Romney/Ryan haul: $3.5 million in 24 hours

posted at 12:31 pm on August 12, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

How did America react to Mitt Romney’s selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate?  According to the one measure that literally counts … pretty spectacularly.  The online fundraising for the 24-hour period following Ryan’s addition to the ticket came to $3.5 million, according to the Twitter feed of campaign spokesperson Andrea Saul:

Bear in mind that this is online only.  That’s roughly equivalent to the pace one would see from a month in which the combined Romney/RNC effort raised $105 million, with big-ticket fundraisers included.  It’s not quite as dramatic as the amount of money pulled in after the Supreme Court’s decision on ObamaCare ($4.6 million), but it’s close.

I contacted a source close to the campaign, and got the details:

  • Donors: over 41,000
  • Average donation: $85
  • Website visits: 700,000

The campaign saw an interesting phenomenon after the Ryan announcement.  Over 30% of the visits came from mobile devices, something the source tells me the campaign has never seen before in this cycle.  It shows that the selection of Ryan may have some significant upside among younger voters who may relate more to Ryan than to Obama, Joe Biden, and the administration that has cratered job prospects for this demographic over the last three years.

The campaign has a new web video out today featuring the newest team member and his introductory speech:

Looks like the subtext of this campaign will be: Real Hope from Real Change.  If the fundraising numbers give any indication, it looks as though America’s ready to reward seriousness.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Probably a lot of money holding back until Romney proved himself.

The usual suspects were defining Romney down so fast, that the VP announcement hit like a sucker punch and the rebound – big

entagor on August 12, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Defend him, and we’ll get to it if you entertain me long enough. It wasn’t an ‘enemy’ of Obama that got a thrill up his leg on national TV, after all. But I guess that was enough for him.

Now you are one upset, it seems, because I poke fun at Obama.

Like I said–pop psych…

Liam on August 12, 2012 at 2:26 PM

StoneKrab on August 12, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Sheesh.

pambi on August 12, 2012 at 2:27 PM

:(

StoneKrab on August 12, 2012 at 2:31 PM

And now…you’re upset. :(

StoneKrab on August 12, 2012 at 1:53 PM

You think he’s upset now? You should have seen him yesterday. His comments were like something straight out of The People’s Cube. Cracked me up.

petefrt on August 12, 2012 at 2:31 PM

The only thing I think Romney caved on was the timing. Friday. Mid August. Mid Olympics. The timing is weird.
Mr. Arkadin on August 12, 2012 at 1:54 PM

and I wonder why…his own base pushing against that saul’s person gaffe, or what exactly was that prompted him to announce Ryan earlier…energizing his campaign a little, maybe, but am sure it could have waited 2 more weeks…I really hope there isn’t enough time for the media to demonize Ryan completely, as for serious debates on issues from not until the convention, I’m afraid it’s out of question…media won’t allow it…

jimver on August 12, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Why I Love Paul Ryan And I’m A Liberal

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2012/08/why-i-love-paul-ryan-and-im-liberal.html

M2RB: Van Halen

By the way, the article was written by William Saletan and was published on Slate.com. He is voting for Obama. You really should read it, Progs.

Resist We Much on August 12, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Unable to check into the R&R NASCAR stop, ATM, but love the car !
Who’s driving ???

pambi on August 12, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Wait…I think I just got reported or flagged. Really? We are doing this now?

StoneKrab on August 12, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Good to know. I didn’t know you could change handles around here.

Nikkia2112 on August 12, 2012 at 2:15 PM

I believe it was done out of necessity, and possibly some sleight of hand, IYKWIM.

a capella on August 12, 2012 at 2:36 PM

A worthy nominee, but he hasn’t lapped the field. Ol’ ddrintn, for example, is a serious contender for that crown, to name just one.

MJBrutus on August 12, 2012 at 1:29 PM

flapmymouth and floatingboat qualify too, or are they one and the same person :-)….

jimver on August 12, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Wait…I think I just got reported or flagged. Really? We are doing this now?

StoneKrab on August 12, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Oh, puh-leeze. Liberals have free run here to say anything they want. Only Conservatives are ‘watched’.

You have nothing to fear.

Paranoid much?

Liam on August 12, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Wait…I think I just got reported or flagged. Really? We are doing this now?

