2012 Tuesday: The Ames Straw Poll and Michele Bachmann’s executive non-experience
We’ve had a couple of debates, but the 2012 campaign will be truly under way next month when the Iowa Republican Party holds its famed Ames Straw Poll. Like the Iowa caucuses themselves, the straw poll has only limited predictive value when it comes to the GOP nomination: George H.W. Bush won the inaugural straw poll before the 1980 election, when he didn’t wind up with the nomination, and finished just third before the 1988 contest, when he did. Bob Dole tied for first when he ran and won the nomination in 1996, but John McCain captured the 2008 nomination despite finishing a miserable tenth in the straw poll. The only person to win the straw poll and the presidency was George W. Bush in 2000.
So why does the straw poll (which takes place 15 months before a presidential election in which there’s no incumbent Republican president) get so much attention? For the same reason the Iowa caucuses do: It provides a focus for the campaign in its early stages, and it can give a candidate momentum — which can then be seized or frittered away.
And going into next month’s contest, Michele Bachmann holds both the campaign’s focus and its momentum.
The Iowa native, who represents Minnesota in Congress, has surpassed Mitt Romney among likely caucus-goers in a poll conducted for the Iowa Republican. At 25 percent to 21 percent, her lead is just within the poll’s margin of error. But among the “most attentive voters,” she has a commanding 14-point lead over Romney (who, among those voters, also has Herman Cain and Tim Pawlenty nipping more closely at his heels). She also has, by far, the largest spread between her favorable and unfavorable ratings at a whopping 65 percentage points.
All of which means she’ll probably be taking more shots from her opponents over the next 31 days.
Pawlenty began — with a noticeably less strident criticism than the “Obamneycare” line he famously uttered and then retreated from a day later — by noting that Bachmann hasn’t been very successful in Congress at getting legislation passed and doesn’t have executive experience.
The first criticism is a little unfair. Until this January, Bachmann had only served in the minority party while Nancy Pelosi and Co. ruled the House of Representatives. Had Bachmann championed the kind of legislation that might have gotten through the Pelosi House, she probably wouldn’t have the kind of tea-party support that has made her a legitimate contender.
The executive experience criticism is much more on point. The Republicans rightly pilloried Barack Obama as a candidate for his lack of executive experience, and now he will be running as an incumbent at the end of his first term.
In fact, I don’t see how the GOP can hope to win if it doesn’t nominate someone without extensive executive experience, most likely as a governor. I think that’s a large part of why (former Massachusetts Gov.) Romney is leading most other polls, why (former Minnesota Gov.) Pawlenty still has a chance, why many Republicans wanted Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels to run and why many Republicans now want Texas Gov. Rick Perry to enter the race. Cain has executive experience of a different kind, in corporate America and at the Kansas City Federal Reserve, and it remains to be seen if voters will consider his resume on a par with those of past state governors.
Bachmann’s response to Pawlenty’s executive criticism — that executive experience is no help if the candidate produced “more of the same big government as usual” — might help her get by from now until the straw poll. But ultimately, I don’t think it is winning defense.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
105 comments Add your comment
Dearie
July 12th, 2011
2:21 pm
If your college age son had maxed out all his credit cards would you co-sign more credit cards for him?
pj
July 12th, 2011
2:23 pm
Jimmy62 – I agree with your thought, but please tell me – what is wrong with Obama’s plan of 85% spending cuts and 15% revenue increases? And if the House is so concerned with spending why did it vote to increase defense spending?
CJ
July 12th, 2011
2:27 pm
Your analogy doesn’t work, Dearie, because the government hasn’t maxed out its credit cards.
The debt limit is an artificial limit set by Congress, not by lenders. Lenders consider the U.S. government among the strongest credit risks in the world, as indicated by interest rates on treasury bonds that are near all time lows.
Linda
July 12th, 2011
2:34 pm
JF McNamara@1:56,
1. If all taxpayers earning $500K & more were taxed 100%, the additional revenues would be $1.3 T, still $350 B short of Obama’s current budget of $1.65 T, which the Democrats would raise to $2 T for more spending fun.
2. 2 of the agencies have put us on notice. If we default, interest rates would soar, which will worsen the economy.
