59% of registered Republicans don't vote for a candidate in Presidential Primary
In one sense, the winner in Florida's Republican Presidential Primary election was no candidate. Only about 41% of the registered Republicans cast a vote for a candidate for president in the election in January of 2012.
Part of the reason a majority of registered Republicans did not vote may be reflected in a viewer poll by BrightHouse Central Florida News (http://www.cfnews13.com/ipolls) January 31, 2012:
Is there someone else who should be running for president?
69% responded Yes;
8% responded Not Sure.
Note that four candidates have been largely featured in the news, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum,, and Ron Paul, probably in that order of prominence of coverage. Also on the ballot were Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Jon Huntsman, Gary Johnson, and Rick Perry.
Yet there is a hunger for someone else to run for president.
Millions of dollars were spent in Florida leading up to this election. It was reported that Mitt Romney spent 17 million dollars in his campaign in Florida. At the time of this report he got approximately 772,500 votes which works out to over 22 dollars per vote, and that was just for one state's primary election. That is about 46% of the approximately 41% of those eligible to vote who voted.
Part of the reason a majority of registered Republicans did not vote may be reflected in a viewer poll by BrightHouse Central Florida News (http://www.cfnews13.com/ipolls) January 31, 2012:
Is there someone else who should be running for president?
69% responded Yes;
8% responded Not Sure.
Note that four candidates have been largely featured in the news, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum,, and Ron Paul, probably in that order of prominence of coverage. Also on the ballot were Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Jon Huntsman, Gary Johnson, and Rick Perry.
Yet there is a hunger for someone else to run for president.
Millions of dollars were spent in Florida leading up to this election. It was reported that Mitt Romney spent 17 million dollars in his campaign in Florida. At the time of this report he got approximately 772,500 votes which works out to over 22 dollars per vote, and that was just for one state's primary election. That is about 46% of the approximately 41% of those eligible to vote who voted.
Romney would rank among richest presidents ever
WASHINGTON (AP) — Just how rich is Mitt Romney? Add up thewealth of the last eight presidents, from Richard Nixon to Barack Obama. Then double that number. Now you're in Romney territory.
He would be among the richest presidents in American history if elected — probably in the top four.
He couldn't top George Washington who, with nearly 60,000 acres (24,000 hectares) and more than 300 slaves, is considered the big daddy of presidential wealth. After that, it gets complicated, depending on how you rate Thomas Jefferson's plantation, Herbert Hoover's millions from mining or John F. Kennedy's share of the vast family fortune, as well as the finer points of factors like inflation adjustment.
But it's safe to say the Roosevelts had nothing on Romney, and the Bushes are nowhere close.
The former Massachusetts governor has disclosed only the broad outlines of his wealth, putting it somewhere from $190 million to $250 million. That easily could make him 50 times richer than Obama, who falls in the still-impressive-to-most-of-us range of $2.2 million to $7.5 million.
"I think it's almost hard to conceptualize what $250 million means," said Shamus Khan, a Columbia University sociologist who studies the wealthy. "People say Romney made $50,000 a day while not working last year. What do you do with all that money? I can't even imagine spending it. Well, maybe ..."
Of course, an unbelievable boatload of bucks is just one way to think of Romney's net worth, and the 44 U.S. presidents make up a pretty small pond for him to swim in. Put alongside America's 400 or so billionaires, Romney wouldn't make a ripple.
So here's a look where Romney's riches rank — among the most flush Americans, the White House contenders, and the average American:
—Within the 1 percent:
"Romney is small potatoes compared with the ultra-wealthy," said Jeffrey Winters, a political scientist at Northwestern University who studies the nation's elites.
After all, even in the rarefied world of the top 1 percent, there's a big difference between life at the top and at the bottom.
A household needs to bring in roughly $400,000 per year to make the cut. Romney, who headed the private equity firm Bain Capital, and his wife, Ann, have been making 50 times that — more than $20 million a year. In 2009, only 8,274 federal tax filers had income above $10 million. Romney is solidly within that elite 0.006 percent of all U.S. taxpayers.
Congress is flush with millionaires. Only a few are in the Romney realm, including Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican, and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, who was the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004. Kerry's ranking would climb much higher if the fortune of his wife, Teresa Heinz, were counted. She is the widow of Sen. John Heinz, heir to the Heinz ketchup fortune.
Further up the ladder, top hedge fund managers can pocket $1 billion or more in a single year.
At the top of the wealth pile sits Microsoft founder Bill Gates, worth $59 billion, according to Forbes magazine's estimates.