StoneKrab on August 12, 2012 at 2:35 PM

What makes you think you got flanged or reported?

SWalker on August 12, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Biden is being encouraged to retire early for health reasons. There ain’t no way no how that any demorat with a brain (there’s got to be one) is going to allow him up on the debate stage with Ryan.

Bishop on August 12, 2012 at 12:35 PM

..not to repeat myself, B, but to repeat myself: if Biden remains on the ticket and shows up on October 11th for the VEEP debate AND you’re squeamish about watching such wanton bloodletting, may I suggest you tune away to a Nat Geo special they’re doing in the same time slot on the annual clubbing of Harp seals?

*grins*

The War Planner on August 12, 2012 at 2:37 PM

StoneKrab on August 12, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Not unfair at all when you consider it is a change in ROE that this administration put in place. Not the previous administration but this administration. A ROE that prevents an Apache, that is in place in a FOB to protect the inhabitants from enemy attacks, who can’t take a shot because the POO was unobserved at the time a mortar was fired.

Not sure how much combat you’ve seen, but as I’ve said before; I have friends that just redeployed from RC East headed back home. I have shared their Facebook IM exchanges “here” the nights of several mortar attacks where they were fit to be tied because they suffered wounded and weren’t able to do a thing about it. Ironic when you consider the same FOB has the most sophisticated Rotary Wing weapons platform in the world task forced right there with them.

Sgt. WIlliams was days from being reunited with his family. You don’t have to worry about that Conservative’s vote anymore.

hawkdriver on August 12, 2012 at 2:38 PM

flapmymouth and floatingboat qualify too, or are they one and the same person :-)….

jimver on August 12, 2012 at 2:36 PM

..what about The Yeasty One and unPragmatic?

The War Planner on August 12, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Why I Love Paul Ryan And I’m A Liberal

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2012/08/why-i-love-paul-ryan-and-im-liberal.html

M2RB: Van Halen

By the way, the article was written by William Saletan and was published on Slate.com. He is voting for Obama. You really should read it, Progs.

Ryan is a good man with enough intelligence to assemble a viable plan and then effectively lobby both Republicans and Democrats on its merits. Compare this to the average Tea Party bonehead who’s incapable of even holding a meaningful policy conversation with his colleagues on the other side of the aisle. At the very least, Ryan gives his political ideology a persona that’s likable to the general public.

Even if you disagree that deep tax cuts for the rich will resolve this country’s huge structural problems, Ryan presents his ideas in a respectable way.

bayam on August 12, 2012 at 2:41 PM

I’m just going to go ahead and bet now that the GOP establishment support for Ryan, combined with the base’s support for Ryan, is going to yield a record-breaking amount of fundraising for August.

If Romney is pulling $3.5 million in online donations from smaller donors, can you imagine what is happening behind the scene with the big GOP donors?

Steven Hayes, Bill Kristol, and Paul Gigot are probably busily soliciting everyone in their contacts’ list.

Lawdawg86 on August 12, 2012 at 2:42 PM

I’m going to wait a week to see how they respond to the democrat hacks.

SouthernGent on August 12, 2012 at 2:48 PM

They must ramp up quickly to take Mediscare on frontally, before and during the Convention.

If they equivocate now over the Ryan budget, the pick will prove to be a disaster. They better damned well be all-in.

matthew8787 on August 12, 2012 at 2:59 PM

All of this should’ve have been cleaned up long before Senator Obama became President Obama. But, I seriously did not come here on this fine Sunday morning to talk foreign policy, because I am not at liberty to discuss that, because I am still in.

StoneKrab on August 12, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Bull. So long as you make it clear you are representing your views and not those of the service, you can opine away all you want. What you mean is that you want to make a drive-by attack at GWB and then move on.

But here’s the thing. Your Commander-in-Chief betrayed an awful lot of people by his dithering over policy in Afghanistan. An awful lot of American servicemembers were killed waiting for “their leader” to formulate a strategy. Don’t you even remember the shameless photo-op to Dover prior to the West Point speech that preceded the surge? The one where Chris Matthews refered to the cadets in the audience as Obama’s enemy?

