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
Jefferson
July 12th, 2011
11:43 am
What matters is do any of them care about America, or they care about being elected ?
GTT
July 12th, 2011
11:45 am
uno?
GTT
July 12th, 2011
11:45 am
nope
Bart Abel
July 12th, 2011
11:48 am
Michelle Bachmann recently announced that she will definitely vote against raising the debt ceiling.
In other words, Michelle Bachmann will definitely vote for the U.S. to default on its debts. Bachmann will definitely vote to throw us, and the world, into another recession and perhaps a depression. Bachmann will definitely vote to throw millions out of work. Bachmann will definitely vote to throw millions out of their homes. Bachmann will definitely vote for higher interest rates on consumers and businesses. Bachmann will definitely vote for a scenario in which social security payments could immediately get cut, health care for veterans and seniors will be compromised, and our entire economic infrastructure put at risk.
We’re about three weeks away from a 100 percent man-made, easily preventable, economic catastrophe. All Congress has to do is what Democratic and Republican Congresses have done dozens of times before without fanfare…raise the debt ceiling to prevent default. It’s a minor housekeeping item that could be done by the end of today if they wanted. But Bachmann, among many others in her party, doesn’t want to raise the debt ceiling. Period.
This is the person who has momentum in the Republican presidential primaries? We’re in big trouble.
Jimmy62
July 12th, 2011
11:50 am
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Bachmann actually run a company that had a payroll to meet? That’s all the executive experience I’m worried about. Obama never had that, and I think it shows in his lack of understanding of small business owners and people who aren’t desperately poor, but still depend on their regular paychecks to get by.
td
July 12th, 2011
12:36 pm
Bart Abel
July 12th, 2011
11:48 am
My children are already going to have to pay off the debt created by this selfish generation and now you are asking for my unborn grandchildren to pay as well? Great attitude. As long as I get mine.
Bart Abel
July 12th, 2011
12:51 pm
td,
You write about your children having to “pay off the debt”. What Republicans are threatening is not to pay off debt, but to DEFAULT on our debt. Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, and now Italy are doing everything possible to avoid going into default. In contrast, Republicans are threatening to cause the U.S. to default on its debt…on purpose.
Chris Matthews
July 12th, 2011
12:52 pm
Maybe we can find another community organizer again! Obama never passed a bill, paid a payroll or ever hung out with normal Americans! All his friends were radicals! He was raised by Marists and grewup as a Muslim and used cocaine! Far cry from Washington and Lincoln!! How can anyone judge the current crop of wanta-bees!
Jim Crowe
July 12th, 2011
12:53 pm
Is Bachmann the one that thought she was a witch or was that another one?
Linda
July 12th, 2011
12:53 pm
Democrats posting here yesterday & today don’t understand the problem facing America today.
Standard & Poor came out 4/11 & gave the US a 2-year deadline to enact “meaningful change.” The US, compared to the other 18 countries with a AAA credit rating, has “…very large budget deficits & rising government indebtedness..Debt ceiling was not mentioned in Standard & Poor (press) release or on a conference call with their analysts.”
In June, Moody’s issued a warning that the US “govt.’s Triple A rating could be cut if ’substantial’ deficit reduction hasn’t occurred…The debt limit negotiations represent a real near-term opportunity for agreement on a plan for fiscal consolidation.”
The problem is with the debt & adding over $1.5 T to it every year & borrowing 40 cents of every dollar the fed. govt. is spending. What this means, simplified, is that 40% of the fed. govt. must be cut, just to break even. An additional 10% must be eliminated to begin paying down the debt. Raising taxes will not solve the problem. We need more people employed, paying taxes, but the economy is not likely to recover & unemployment will likely remain high until the debt problem is resolved.
The debt ceiling will need to be raised, but only temporarily & only one more time, as an emergency, but under no circumstances should it be raised until a concrete plan is in place to address the real problem. Reductions in spending must begin with cuts from FY11.
Jim Crowe
July 12th, 2011
12:54 pm
He was raised by Marists and grewup as a Muslim and used cocaine
You forgot to mention he is black. And that’s really the problem now isn’t it.
hatorade drinkers
July 12th, 2011
12:54 pm
do you really think bachmann understands the implications of a default? of the many times the debt ceiling increase has been approved over the last 10 years, how did she vote? what is different now? and would we be having this discussion if the current president was from her own party?
jconservative
July 12th, 2011
12:55 pm
“Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Bachmann actually run a company that had a payroll to meet?”