—As a potential president:
Romney clearly stands out here. America's super rich generally don't jockey to live in the White House. A few have toyed with the idea, most notably New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, whom Forbes ranks as the 12th richest American, worth $19.5 billion. A lesser billionaire, Ross Perot, bankrolled his own third-party campaigns in 1992 and 1996.
Many presidents weren't particularly well-off, especially 19th century leaders such as Abraham Lincoln, James Buchanan and Ulysses S. Grant. Nor was the 33rd president, Harry Truman.
"These things ebb and flow," said sociologist Khan. "It's not the case that all presidents were always rich."
A few former chief executives died in debt, including Thomas Jefferson, ranked in a Forbes study as the third-wealthiest president.
Comparing the landlocked wealth of early Americans such as Washington, Jefferson and James Madison, with today's millionaires is tricky, even setting aside the lack of documentation and economic changes over two centuries.
Research by 24/7 Wall St., a news and analysis website, estimated Washington's wealth at the equivalent of $525 million in 2010 dollars.
Yet Washington had to borrow money to pay for his trip to New York for his inauguration in 1789, according to Dennis Pogue, vice president for preservation at Mount Vernon, Washington's Virginia estate. His money was tied up in land, reaping only a modest cash income after farm expenses.
"He was a wealthy guy, there's no doubt about it," Pogue said, and probably among the dozen richest Virginians of his time. But, "the wealthiest person in America then was nothing in comparison to what these folks are today."
—How does Romney stand next to the average American?
He's roughly 1,800 times richer.
The typical U.S. household was worth $120,300 in 2007, according to the Census Bureau's most recent data, although that number is sure to have dropped since the recession. A typical family's income is $50,000.
Calculations from 24/7 Wall St. of the peak lifetime wealth (or peak so far) of Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama add up to a total $128 million — while Romney reports assets of up to $250 million.
If you consider only those presidents' assets while in office, without millions earned later from speeches and books, their combined total would be substantially lower, and Romney's riches would leave the pack even further behind.
He would be among the richest presidents in American history if elected — probably in the top four.
He couldn't top George Washington who, with nearly 60,000 acres (24,000 hectares) and more than 300 slaves, is considered the big daddy of presidential wealth. After that, it gets complicated, depending on how you rate Thomas Jefferson's plantation, Herbert Hoover's millions from mining or John F. Kennedy's share of the vast family fortune, as well as the finer points of factors like inflation adjustment.
But it's safe to say the Roosevelts had nothing on Romney, and the Bushes are nowhere close.
The former Massachusetts governor has disclosed only the broad outlines of his wealth, putting it somewhere from $190 million to $250 million. That easily could make him 50 times richer than Obama, who falls in the still-impressive-to-most-of-us range of $2.2 million to $7.5 million.
"I think it's almost hard to conceptualize what $250 million means," said Shamus Khan, a Columbia University sociologist who studies the wealthy. "People say Romney made $50,000 a day while not working last year. What do you do with all that money? I can't even imagine spending it. Well, maybe ..."
Of course, an unbelievable boatload of bucks is just one way to think of Romney's net worth, and the 44 U.S. presidents make up a pretty small pond for him to swim in. Put alongside America's 400 or so billionaires, Romney wouldn't make a ripple.
So here's a look where Romney's riches rank — among the most flush Americans, the White House contenders, and the average American:
—Within the 1 percent:
"Romney is small potatoes compared with the ultra-wealthy," said Jeffrey Winters, a political scientist at Northwestern University who studies the nation's elites.
After all, even in the rarefied world of the top 1 percent, there's a big difference between life at the top and at the bottom.
A household needs to bring in roughly $400,000 per year to make the cut. Romney, who headed the private equity firm Bain Capital, and his wife, Ann, have been making 50 times that — more than $20 million a year. In 2009, only 8,274 federal tax filers had income above $10 million. Romney is solidly within that elite 0.006 percent of all U.S. taxpayers.
Congress is flush with millionaires. Only a few are in the Romney realm, including Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican, and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, who was the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004. Kerry's ranking would climb much higher if the fortune of his wife, Teresa Heinz, were counted. She is the widow of Sen. John Heinz, heir to the Heinz ketchup fortune.
Further up the ladder, top hedge fund managers can pocket $1 billion or more in a single year.
At the top of the wealth pile sits Microsoft founder Bill Gates, worth $59 billion, according to Forbes magazine's estimates.
—As a potential president:
Romney clearly stands out here. America's super rich generally don't jockey to live in the White House. A few have toyed with the idea, most notably New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, whom Forbes ranks as the 12th richest American, worth $19.5 billion. A lesser billionaire, Ross Perot, bankrolled his own third-party campaigns in 1992 and 1996.