Bottom line, I’m not comfortable with keeping a committed socialist who wants to dismantle the military in power. And, BTW, from what I can tell there is a whole lot less Obama love among the troops than there was four years ago. They’ve seen how Obama has their back. GWB and Dick Cheney made their support of the troops clear. Not so much with the jug-eared Kenyan.

Happy Nomad on August 12, 2012 at 3:01 PM

It is clear why thr Tea Party overwhelmingly supports Congressman Ryan. Oppossed Medicare Part D. Opposed TARP. A businessman with a record of job creation in the private sector. What? … He what? …Uh, Tax cuts! Tax cuts! Tax cuts!

plewis on August 12, 2012 at 1:14 PM

Smells like Teen Spirit in here.

More Cowbell!

Del Dolemonte on August 12, 2012 at 3:04 PM

(Did not read all of the comments on this thread.)

I haven’t had a chance to comment all weekend. I LOVE the Ryan pick for VP. (Actually, I was disappointed when he didn’t run for POTUS–he was my number one.)

I find it completely laughable that dems would criticize his age, and question whether he could be POTUS “on the second day.” I think he’s at least ten times smarter than Odumbo, and he’s got ten times the experience. (He’s also worked an actual job in his lifetime. And–it wasn’t a “composite” job!!)

The last eight minutes of his speech, yesterday, were pitch perfect. Absolutely 100% American! (Odumbo could never muster anything close.)

Romney made a bold choice–a sort of “all-or-nothing” bet. In the coming weeks, Ryan will get his message out to the folks. We’re at the crossroads in our history. Left fork or right?

Fingers (and toes) crossed.

RedCrow on August 12, 2012 at 3:04 PM

If they equivocate now over the Ryan budget, the pick will prove to be a disaster. They better damned well be all-in.

matthew8787 on August 12, 2012 at 2:59 PM

You know what. Let’s focus on the Senate budget and compare and contrast between that and the Ryan plan.

Happy Nomad on August 12, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Resist We Much on August 12, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Thanks for posting that, Resist.

While reading, I was wondering why the guy thought he was a dem. Then I read the second-to-last paragraph about tax cuts.

Yep. He’s a dem. (Also, he’ll not be invited to the cotillion this fall. Alas.)

RedCrow on August 12, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Speaking of which, whatever happened to Dr Tesla or whatever he called himself?

I was wondering about tesla myself. However he was not dumb-just vicious and bigoted.

gerrym51 on August 12, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Ryan is a good man with enough intelligence to assemble a viable plan and then effectively lobby both Republicans and Democrats on its merits. Compare this to the average Tea Party bonehead who’s incapable of even holding a meaningful policy conversation with his colleagues on the other side of the aisle. At the very least, Ryan gives his political ideology a persona that’s likable to the general public.

Even if you disagree that deep tax cuts for the rich will resolve this country’s huge structural problems, Ryan presents his ideas in a respectable way.

bayam on August 12, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Your approval of how Ryan presents his views respectably would mean alot more coming from somebody who wasn’t fundamentally misrepresenting Ryan’s views as “deep tax cuts for the rich” to resolve the country’s structural problems.

ghostwriter on August 12, 2012 at 3:14 PM

ghostwriter on August 12, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Probably someone who doesn’t understand that the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues is not linear.

Democrats never understand this. It’d be funny if we weren’t so screwed.

RedCrow on August 12, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Ryan is a solid pick if the Romney campaign has the guts to go *in* and push the Ryan budget and push hard on the welfare-mongering. That’s a recipe for a 1980 style upset. But if, as I suspect, Romney quickly backtracks from the Ryan budget, and early signs say he is, then its a pretty dumb pick.

libfreeordie on August 12, 2012 at 12:58 PM

If you think that 1980 was an upset, then you really are a deluded fool, and I almost feel sorry for you. Almost.

El Salsero on August 12, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Romney/Ryan haul: $3.5 million in 24 hours

If team Obama wasn’t soiling their drawers before(as someone said on another thread), they are now! :)

Sterling Holobyte on August 12, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Fingers (and toes) crossed.

RedCrow on August 12, 2012 at 3:04 PM

It is hard to cross my toes..But I’m trying..:)

PS..Nice Post!..:)

Dire Straits on August 12, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Probably someone who doesn’t understand that the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues is not linear.

Democrats never understand this. It’d be funny if we weren’t so screwed.