Yes.
“Bachmann and her husband own a Christian counseling practice named Bachmann & Associates. Their clinic, run by her husband, who has a PhD in clinical psychology from Union Graduate School,…” From Wikipedia
ByteMe
July 12th, 2011
1:00 pm
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.
Just wait ’til independents find out that Mr. Bachmann runs a counseling firm that uses scripture to try to “cure” gays. Think that won’t show up on the comedy shows?
ByteMe
July 12th, 2011
1:00 pm
jconservative, thanks for the awesome lead-in.
I'm the Prez
July 12th, 2011
1:01 pm
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE LET THIS WOMAN WIN THE NOMINATION.
DID I SAY PLEASE.
PUH-UH-UH-LEEZ!!!!!!!
Filter
July 12th, 2011
1:04 pm
Thanks Linda. It’s so reassuring to k now that we stupid people have all you republicans to educate the rest of us since we can’t possibly have a different view of things without you guys ’splaining to us how ignorant we really are.
Thanks so very much.
DC Dawg
July 12th, 2011
1:07 pm
Speaking of Ms. Bachmann … According to a new study by Jim Kouri, vice president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, politicians have the same personality traits as psychopathic serial killers. These traits include superficial charm, an exaggerated sense of self-worth, glibness, lying, lack of remorse, and manipulation of others. In reaching his conclusion, Kouri utilized data drawn from the FBI’s behavioral analysis unit and his law enforcement experience.
DC Dawg
July 12th, 2011
1:12 pm
Here’s the link to the Kuori study: http://www.examiner.com/law-enforcement-in-national/serial-killers-and-politicians-share-traits
CJ
July 12th, 2011
1:12 pm
Linda: “…under no circumstances should [the debt ceiling] be raised until…”
In other words, Linda advocates that at some point the U.S. should refuse to pay its debts and deliberately create a global economic catastrophe if certain Republican demands aren’t met (thereby causing S&P and Moody’s to immediately lower the U.S. debt rating to junk).
Pay the ransom or the hostage gets it. Got it.
arnold
July 12th, 2011
1:14 pm
I’m just waiting for Glen Beck and Nancy Grace to produce an offspring together that will grow up and run for President. Now that will be fun to watch. I should live so long.
Linda
July 12th, 2011
1:14 pm
Filter@1:01, You’re so very welcome.
DawgDad
July 12th, 2011
1:14 pm
“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.”
First, I think you mean “with”. Second, didn’t you learn ANYTHING in the 2008 election?
If the GOP wants to win back the White House they need (1) a candidate who will energize the base, especially the Tea Party types, (2) a candidate who can hold fort with the GOP establishment, and (3) a candidate who can appeal to just enough independent voters, many of whom voted irrationally on emotion in the last election.
Barack Obama won largely because he convinced many people to vote FOR him and his “vision”, regardless of who or what he really was. The GOP needs to redevelop what they ultimately threw away under Bush, the vision AND reality of a party serving the interests of the American people by promoting and maintaining America as a land of opportunity and freedom under Constitutional Law and limited government. Foreign or “too big to fail” banking/financial interests and corporate fascists/corporate welfare addicts don’t fit in that equation.
what??
July 12th, 2011
1:15 pm
Linda is right, running 1.5 trillion dollar deficits every year isn’t good. However the route to reduce it is where the argument lies. As much as you insistence that spending is a problem, if you look at the revenue brought in, you would see it’s at historic lows. As a business owner, I have yet to see how reducing government spending by 1 trillion dollars in a year affects my business. If anything, any employes that work for the government will be without a job, which actually hurts the economy.
Sanpete
July 12th, 2011
1:17 pm
Why hasn’t anybody attacked Bachman’s religion? It is just as crazy in not crazier than Mormonism. The Wisconsin Synod is nuts. They really believe the universe was created in six days!!! If you are going to attack Mormonism then you also need to attack other religions.
Sanpete
July 12th, 2011
1:19 pm
The Wisconsin Synod is also way more anti female than the Mormon religion. They are not suppose to lead in any way in the Wisconsin Synod Lutheran Church. They are nuts.
arnold
July 12th, 2011
1:20 pm
“The Wisconsin Synod is nuts. They really believe the universe was created in six days!!!” It’s not just Wisconsin. We have that belief system right here in Georgia. Actually most anywhere in the rural south.
yuzeyurbrane
July 12th, 2011
1:22 pm
Excellent analysis of Republican politics. Only pt. not really touched upon is charisma. Whatever you think about her, she has more than all other announced candidates combined. But is it enough to win?