Many presidents weren't particularly well-off, especially 19th century leaders such as Abraham Lincoln, James Buchanan and Ulysses S. Grant. Nor was the 33rd president, Harry Truman.
"These things ebb and flow," said sociologist Khan. "It's not the case that all presidents were always rich."
A few former chief executives died in debt, including Thomas Jefferson, ranked in a Forbes study as the third-wealthiest president.
Comparing the landlocked wealth of early Americans such as Washington, Jefferson and James Madison, with today's millionaires is tricky, even setting aside the lack of documentation and economic changes over two centuries.
Research by 24/7 Wall St., a news and analysis website, estimated Washington's wealth at the equivalent of $525 million in 2010 dollars.
Yet Washington had to borrow money to pay for his trip to New York for his inauguration in 1789, according to Dennis Pogue, vice president for preservation at Mount Vernon, Washington's Virginia estate. His money was tied up in land, reaping only a modest cash income after farm expenses.
"He was a wealthy guy, there's no doubt about it," Pogue said, and probably among the dozen richest Virginians of his time. But, "the wealthiest person in America then was nothing in comparison to what these folks are today."
—How does Romney stand next to the average American?
He's roughly 1,800 times richer.
The typical U.S. household was worth $120,300 in 2007, according to the Census Bureau's most recent data, although that number is sure to have dropped since the recession. A typical family's income is $50,000.
Calculations from 24/7 Wall St. of the peak lifetime wealth (or peak so far) of Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama add up to a total $128 million — while Romney reports assets of up to $250 million.
If you consider only those presidents' assets while in office, without millions earned later from speeches and books, their combined total would be substantially lower, and Romney's riches would leave the pack even further behind.
Impeach Obama?
Washington insiders are wringing their hands over the lack of action expected on Capitol Hill in this election year, Grover Norquist is studying his color-coded maps. The antitax advocate and president of Americans for Tax Reform is taking the long view on Congress and charting the ways that Republicans could eventually control the House, Senate, and White House, along with statehouses across the country (all while making sure politicians adhere to his antitax pledge).
“The context for the next 12 months is that 2011 was supposed to be the ‘Year of the Tax Increase’—you know, like the ‘Year of the Woman’ or the ‘Year of the Dragon,’ ” he says with a smirk. But, last year was not marked by tax hikes at all, thanks to congressional gridlock and the failures of various deficit-reduction efforts. For Norquist, that means 2012 could practically be a vacation, or at least a fun year of dreaming about future slashes in marginal rates. He recently spoke to National Journal. Edited excerpts from the interview follow.
NJ What are the major points of tax policy you’re looking at this year?
NORQUIST Even Obama is not going to want to raise taxes, because it’s an election year. He came up with this idea for the one-year tax holiday so he could claim that he’s for a tax cut. Mind you, it’s a temporary tax cut, but he does not want to run as a tax increaser. I think we’re in reasonably good shape.
Between now and November, I believe we will see a one-year extension of the FICA tax [cut]. I believe we will see the extension of [the break on] depreciation spending. And then the third one that you could have is repatriation. If I was Obama’s political consultant, I’d have put repatriation on the table when he extended the Bush-era tax cuts by two years [in 2010]. The estimates are that it would bring $6 [billion] to $800 billion back. If I were president, I would love to have that money flow back into the real economy, not the Solyndra economy, the year before I’m running for office.
NJ At the end of 2012, a number of major tax provisions, including the Bush-era cuts, are set to expire. Do you have any predictions?
NORQUIST We’re focused on the fact that there is this Damocles sword hanging over people’s head. What you don’t know is who will be in charge when all of this will happen. I think when we get through this election cycle, we’ll have a Republican majority, [though] not necessarily a strong majority in theSenate, and a majority in the House. The majority in the House will continue to be a Reagan majority, a conservative majority. Boehner never has to talk his delegation going further to the right.
If the Republicans have the House, Senate, and the presidency, I’m told that they could do an early budget vote—a reconciliation vote where you extend the Bush tax cuts out for a decade or five years. You take all of those issues off the table, and then say, “What do you want to do for tax reform?”
Then, the question is: “OK, what do we do about repatriation and all of the interesting stuff?” And, if you have a Republican president to go with a Republican House and Senate, then they pass the [Paul] Ryan plan [on Medicare].
NJ What if the Democrats still have control? What’s your scenario then?