RedCrow on August 12, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Yep. I, for one, am really sick of it.

ghostwriter on August 12, 2012 at 3:20 PM

There is one important demographic that Romney and Ryan will never be competitive in. It started in Chicago and is now expanding throughout the nation – signs in more and more cemeteries reading, “We are all democrats now”.

VorDaj on August 12, 2012 at 3:22 PM

I love Ryan, but he is going to need to clear up this issue before it costs Romney the election.

conservativeBC on August 12, 2012 at 2:54 PM

They didn’t seriously think that the money was in the “Trust Fund,” did they?

NOTHING BUT TREASURIES ARE IN ALL TRUST FUNDS AND UNLIKE THOSE SOLD TO, SAY, THE CHINESE, INTRA-GOVERNMENTAL HOLDINGS CANNOT BE SOLD ON THE OPEN MARKET.

The funds have been being raided for decades. How do you think we got the Clinton-Gingrich “balanced budgets”?

Just take a look at one MTS from September, 2000:

http://fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0900.pdf

Resist We Much on August 12, 2012 at 3:24 PM

PS..Nice Post!..:)

Dire Straits on August 12, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Hey, Dire! :)
Thx. :)
Hope you’re doin’ fine… … … :)
.
.
.
:)

RedCrow on August 12, 2012 at 3:25 PM

RedCrow on August 12, 2012 at 3:25 PM

I am doing well!!..Hope you and yours are doing good!!..:)

Dire Straits on August 12, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Resist We Much on August 12, 2012 at 3:24 PM

“Lockbox”
–Al “friggin’” Gore

RedCrow on August 12, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Dire Straits on August 12, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Been away from home for the last six days.
My bed is looking delicious about now.
(That doesn’t sound right…….but it’s true. :) )

RedCrow on August 12, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Your approval of how Ryan presents his views respectably would mean alot more coming from somebody who wasn’t fundamentally misrepresenting Ryan’s views as “deep tax cuts for the rich” to resolve the country’s structural problems.

ghostwriter on August 12, 2012 at 3:14 PM

I should have said it’s a mix of spending cuts and tax cuts. The net effect is fewer transfer payments to the elderly (result of both tax cuts and a cap on the growth of healthcare benefits at a rate far below the rate of healthcare inflation).

But it does little to address our trade deficits or the factors that will help the US more effectively compete against Asia in the global economy.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/2011/01/20/danger-america-is-losing-its-edge-in-innovation/

bayam on August 12, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Resist We Much on August 12, 2012 at 3:24 PM

I wonder how dangerous are the “average” folks (e.g. people who hate Odumbo) in talking about SS reform.

I have brought it up before on this site, when it was close to on-topic, and many just hammered me for it.

It’s like, when they’re told that it won’t affect them (the changes), they suddenly don’t speak English. It’s a puzzle I haven’t been able to figure out. (Wonder if Romney/Ryan can.)

RedCrow on August 12, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Probably someone who doesn’t understand that the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues is not linear.

Democrats never understand this. It’d be funny if we weren’t so screwed.

RedCrow on August 12, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Yep. I, for one, am really sick of it.

ghostwriter on August 12, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Are you referring to Clinton’s tax increases that had second degree effects of higher tax revenues and lower interest rates?
And what makes you so certain- Glenn Beck and Rush?

No one credible on Wall Street believes in the supply side fantasy. No one in the world outside of the GOP right wing believes in it. It’s kind of like creationism- no one in China, Germany, Japan or any of the other nations that are punishing the US economically has the faith.

This country wouldn’t be so ‘screwed’ if Greenspan and Treasury under O’Neil had their way and Bush’s tax cuts never happened.

bayam on August 12, 2012 at 3:41 PM

bayam on August 12, 2012 at 3:41 PM

^^^^^^^^^^
RedCrow on August 12, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Sigh.

pambi on August 12, 2012 at 3:46 PM

bayam on August 12, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Of course, you’re wrong.

It’s happened several times in our history where the govt. has lowered taxes and experienced greater tax revenues.

Hoover, Kennedy, G.W. Bush, and one other (who I can’t recall at the moment.)

It’s happened MANY times in our history that raising taxes has resulted in LESS tax revenues.