Check these stats
July 12th, 2011
1:23 pm
W ran a business and met a payroll too. The name of it was el Busto. You see how that and his presidency worked out.
A so-called fiscal conservative would rather default on the nation’s debt than end subsidies to the richest corporations in the world. Go figure.
pj
July 12th, 2011
1:26 pm
Help me understand this – Obama’s package is about 85% spending cuts and 15% revennue increases. And the revenue gains won’t take place until 2013. The R’s got cuts to SS and other entitlements, then they just voted to increase the defense budget. Now what is the problem? What are the R’s giving up?
Linda
July 12th, 2011
1:26 pm
CJ@1:12, I’m sorry you disagree or don’t understand the warnings from the 2 credit agencies. Their fear is NOT the govt.’s REFUSAL to pay its debts, but rather the govt.’s INABILITY to pay its debts. The US is insolvent today, that is, unless we begin selling buildings & land. We are broke & in debt up to the dome of the Lincoln Memorial. We’ve been warned, even by Obama’s own Debt Commission, that our debt is the greatest threat to our national security. Congress is addicted to spending & China is its supplier & laughing all the way to the bank.
DawgDad
July 12th, 2011
1:30 pm
Check: It’s not an “either-or” proposition. If you believe it is, then we are on a downward spiral economically that cannot be reversed. History tells me that is not the case.
CJ
July 12th, 2011
1:36 pm
Linda,
The U.S. is NOT insolvent today. If we were, our debt rating would already have been degraded and the interest rates on our treasury bonds would be at an all time high. In fact, they’re at or near an all time low.
Insolvency entails not being able to pay our debts. That’s very different from choosing not to pay our debts…out of spite. The two credit agencies have warned that if we CHOOSE not to pay our debts (i.e., refuse to raise the debt ceiling), then our debt rating will go down immediately, meaning interest rates will rise immediately.
You are advocating for deliberately causing the damage that you claim to want to avoid.
what??
July 12th, 2011
1:39 pm
Linda-
But isn’t a vote to not raise the debt ceiling effectively the inability to pay the US debt?
pj
July 12th, 2011
1:39 pm
Kyle – back to the main topic. What happens if Bachman wins Iowa, finishes 2nd in N.H, and then wins South Carolina. (not totally crazy scenarios.) Who does that knock out of the race?
Steve
July 12th, 2011
1:40 pm
She’s blatantly homophobic, her closeted gay effeminate husband runs a clinic to “cure” gays – this woman is a freaking trainwreck. She’ll appeal to the ignorant, racist blue-collar crowd, but luckily that crowd is not the majority.
Check these stats
July 12th, 2011
1:41 pm
DawgDad- The debt ceiling was raised 7 times with no strings attached by hear same republicans. They included all of these stipulations for spending cuts. They’re getting 83-85%,spending cuts for only 17% tax increases, of which the majority are ending tax subsidies. Compromise isn’t saying no unless you get 100% of what you want. Even though republicans in the past have raised the debt ceiling in the past as stand alone legislation.
Pongo
July 12th, 2011
1:45 pm
Trying to get today’s Republican to compromise and agree to anything for the good of the nation is like trying to get the Taliban to recognize that girls and women are equal. Just like the Taliban they would rather destroy their country than reach any sort of compromise,so that they can get or maintain their grip on power. I hope they go down in flames in 2012.
Bart Abel
July 12th, 2011
1:45 pm
what?? at 1:39:
Linda doesn’t know the answer to your question. If she did, she’d be calling her Congressman and Senators right now demanding that they raise the debt ceiling immediately, with no strings attached, as Republican and Democratic Congress have done for decades under Republican and Democratic presidents.
Linda
July 12th, 2011
1:46 pm
CJ@1:36, If the US is not insolvent, then why do we owe $14.5 T & why don’t we just pay it off? Why do we also owe another $114.6 T in unfunded liabilities to social security, drugs & Medicare?
You are wrong about the 2 credit agencies. Neither one mentioned the debt ceiling. Both addressed the REAL problem: the DEBT.
The Democrats need to take the advice of Clint Eastwood, “A good man always knows his limitations.” The US has surpassed ours.