3. We’ve already lost one of the largest buyers of our debt due to the devaluation of the dollar.
4. China has also warned us.
What I listen to &/or watch is none of your business.
Linda
July 12th, 2011
2:37 pm
pj, Where are you getting your information?
td
July 12th, 2011
2:38 pm
pj
July 12th, 2011
2:07 pm
Kyle – didn’t one of your previous columns on deficit reduction support a similar 3:1 ratio between spending cuts and revenue increases?
Where are the actual spending cuts coming from? Please name them so I can evaluate them and send a letter to my Republican Rep and Senators.
what??
July 12th, 2011
2:39 pm
Linda-
The answers are to tax everyone. The answer is a combination of both spending cuts and tax increases. Not just on the rich but on everyone.
And in all honesty, out of that 1.6 T ddeficit, 437 billion was due to an extension of the Bush tax cuts and the payroll holiday, roughly 4 to 600 billion was due to lost revenue because of the recession(comparing the avg rate of 18.5 5 of gdp to current rate of 15% of gdp tax collections) I actually think 399 billion is left over stimulus.
Just to put some real numbers out there.
td
July 12th, 2011
2:42 pm
Would you Dems on here please tell me how much taxes is enough? How much in % should each income group pay? ex: $1 Million in income, should they pay 40%, 50%, 60%? How much?
what??
July 12th, 2011
2:47 pm
td-
Are you talking about effective or marginal?
Federal or total, including state income tax.
Linda
July 12th, 2011
2:50 pm
what@2:39, Why is it that the Democrats’ answer to every problem is to raise taxes? Why is it that the national debt has increased every single, solitary year since 1950 (except for 3) even when taxes were sky high? Why is it that lower taxes result in higher tax revenues? What was it that John F. Kennedy said about taxes?
pj
July 12th, 2011
2:55 pm
Linda – the only time effective tax rates have been lower in the last 50 years has been between 1988 – 1992.
what??
July 12th, 2011
2:56 pm
Linda-
The same reason every republican automatically resorts to cutting spending, no matter what the case is.
Lets look at revenues, how long did it take Bush II tax receipts to equal Clinton’s. Even with Reagan, tax cuts always lead to short term deficits. I find it odd that right now you have the lowest collections since the 50’s but yet you don’t see a revenue problem. I’ll admit, havin a 3.6 trillion dollar budget is absurd. Now will you at least admit reveune should probably be around it’s historic average.
Since I wasn’t born in the 50’s i don’t know what the tax rates were, I would like to point out that in the past 30 years, the lowest debt added happened under clinton, who raised taxes to an appropriate level
pj
July 12th, 2011
2:57 pm
And Linda and TD, just read any news source – the house voted to INCREASE defense spending, and Obama’s cuts will mostly come from entitlements – something his liberal base is screaming about.
Linda
July 12th, 2011
3:01 pm
td@2:42, The question is how many months per year should each taxpayer work to pay the federal, state & local governments? Should some taxpayers work to pay the government longer than other workers?
30% takes 3.6 mts.
40% takes 4.8 mts.
50% takes 6 mts.
60% takes 7.2 mts.
Why do Democrats favor punishing success & working hard?
kookyville....
July 12th, 2011
3:01 pm
this woman comes from kookyville. “christian, clinical, counseling”…..sounds like something the reverend moon might try. can you say CULT
for someone who professes to be down on government, passing a marriage amendment sure does sound like government trying to tell people what to do.
she will fade fast the more she opens her mouth and the more that normal people see who she really is. for now the repucklican fanatics are eating her up….woohoo
td
July 12th, 2011
3:04 pm
what??
July 12th, 2011
2:47 pm
td-
Are you talking about effective or marginal?
Federal or total, including state income tax.
All of the above would be great. I would like to see Federal, pay roll, State, local. Should it be above or below 50%?
what??
July 12th, 2011
3:05 pm
Linda-
Why do Democrats favor punishing success & working hard?
That’s bs and you know it. What other country can you achieve the level of success you achieve in America. Heck, the cast from the Jersey Shore are all millionaires. At no level in the tax codes do you make less when you go up to the next tax brackets, so your work is rewarded even though your tax rate went up. And even then, with all the loopholes, you still may pay a lower rate than those who make less.
td
July 12th, 2011
3:05 pm
pj
July 12th, 2011
2:57 pm
And Linda and TD, just read any news source – the house voted to INCREASE defense spending, and Obama’s cuts will mostly come from entitlements – something his liberal base is screaming about.
