax office.
I have a good friend who inherited a house from his partner. He has been drawing unemployment now under the 100 month program here in Michigan. He gets food stamps and other welfare support. His case worker advised him that he didn't have to pay his property tax. He was advised "just let the payment day go by, then bring the invoice to me and we will pay your property tax for you..." This guy asked me "Carl, you don't have a problem with me getting this support do you?" To that question, I said "Hell no - if you are entitled I believe you should get every cent you can as long as you can."
Then I have the family who comes to me where the husband has zero income but receives disability from social security (he can't work). The wife receives SSI (supplemental security income) for some problem. They have three children and every one of them receives SSI. Their total income was almost $45,000. When they came to my office and wanted the Michigan credits I had to advise them they did not qualify. Their income was too high. They had just returned from vacation and drove to the tax office in a brand spanking new van! Draw your own conclusions about the entitlement mentality!
Speaking the truth can be difficult and not words one wants to hear or acknowledge. Yet, the truth is the truth. Time we face it. The consequences of believing that all is well when it isn't is dangerous. I wish we had more politicians who would truly speak the truth - as difficult as it might be to bear. We cannot go the way of Greece, Spain and others except at our peril.
FWIIW