Linda
July 12th, 2011
1:50 pm
what@1:39, No. Geitner claims the fed. govt. will default on the debt 8/2 if the ceiling isn’t raised. If Obama really believed that, why is he holding out for increasing taxes on the billionaires making $200,000 in 2013?
Kyle Wingfield
July 12th, 2011
1:51 pm
CJ @ 1:36: Not raising the debt ceiling is not the same thing as choosing not to pay our debts. We bring in more revenue each year than the interest payments on our debt require (which is the real reason Linda is incorrect to declare the U.S. government insolvent). We do not bring in enough revenue to maintain current spending levels *and* make our debt payments (actually, I could have ended that sentence after “levels”). Now, arguably there would be a price, perhaps too large a price, to pay for going that route; that’s a related but different debate. It is inaccurate, however, to say that we necessarily won’t pay our debts if we don’t raise the debt ceiling.
pj @ 1:39: Depends on who finishes where in those states. But it’s most likely that Pawlenty and Cain would be finished in your scenario. Huntsman, too, unless N.H. voters somehow put him and Bachmann above Romney (extremely unlikely imo).
Romney will have the money to keep going, especially if he wins N.H. Perry, if he runs, would also probably still be viable, especially if he were a strong second in S.C.
what??
July 12th, 2011
1:52 pm
Linda-
By your own account whenever I have debt I’m insolvent. Well just about every homeowner in the US is insolvent.
And this concept of unfunded liabilities make me wonder if people understand what they are. It’s projecting current revenues on futere expense. Of course they would be unfunded. If you are project right now we have 1 million seniors and comparing that to the revenue we bring in now. In all honesty, as an accountant it violates the matching principle and is non GAAP.
JF McNamara
July 12th, 2011
1:56 pm
Linda,
I think you are the one who is confused.
1. Raising taxes will solve the problem. If you have more revenue, that means that you reduce the debt so long as you don’t add any additional spending. That’s basic math.
2. We have the highest possible credit rating. Even if our credit rating is downgraded, we are still one of the most investment worthy places in the world. Its not a Good/Bad switch. There are levels to the rating, and we are at (virtually) no risk of default. If we were, our debt rating would already be much lower. This article contains a chart with the current ratings of every country.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/30/credit-ratings-country-fitch-moodys-standard
3. In a way, the debt rating doesn’t matter. What does matter is how much we can sell our debt for at the bond auctions. There is a huge appetite for American debt, because we are still the most stable and largest investment vehicle in the world. Look at the prices at the bond markets. They are low and stable.
4. Where people buy bonds also has a lot to do with the relative strength of economies. The U.S. is stronger than any other country in the world especially to China who is the primary borrower. They have nowhere else to invest.
This whole issue about the debt ceiling is completely dumb. Do we need to stop spending recklessly, absolutely. Do we need to not pay our bills to do so, No.
Its more panic politics, and you’re one of the people who fall into the trap continuously. Stop listening at the radio and TV so much. The real data is out there, and its saying that our debt right now is really much ado about nothing.
CJ
July 12th, 2011
2:06 pm
Kyle,
I stand corrected.
Not raising the debt ceiling is choice not pay social security checks, Medicare bills, our troops, air traffic controllers, homeland security personnel, federal judges and staff, CDC epidemiologists, SEC auditors, FDA scientists, and/or many others or default on our debt or a combination of these bad options. The result is the same: economic calamity.
We agree that there would be a price to pay.
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?
Linda
July 12th, 2011
2:08 pm
what@1:51, I have a different definition of insolvency that most people. My parents never paid a dime of interest & believed interest was income rather than an expense. The only interest I have ever paid was on two houses.
Bart Abel
July 12th, 2011
2:15 pm
what?? at 1:52,
Great point! When adding my mortgage to my car loan, my personal debt is 155 percent of my annual income…relatively low compared to many others. Yet, somehow, I’m not insolvent. In fact, I’m doing pretty good.
When people say that we should run our government like we run our households and businesses, they should remember that households and businesses borrow money to invest in their futures.
The government has had far larger amounts of debt in the past, measured as a portion of the size of the economy, and we were able to reduce the deficits, in part, by helping to grow the private sector with the investments that it made.
The government isn’t insolvent. I to am concerned about the size of our current deficits. Very concerned. But cutting spending and raising taxes aren’t the only options. Government can invest in the economy in such a way that the economy grows faster than the debt…as it has in the past. It’s all relative.