Is that actual money currently spent on entitlements or is it future expected increases?
fair and imbalanced
July 12th, 2011
3:06 pm
Isn’t she one of the founding mothers?
So?
July 12th, 2011
3:08 pm
Bachmann is a raging hypocrite. She blasts Medicare, but takes hundreds of thousands of dollars of Medicare money to prop up her clinic that tries to cure gay people. Her massive and very lucrative family farm is awash in federal subsidy money, but she blasts welfare and government handouts. Also, Bachmann pushed legislation to freeze what she calls “unconscionable” federal salaries. Meanwhile, her own payroll jumped 16 percent between 2007, when she came to Congress, and 2009.
She is your typical Republican — do as I say, not as I do.
what??
July 12th, 2011
3:09 pm
td-
it should definately be below 50. And most peoples are.
Even if you are in the top marginal brackets, your effective rate averages 25%. In GA the top marginal rate is 6, so assuming you pay all that, you are at 31%. SSI and Medicare are actually reducing you taxed income so that 7% number is washed out through your standard deduction.
td
July 12th, 2011
3:13 pm
what??
July 12th, 2011
3:09 pm
What about sales, property and capital gains taxes? Would that not raise your total to around 40%?
what??
July 12th, 2011
3:22 pm
td- Capital gains taxes are actually computed in the effective rate. So that 25% included that already.
Property and sales are based on county. echnically, you chose how much property tax you pay by how much house you by, that’s really not a compnent of income taxes, but most property taxes are proabably less than 5% of you income. For instance, in cobb on a 200k house(no homestead) you pay about 2500. if you make 50k that’s 5 %, but you probably wouldn’t be able to afford that much house any way. Sales tax is up to you, compare your total spend yearly times about 6 %.
Dave R.
July 12th, 2011
3:28 pm
No one has been elected to President from the House in recent history.
Ain’t gonna happen this time, either.
She’ll hang in longer than Pawlenty does, however.
td
July 12th, 2011
3:29 pm
what??
July 12th, 2011
3:22 pm
I would like to know where you got your figures from? I know I am middle class and effectively pay more than 25% of my gross income into supporting Federal, state and local taxes.
DJ Sniper
July 12th, 2011
3:31 pm
I’m still trying to figure out why anybody would support Michele Bachmann and her particular brand of bats**tery. First off, I haven’t heard one single thing from her as to how she would make this country better as POTUS. All I hear from her is one talking point after another: make Obama a one term president, repeal Obamacare, don’t raise the debt ceiling, etc etc. We all know how she believes in a revisionist version of history (I was through with her after the comment about the Founding Fathers working to end slavery), and her hatred for gays is very disturbing. It’s one thing if you don’t agree with homosexuality, but she takes it to a completely different level.
Speaking of that, I really want the dirt to come out about her husband and his “pray away the gay” methods that he practices at his clinic (a Christian clinic that gets funding from Medicaid). I’m sure there are shenanigans afoot.
what??
July 12th, 2011
3:36 pm
td-
Effective on federal taxes, not all taxes. I literally just set here and broke down every different tax.
The average is 25 %
How much was your income and how much did you pay in taxes on your 1040. Calculate that percentage and that is your effective rate.
td
July 12th, 2011
3:43 pm
what??
July 12th, 2011
3:22 pm
I found the below website giving the actual IRS numbers. The top 1% of income earners pays on average 23.27% of their AGI in Federal taxes. They also pay 38.02% of all Federal income taxes paid while making 20% of the money each year. In contrast the bottom 50% of taxpayers pays an average of 2.59% of all Federal income taxes paid while making 12.57% of the money.
Check out the website I am not sure if your numbers for total taxes paid would jive with the IRS’s.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
Linda
July 12th, 2011
3:48 pm
what@2:56,
1. How long did it take Bush II tax receipts to equal Clinton’s? Bush’s tax receipts exceeded Clinton’s tax receipts every single solitary year.