No one credible on Wall Street believes in the supply side fantasy. No one in the world outside of the GOP right wing believes in it. It’s kind of like creationism- no one in China, Germany, Japan or any of the other nations that are punishing the US economically has the faith.

This is laughable.

RedCrow on August 12, 2012 at 3:47 PM

pambi on August 12, 2012 at 3:46 PM

I’ll take it that you think he’s a moron, also?

RedCrow on August 12, 2012 at 3:48 PM

All I know is I was at the Farmers Market in downtown Madison, WI on Saturday morning (one of the best markets in the country by the way) and it was fun to listen to conversations in the crowd while strolling around the captial square. Lots and lots of people were talking about Romney’s pick of Paul Ryan and there was a buzz in the crowd. Those supporting Romney/Ryan were excited, those supporting Obama sounded a little nervous. The announcement on a Saturday didn’t stop anyone from knowing what was going on in the country. I think many people are already tuned into the election. Now granted this is in Wisconsinn which has been in election mode for two solid years.

traditionalgal on August 12, 2012 at 3:48 PM

RedCrow on August 12, 2012 at 3:48 PM
Actually, we pretty much KNOW, not just think it.

pambi on August 12, 2012 at 3:57 PM

I should have said it’s a mix of spending cuts and tax cuts. The net effect is fewer transfer payments to the elderly (result of both tax cuts and a cap on the growth of healthcare benefits at a rate far below the rate of healthcare inflation).

But it does little to address our trade deficits or the factors that will help the US more effectively compete against Asia in the global economy.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/2011/01/20/danger-america-is-losing-its-edge-in-innovation/

bayam on August 12, 2012 at 3:33 PM

No, you should have not said “tax cuts for the rich.” Ryan’s plan is nothing of the sort. He wants to lower marginal tax rates, and close the other loopholes/deductions to broaden the base.

As for the reduction in entitlement spending, they actually slow transfer payments from the young to the old, who typically hold much more wealth than the young.

And yes, shoring up the nation’s long-run finances will do a lot to help the US compete nationally. Favorable tax rates and business conditions will do a lot to keep skilled people and businesses in the country than throwing more money at teachers’ unions and more government spending on “research”.

ghostwriter on August 12, 2012 at 3:57 PM

RedCrow on August 12, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Hoover didn’t cut taxes. Much like the current knucklehead in the WH would like to do, Hoover raised taxes (Smoot-Hawley tariff) during the early days of the Depression.

ghostwriter on August 12, 2012 at 4:00 PM

If liberals are nervous in Madison, hope they are crapping their pants in Chicago.

Couldn’t happen to a more deserving, hateful, evil, and corrupt bunch of scheming liars.

And that’s a characterization of the Obama people on a good day.

matthew8787 on August 12, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Are you referring to Clinton’s tax increases that had second degree effects of higher tax revenues and lower interest rates?
And what makes you so certain- Glenn Beck and Rush?

No one credible on Wall Street believes in the supply side fantasy. No one in the world outside of the GOP right wing believes in it. It’s kind of like creationism- no one in China, Germany, Japan or any of the other nations that are punishing the US economically has the faith.

This country wouldn’t be so ‘screwed’ if Greenspan and Treasury under O’Neil had their way and Bush’s tax cuts never happened.

bayam on August 12, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Spare me the supply-side red herring. Bush’s tax cuts have precious little to do with our current difficulties. Our problem are that the politicians have made ridiculous promises that the country can’t possibly keep. And Obama’s brilliant solution to this problem was to promise to give away even more money. That’s the problem.

ghostwriter on August 12, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Are you referring to Clinton’s tax increases that had second degree effects of higher tax revenues and lower interest rates?
SNIP

bayam on August 12, 2012 at 3:41 PM

And BTW, I hope that you aren’t suggesting that Clinton’s tax increase spurred GDP growth. Because nobody credible anywhere thinks that increased tax rates spur economic growth. The boom in the nineties occurred despite Clinton’s tax increases, not because of them.