NORQUIST Obama can sit there and let all the tax [cuts] lapse, and then the Republicans will have enough votes in the Senate in 2014 to impeach. The last year, he’s gone into this huddle where he does everything by executive order. He’s made no effort to work with Congress.
NJ The Republicans seem more divided over tax policy than in the past. The House Republicansdidn’t want to pass the payroll-tax holiday bill, even though that was a tax cut. Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania proposed revenue increases as a super-committee member. Do you think the party is in disarray over its take on taxes?
NORQUIST Those are different things. Toomey is deciding on which unicorn he’d like if unicorns existed, and you’re asking me if I’m unhappy about his choice of a pet? There aren’t any unicorns. The Democrats are not going to make permanent what they said was their nonnegotiable plan for a 25 percent corporate and individual tax rate. The Democratic Party cannot physiologically do that.
NJ So you don’t get mad when Republicans propose tax increases if you feel they won’t come to fruition?
NORQUIST There’s no point in spending any time getting too worked up on imaginary conversations about imaginary things. The disarray you had was the House and the Senate being on different rhythms, and the House not understanding that anyone would lie so completely about what they’d just done.
“The context for the next 12 months is that 2011 was supposed to be the ‘Year of the Tax Increase’—you know, like the ‘Year of the Woman’ or the ‘Year of the Dragon,’ ” he says with a smirk. But, last year was not marked by tax hikes at all, thanks to congressional gridlock and the failures of various deficit-reduction efforts. For Norquist, that means 2012 could practically be a vacation, or at least a fun year of dreaming about future slashes in marginal rates. He recently spoke to National Journal. Edited excerpts from the interview follow.
NJ What are the major points of tax policy you’re looking at this year?
NORQUIST Even Obama is not going to want to raise taxes, because it’s an election year. He came up with this idea for the one-year tax holiday so he could claim that he’s for a tax cut. Mind you, it’s a temporary tax cut, but he does not want to run as a tax increaser. I think we’re in reasonably good shape.
Between now and November, I believe we will see a one-year extension of the FICA tax [cut]. I believe we will see the extension of [the break on] depreciation spending. And then the third one that you could have is repatriation. If I was Obama’s political consultant, I’d have put repatriation on the table when he extended the Bush-era tax cuts by two years [in 2010]. The estimates are that it would bring $6 [billion] to $800 billion back. If I were president, I would love to have that money flow back into the real economy, not the Solyndra economy, the year before I’m running for office.
NJ At the end of 2012, a number of major tax provisions, including the Bush-era cuts, are set to expire. Do you have any predictions?
NORQUIST We’re focused on the fact that there is this Damocles sword hanging over people’s head. What you don’t know is who will be in charge when all of this will happen. I think when we get through this election cycle, we’ll have a Republican majority, [though] not necessarily a strong majority in theSenate, and a majority in the House. The majority in the House will continue to be a Reagan majority, a conservative majority. Boehner never has to talk his delegation going further to the right.
If the Republicans have the House, Senate, and the presidency, I’m told that they could do an early budget vote—a reconciliation vote where you extend the Bush tax cuts out for a decade or five years. You take all of those issues off the table, and then say, “What do you want to do for tax reform?”
Then, the question is: “OK, what do we do about repatriation and all of the interesting stuff?” And, if you have a Republican president to go with a Republican House and Senate, then they pass the [Paul] Ryan plan [on Medicare].
NJ What if the Democrats still have control? What’s your scenario then?
NORQUIST Obama can sit there and let all the tax [cuts] lapse, and then the Republicans will have enough votes in the Senate in 2014 to impeach. The last year, he’s gone into this huddle where he does everything by executive order. He’s made no effort to work with Congress.
NJ The Republicans seem more divided over tax policy than in the past. The House Republicansdidn’t want to pass the payroll-tax holiday bill, even though that was a tax cut. Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania proposed revenue increases as a super-committee member. Do you think the party is in disarray over its take on taxes?
NORQUIST Those are different things. Toomey is deciding on which unicorn he’d like if unicorns existed, and you’re asking me if I’m unhappy about his choice of a pet? There aren’t any unicorns. The Democrats are not going to make permanent what they said was their nonnegotiable plan for a 25 percent corporate and individual tax rate. The Democratic Party cannot physiologically do that.
NJ So you don’t get mad when Republicans propose tax increases if you feel they won’t come to fruition?
NORQUIST There’s no point in spending any time getting too worked up on imaginary conversations about imaginary things. The disarray you had was the House and the Senate being on different rhythms, and the House not understanding that anyone would lie so completely about what they’d just done.