2. The tax collections in ‘09 & ‘10 & projected for ‘11 are higher than those in ‘00-’04. The highest revenues under Bush were $2.568 T in ‘07. They were $2.524 T in ‘08. The revenues for ‘09 were only $419 B less than ‘08, for ‘10 were $361 B less & projected to be only $347 B less this FY.
3. We have the lowest revenues since the ’50s? The US is expected to spend $3.819 T this year. The revenues from 1950 were $39.4 B. That means we will have a deficit of $3.379.4 T? Who wrote that budget? Is that what you call 100% financing?
4. The past 30 years means 1971. That’s also untrue. The debt was $371 B in 1971. Clinton added $1.61 T to the debt.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
what??
July 12th, 2011
3:50 pm
td-
I’m not sure you are understanding me.
Your link actually meant my number was high. I said the average effective rate was roughly 25% for federal taxes.
Your link says the top 1% pay roughly 23.27% of their agi in federal taxes. If they only pay 23% and they have the highest bracket, wouldn’t it make sense that those under them would be lower. I’m not sure what you ar trying to get at??
td
July 12th, 2011
3:53 pm
what??
July 12th, 2011
3:36 pm
According to the numbers from the IRS website I pay 15.68% of my AGI in Federal taxes. I paid another 5% to Georgia and 3% in property taxes. I looked at my purchases and it added up around another 5% in sales tax, tag tax, Phone tax, cable tax ect. That is about 28% of my total gross income going to the government. Is that enough? I personally think it is too much to pay and think if 10% is good enough for God then it should be good enough for the Government. Just my thoughts.
td
July 12th, 2011
3:58 pm
what??
July 12th, 2011
3:50 pm
I am talking about total taxes paid for total government services. Federal, state, local. We as Americans average paying more than 25% of our Gross income to the government. This is not including the hidden taxes we pay in the prices of goods and services from corporations that just pass them onto the consumer.
wayne
July 12th, 2011
4:03 pm
Iowa, the home of the religious right, is famous for misleading the serious candidates. Just let Bachmann talk and let the electorate of the Corn Cob State vote for her…thereafter, she’ll fall on her face. Hint; To hasten the process, ask her a US history question and you’ll get a hilarious answer. But wait til she’s out of Iowa….no one in that state will know the answer, either.
what??
July 12th, 2011
4:06 pm
Linda-
Bush’s tax receipts exceeded Clinton’s tax receipts every single solitary year
uhmm did you read that chart correct? The column next to it was adjusted for 2005 dollars. Clinton’s last year was 2136, Bush didn’t meet that in 2002, 2003(year of tax cuts) or 2004. Heck, 2005 barely surpassed Clinton’s last year. Which exactly was my point, tax cuts(without approriate spending corrections) lead to short term deficits.
and uhmm
Point 2- i don’t know where you got that data from but using your own chart, from 1992 to 1999(Gave Bush the credit for that one), I calculated new debt at 846.6 billion. In all honesty, if I took out 1992(Bush 1’s budget) and added 2000(Clinton’s last budget), his debt would have been lower. Feel free to compare that to Reagan..
point 3- it was as a percentage of gdp..not actual collections….
point 4-
ok…was that not the lowest added in 30 years…( I actually doubt that number being correct but if you say so.)
Linda
July 12th, 2011
4:09 pm
what@3:05 Income taxes punish income.
Progressive income taxes punish success.
If America is the best country to achieve levels of success, why are corporations moving to other countries & out-sourcing jobs? Why are they not bringing their corporate profits back to the US?
Simplified, a couple making $65,000 pays 15% or $9750 in taxes, but a couple making $70,000 pays 25% or $17,500 in taxes. The loopholes do not apply any more to a 25% bracket than they do to a 15% bracket.
Mike
July 12th, 2011
4:13 pm
How many people realize that while she rails against the tax structure and IRS, she at one time was a litigation attorney FOR the IRS.
Mike
July 12th, 2011
4:14 pm
Linda, since the tax rates are incremental, your numbers are totally incorrect. Please check your facts before posting
David Staples
July 12th, 2011
4:17 pm
Gary Johnson is a former Governor of New Mexico and actually cut the size of government there. If people are serious about wanting the government to cut spending and wanting someone with real executive experience, they need to take a look at Gary Johnson.
what??
July 12th, 2011
4:19 pm
Linda-
I own a business. Which number do you think is higher, my taxes or my payroll.