One more thing: I just love how libs love to talk about Clinton’s tax hike in ’93, but always seem to forget his tax cuts in ’97.

ghostwriter on August 12, 2012 at 4:17 PM

sigh…you guys are doing it wrong. The youth (me being one of them) likes cool, and discovering something or someone new is “cool”, like The President was in 07 – 08. People were talking about Obama in the dorms as early as 05 – 06. Now, what’s not cool is having someone tell you something is “cool”…that’s essentially what this is: “Watch this video son I found it on the Youtubes…their talking to you guys! Make it go virus son and tell your besties about R Squared!” LOL!

StoneKrab on August 12, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Dude. I think you just summed up the stupidest way possible to pick a Commander in Chief. Which is pretty much what happened with the youth vote four years ago.

I don’t care where you were or what the buzz was back in 05-08. Peple who allow their precious vote to be swayed by who or what is “cool” shouldn’t be voting, in my opinion. Let the dead people who still vote and literally don’t have functioning brains take care of that.

As Paul Ryan aptly said in his epic take-down at Obama’s Health Care “Summit” (which, by the way, was code for “I [Obama] am going to pretend to care what you think about my plan, and then will go ahead and shove it down your throats anyway”), “it’s all just smoke and mirrors.” “Cool” is just smoke and mirrors if there is no substance behind it.

pianomomma on August 12, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Just made my first donation to the RR campaign!!! Paul Ryan was a brilliant choice for VP, demonstrating how a competent executive surrounds himself with the best and brightest for own their area of expertise. Paul Ryan’s Roadmap demonstrates that he is “ready to lead” on day one.

Harbingeing on August 12, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Whoo Hoo!

Redford on August 12, 2012 at 4:24 PM

No way! Check out Janna Ryan’s resume. Wellesley grad (like Hillary and Diane Sawyer)…

monalisa on August 12, 2012 at 2:04 PM

and jackie kennedy too (sigh)…

jimver on August 12, 2012 at 4:25 PM

In Context

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2012/08/in-context.html

M2RB: Flame

Resist We Much on August 12, 2012 at 4:26 PM

lol! I love that McCoy cartoon!

ghostwriter on August 12, 2012 at 4:29 PM

According to the original Treasury Department estimates, the Clinton tax hike was to raise federal revenues by 0.36% of GDP in its first year and by 0.83% of GDP in its fourth year, when all provisions were in effect and timing differences associated with near-term taxpayer behaviours had normalised. Tax receipts were relatively static in 1993 and 1994, so I wouldn’t read that as a positive created by the 1993 tax rises. FN1, FN2.

In the four years following the Clinton tax hike (from 1993 through 1996):

* The economy grew at an average annual rate of 3.2% in inflation-adjusted terms; FN6

* Average real hourly wages rose a total of five cents per hour; FN8 and

* Total market capitalisation of the S&P 500 rose 78% in inflation-adjusted terms. FN9

Economic growth was solid, but hardly spectacular in the years immediately following the 1993 tax increase. This is not really that surprising. The rule is “the deeper the recession, the stronger the growth in the post-recessionary period.“ Compared with the economic performance after the 1981-1982 recession, it was very mild, indeed. Job growth was strong, as expected. The stock market performed well, but real wage growth was nearly non-existent. The economy was still growing, but GDP growth had started to slow at the end of 1994 and early 1995 and by the end of the year, GDP had nearly returned to its 1993 level. Additionally, nervous about inflation, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates to “soften the landing.” FN3 In 1995, the annual report of the United States Trade Representative was already claiming that “[T]he United States market has hard limits on its growth; we have a mature economy and economic growth is beginning to slow.” FN9

* Industrial production—output of factories, mines, and utilities—leveled off. FN3

* October industrial production index barely exceeded its January 1995 value. FN3

* Payroll employment in manufacturing decreased by an average of 16,500 jobs per month. FN7

* Business inventories rose relative to sales.

* Production slowed due to excess inventory and soft sales figures. FN1

* Real GDP was down to 2.0% down from 4.1% the previous year. FN5.
The real economic boom occurred in the latter half of the decade, after the 1997 tax cut. In addition to the data below, one example of this boom is explosion in the amount of venture capital invested. FN9 In 1995, the first year of data, the total amount of venture capital invested was 8billion. By 1998, the first full year in which the lower capital gains rates were in effect, venture capital activity reached almost 28 billion, more than a three-fold increase over 1995 levels, and by 1999, it had doubled yet again.

Continued.

