The Corner

Brief Thoughts on the 47 Percent

I have written a lot about why it is a mistake to think of all the people who don’t pay federal income taxes as a constituency for bigger government. For one thing, most of those people pay  payroll taxes, and it does not appear that many people make sharp distinctions between payroll and income taxes. They just think of themselves as paying taxes. They don’t think they’re getting big government for free.

For the exact same reason the 47 percent statistic does not mean what Romney thinks it does, I doubt this remark will hurt politically. (Romney is like Obama in that about 47 percent of the voters will back him no matter what.) A lot of the people in the 47 percent won’t feel insulted because they don’t know they’re in it. They see taxes get withheld on their paychecks too.

This incident doesn’t make me significantly less inclined to prefer Romney over Obama or less optimistic he will win. But it is nonetheless troubling.

The worst aspect of Romney’s remarks was not his analytical mistake about the 47 percent or so of Americans who pay no federal income taxes. It was the remark that his job was not to be concerned about those people because he could not force them to take responsibility for their own lives.

Paul Ryan makes the same analytical mistake — he has said the 47 percent statistic is a sign we are at a tipping point where takers could soon outnumber makers. But he does not conclude that the takers should therefore be written off. Instead he argues that the right policies can make them into makers, and it would be good for them, and the rest of us.


UPDATE: Some commenters say that Romney’s remark about how it’s not his job to be concerned about the 47 percent should be read as “it’s not my job in this campaign to get these people’s votes.” This interpretation would be more plausible if his following sentence weren’t about how he can’t get these people to take responsibility for their lives. That’s not a comment about political strategy.

Ramesh Ponnuru — Ramesh Ponnuru is a senior editor for National Review, a columnist for Bloomberg View, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and a senior fellow at the National Review Institute.

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

Students’ Anti-Gun Views

Are children innocents or are they leaders? Are teenagers fully autonomous decision-makers, or are they lumps of mental clay, still being molded by unfolding brain development? The Left seems to have a particularly hard time deciding these days. Take, for example, the high-school students from Parkland, ... Read More

Romney Is a Misfit for America

Mitt’s back. The former governor of Massachusetts and occasional native son of Michigan has a new persona: Mr. Utah. He’s going to bring Utah conservatism to the whole Republican party and to the country at large. Wholesome, efficient, industrious, faithful. “Utah has a lot to teach the politicians in ... Read More
Law & the Courts

What the Second Amendment Means Today

The horrifying school massacre in Parkland, Fla., has prompted another national debate about guns. Unfortunately, it seems that these conversations are never terribly constructive — they are too often dominated by screeching extremists on both sides of the aisle and armchair pundits who offer sweeping opinions ... Read More

Fire the FBI Chief

American government is supposed to look and sound like George Washington. What it actually looks and sounds like is Henry Hill from Goodfellas: bad suit, hand out, intoning the eternal mantra: “F*** you, pay me.” American government mostly works by interposition, standing between us, the free people at ... Read More
Film & TV

Black Panther’s Circle of Hype

The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) first infantilizes its audience, then banalizes it, and, finally, controls it through marketing. This commercial strategy, geared toward adolescents of all ages, resembles the Democratic party’s political manipulation of black Americans, targeting that audience through its ... Read More