I would outsource to if I could, I could reduce payroll cost by about 60 to 70% and still have the sema effectiveness. Thats all bottom line. I see you don’t run a business. As a business owner, taxes probably make up less than 5% of my business decision, seeing as how they are after I generate a profit.
And I don’t even know what that second part of your post was. Is that a hypothetical situation. Or you saying to just go to a simplified rate? Cause the tax code is on a step up progressive basis. It’s not a flat 25%.
td
July 12th, 2011
4:33 pm
what??
July 12th, 2011
4:19 pm
Since you are a business owner can you please tell us how you pass own you tax burden to the consumers of your product or services? Are the taxes you pay built into the prices you charge?
Linda
July 12th, 2011
4:39 pm
what@4:06,
1. Regardless of whether you use the first column or the adjusted column, the answer to your question is the same: tax revenues went up the 1st year Bush was in office. If you want to use Clinton’s last year as $2.136 T, then Bush’s first year was $2.31 T.
2. This was about your claim regarding revenues, not debt.
3. You said “collections.” You did not say “collections as a percentage of GDP.
4. See for yourself:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
what??
July 12th, 2011
4:39 pm
Enter your comments heretd-
By that argument then, what do I care about a corporate tax rate if I just pass them on to my consumer.
Depending on the company, on a micro level taxes have to be included in cost(cost accounting) If you are pricing a product or a service, then you should consider that in pricing.
Linda
July 12th, 2011
4:42 pm
what@4:06, Here’s the other page to see Clinton’s last year & the most recent years:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
td
July 12th, 2011
4:42 pm
what??
July 12th, 2011
4:39 pm
Enter your comments heretd-
By that argument then, what do I care about a corporate tax rate if I just pass them on to my consumer
Because it effects the price point and at a certain amount then the demand for the product or service is going to go down or go to a cheaper (overseas) source.
Martin Williams
July 12th, 2011
4:47 pm
Mrs. Bachmann I thought is a smart person until she signed that pledge about children born to a man and woman during slavery are better off than children born to an African American man and woman of today. How can she be so damn stupid to sign something like that and she wants to be president of the United States. The conservative group that wrote that pledge are just a bunch of very stupid people. Wish I have a better word to replace stupid. This country needs another civil war and I see it coming.
Linda
July 12th, 2011
4:48 pm
Mike@4:14, Here’s the marginal tax brackets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States
don
July 12th, 2011
4:55 pm
Linda: Standard and Poor said that the mortgage derivatives were sound investments. I don’t think we need to make policy based on what they say.
And Jimmmy: “If we take every dollar from every rich person in the US, we will still be left with a huge debt.” Completely irrelevant and nonsensical. Nobody is saying that we’re going to pay the deficit off overnight. Higher taxes on the rich, who have made out like bandits, and gamed the tax system for their benefit, HAVE to be part of the equation.
Linda
July 12th, 2011
5:05 pm
what@4:19, You can see that I don’t run a business? You are seeing things. I’ve been self-employed since 1977 filing on my personal tax return. My husband has been an employee but mostly self-employed, filing on our personal return as well as corporate returns. He incorporated twice to avoid liability.
The second part of my post @4:09 was to emphasize that, according to the ‘10 income tax brackets, a married couple filing jointly would be in a 15% bracket up to $68,000 & in a 25% bracket above $68,000. Read your last 2 sentences @ 3:05.
what??
July 12th, 2011
5:06 pm
linda-
i actually think you are digging a hole for yourself. Bush tax cuts didn’t take place until 2001. So your 2.31 number is based on the Clinton Rates.
2. You are correct, I addressed it wrong. So you are admitting that there is a revenue problem as well then.(My point was that there was a steep drop off in revenue due to the recession)
3. You are right, i did say collections. But i figured you wouldn’t think I would compare the econom in the 50’s to today.
4. Then your two links are giving contradictory information.
what??
July 12th, 2011
5:13 pm
Linda-
i see what you are referring to at 3:05.
When I said pay, I was referring to your effective rate. Thats what I meant when I said you still may end up paying a lower rate.
Calculate the actual tax on your two scenarios( i swear if you take 25% of 68,000 you lose all credibility). I would recommend the RIS table and then compare the effective rate.