Resist We Much on August 12, 2012 at 4:33 PM

The 1997 Tax Cut & Its Affect On Taxable CG Income (billion dollars)

1993: 36…..(emergence from recession)
1994: 36
1995: 44
1996: 66
1997: 79
1998: 89
1999: 112
2000: 131….(Dot-com bust, 10 March 2000 and recession begins followed by 9/11.

* The economy averaged 4.2% real growth per year from 1997 to 2000–a full% point higher than during the expansion following the 1993 tax rise. FN5

* Employment increased by 11.5 million jobs, which is roughly comparable to the job growth in the preceding four-year period. FN7

* Real wages, however, grew at 6.5%, which is much stronger than the 0.8% growth of the preceding period. FN8

* Total market capitalisation of the S&P 500 rose an astounding 95%.

* CBO: In 1998 attributed only 1 percentage point of that extra tax revenue to the 1993 budget deal. The rest, he said, came from capital gains. FN10

* Between 1994 and 1999, realised capital gains nearly quadrupled, the CBO concluded, with taxes on those gains accounting for about 30% of the increased growth of individual income tax liabilities relative to the growth of GDP. FN11

FN1: http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3856&type=0
FN2: http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/current-tax-receipts
FN3: http://cber.uky.edu/Downloads/usecon96.htm
FN4: http://www.americaneconomicalert.org/view_art.asp?Prod_ID=600
FN5: http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/gdp_real_growth_rate.html

Resist We Much on August 12, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Just made my first donation to the RR campaign!!! Paul Ryan was a brilliant choice for VP, demonstrating how a competent executive surrounds himself with the best and brightest for own their area of expertise. Paul Ryan’s Roadmap demonstrates that he is “ready to lead” on day one.

Harbingeing on August 12, 2012 at 4:22 PM

ditto…and let me mention, we are seniors!!

4Freedom on August 12, 2012 at 4:36 PM

The 1997 Tax Cut & Its Affect On Taxable CG Income (billion dollars)

1993: 36…..(emergence from recession)
1994: 36
1995: 44
1996: 66
1997: 79
1998: 89
1999: 112
2000: 131….(Dot-com bust, 10 March 2000 and recession begins followed by 9/11.

* The economy averaged 4.2% real growth per year from 1997 to 2000–a full% point higher than during the expansion following the 1993 tax rise. FN5

* Employment increased by 11.5 million jobs, which is roughly comparable to the job growth in the preceding four-year period. FN7

* Real wages, however, grew at 6.5%, which is much stronger than the 0.8% growth of the preceding period. FN8

* Total market capitalisation of the S&P 500 rose an astounding 95%.

* CBO: In 1998 attributed only 1 percentage point of that extra tax revenue to the 1993 budget deal. The rest, he said, came from capital gains. FN10

* Between 1994 and 1999, realised capital gains nearly quadrupled, the CBO concluded, with taxes on those gains accounting for about 30% of the increased growth of individual income tax liabilities relative to the growth of GDP. FN11

FN1: http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3856&type=0
FN2: http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/current-tax-receipts
FN3: http://cber.uky.edu/Downloads/usecon96.htm

Resist We Much on August 12, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Thanks, MJBrutus.

Actually, this could be setting the stage for even MORE boldness to come.

logis on August 12, 2012 at 2:04 PM

That is an interesting theory, and coincides with an idea I’ve been playing with all day. What if Team Romney really does have a shocker in store for the convention, something to really fire up the base and bring the house down.

Palin.

What if this whole Palin/Romney conflict is a fake, made up? The Newsweek story a plant? Palin’s quote a knowing misdirection? What if she’s a featured speaker, and it has been in the works for a while?

The choice of Ryan as VP got the Republican establishment and pundit class in line. The base is pleased. But a surprise Palin appearance at the convention, in which she gets whole heartedly behind Romney, would excite the base, unify the party, and create a media spectacle. It would be political gold, and a show well worth watching.

Mr. Arkadin on August 12, 2012 at 4:37 PM

FN8: BLS, average hourly earnings, non-supervisory employees.
FN9: PriceWaterhouseCoopers, National Venture Capital Association “MoneyTree” Report, at http://www.pwcmoneytree.com/moneytree/nav.jsp?page=historical.
FN10: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/budget/stories/020198.htm
FN11: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/32xx/doc3277/EntireReport.pdf

Resist We Much on August 12, 2012 at 4:37 PM

You know what. Let’s focus on the Senate budget and compare and contrast between that and the Ryan plan.