Filter
July 12th, 2011
2:19 pm
ummmmmm….Linda….definitions are definitions. They are what they are and aren’t subject to the whims of the person using them.
Opinions, well now that’s another issue entirely. But then again I don’t agree with everything you say so what can I possibly know.
Jimmy62
July 12th, 2011
2:20 pm
Raising taxes will not solve the problem. Unless we raise taxes on poor people (the ones who often don’t actually pay income taxes). If we take every dollar from every rich person in the US, we will still be left with a huge debt.
Revenue is not the problem and never has been. Spending is. Spending growth (i.e. the growth of government, which also means more control over our lives and less freedom) has far outstripped population growth+inflation. Please explain how that’s a revenue problem? That’s like me having a $40k/year job and buying a $4 million mansion, and saying my problem isn’t that I spent too much, it’s that I don’t make enough money! It’s a great way to end up homeless as an individual, or broke as a country. You gotta sell that house and live within your means, because it’s unrealistic to think you can immediately raise your income enough to pay for that mansion.
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.
Linda
July 12th, 2011
5:27 pm
don@4:55, If you went to the courthouse & looked at deeds to secure debt, could you decipher the ones from borrowers who had no income/jobs, bad credit & no down payment from those who were AAA borrowers? That’s what the rating agencies had to work with.
After the Bush tax cuts, the “rich” paid more in taxes in ‘05 than in the past 20 yrs. The richest 1% went from paying 25% of all income taxes in ‘90 to paying 39% in ‘05. The richest 5% went from paying 44% in ‘90 to 60% in ‘05. In 1980, when the top rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid 19% of all taxes. In ‘03, when the rate was 35%, they paid double that.
If the rich are bandits, why aren’t they in jail? Did they game the system more than others? What equation are they not a part of already?
Will
July 12th, 2011
5:45 pm
I want to caution my fellow lefties in getting too giddy of the latest news that Bachmann is the leader in the latest Iowa poll.
Although a Bachmann win in Iowa will help to redirect millions of republican dollars to her campaign, sadly enough, there is probably very little chance even the radical seccessionist republican wing can secure the nomination for her.
I hope and pray I am wrong.
All along I thought the best thing that could happen to President Obama’s re-election prospect would be the nomination of that former Alaska governor who quit before she completed half of her term but I never dreamed that the republicans would support someone who believes African-Americans were better off as slaves!!!!
Go Michelle Go!! Take the lead, pull in those republican dollars! Beat those republicans businessmen like Huntsman, Romney and Pawlenty and pave the street to re-election in pure gold!
Linda
July 12th, 2011
5:54 pm
what@5:06,
1. You said @ 2:56 to let’s look at how long did it took Bush II tax receipts to equal Clinton’s. You did not say AFTER the tax cuts.
2. Tax collections did not exceed $2 T until ‘98 & the country did just fine with the services provided by the fed. govt. We don’t need to be spending over $3 T per year this year or during any year in the future. We need to live with the tax collections that come in. Revenues are down but not by much. We must cut the size of the fed. govt.
4. My links can’t be giving contradictory info. They are from the US Treasury Dept.
what??
July 12th, 2011
7:16 pm
Linda-
I could swear we were talking about the Bush Tax Cuts when we started discussing tax rates. Wasn’t your arguments that tax cuts grew revenue. My argument was tax cuts create short term deficits. Either way
1. Then you are kinda admitting that after the Bush Tax Cuts, Revenue did not exceed Clinton’s last year in office(not including his 2000 tax receipt number) until 2005.
2. I actually agreed with you earlier, there is no need for a 3.6 trillion dollar budget year end and year out. The problem is that government spending is a compnent of growth(GDP), so when the private sector doesn’t spend, the government has to make up the shortfall. Going forward, government spending should be no more than 18% of gdp. In all honesty, it should be less, to create a surplus to pay down debt.
3. Debt is the sum of all deficits. If you compare both charts, the deficits to the debt don’t match. It’s not that big a thing. Actually debt is controlled by the treasury, so basically your chart represent roughly 800 billion in deficit debt, and 800 billion in bonds.
Craig E Ennis
July 17th, 2011
8:20 am
What I want to know is how come all Candidates running for the Republican nomination are not included in Ames Straw poll? Being a candidate myself it bothers me that people by special interests don’t include everyone.My example of this is I have been trying to be allowed to participate in the Iowa Republican Presidential Debate seems like the Iowa GOP doesn’t include everyone.
ENNIS in ‘12
craigennis.com