Happy Nomad on August 12, 2012 at 3:04 PM

We don’t have a revenue problem We have a spending problem. Ryan can explain our financial crisis concisely and clearly. As the VP nominee, it will be difficult for the media to shut him out. There is a good chance he will be able to keep the campaign focus on spending, the economy and jobs and actually get accurate coverage. This will really help Romney. Romney chose this over identity politics. Let’s hope it was the correct decision.

talkingpoints on August 12, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Give it up folks. Resistance is futile. Obama has a secret weapon to win the election – signs going up in cemetery after cemetery in all the swing states reading, “We are all democrats now”.

VorDaj on August 12, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Resist We Much on August 12, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Excellent posts. Thanks!

ghostwriter on August 12, 2012 at 4:40 PM

lol! I love that McCoy cartoon!

ghostwriter on August 12, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Isn’t it great? It reminds me of Peter Jennings:

“Some thoughts on those angry voters. Ask parents of any two-year-old and they can tell you about those temper tantrums: the stomping feet, the rolling eyes, the screaming. Imagine a nation full of uncontrolled two-year-old rage. The voters had a temper tantrum last week.

Resist We Much on August 12, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Not sure about the single heartbeat at the end and the editing is a bit rough. Otherwise fine just needs a small amount of attention to the details.

Bmore on August 12, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Excellent posts. Thanks!

ghostwriter on August 12, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Thanks. This is the one that I first tried to post. I guess that I will have to do it in two parts:

I do not believe in unified budgeting. It is a gimmick where the government borrows from trust funds to cover its deficit spending, but let’s go with “Clinton had a surplus” and see what the Washington Post has to say:

“…The Clinton plan was never intended to achieve a balanced budget. After the bill’s passage, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the deficit would decline modestly — from 290 billion in 1992 to 200 billion in 1998. In the phrase of the era, there were still “deficits as far as the eye could see.”

Indeed, the Clinton budget plan was actually slightly smaller, on an inflation-adjusted basis, than the deficit-reduction package signed into law in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush (770 billion versus 830 billion). Many Republicans also opposed that deal — which Boxer supported — because it included higher taxes.

Fast forward to 1995. The Democrats lost control of the House and the Senate, largely because of bruising budget battle. Clinton’s fiscal year 1996 budget again proposes 200 billion deficits every year for the next five years. So, again, the target in 1998 (when “surpluses” later emerged) was a deficit of 196 billion.

But Republicans immediately set the goal of achieving a balanced budget within seven years. After resisting for a few months, Clinton shocked many fellow Democrats by announcing that he, too, would embrace the idea of a balanced budget.

As The Washington Post editorial page put it at the time, Republicans had forced Clinton’s hand: “Mr. Clinton’s new position on the budget is much better than the old one. He should have taken it six months ago. The Republicans have driven him to say that he too wants, if not to balance the budget, at least to get the deficit into the neutral zone.”

From 1992 to 1997, CBO estimated, revenue increased at an annual average of 7.7 percent in nominal terms, or about 2.4 percentage points faster than the growth of the gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the economy. CBO Deputy Director James L. Blum in 1998 ATTRIBUTED ONLY 1% POINT OF EXTRA REVENUE BETWEEN 1993 AND 1998 TO CLINTON’S 1993 TAX INCREASES. The rest, he said, came from capital gains.

Resist We Much on August 12, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Give it up folks. Resistance is futile. Obama has a secret weapon to win the election – signs going up in cemetery after cemetery in all the swing states reading, “We are all democrats now”.

VorDaj on August 12, 2012 at 4:40 PM

November 7, 2012: “Exit polling showed President Obama with a crushing 92 percent of the dead vote, compared with a meager 3 percent for challenger Romney.”

ghostwriter on August 12, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Continued…

Between 1994 and 1999, realized capital gains nearly quadrupled, the CBO concluded , with taxes on those gains accounting for about 30 percent of the increased growth of individual income tax liabilities relative to the growth of GDP.

There were other factors as well, such as lower than expected health costs that reduced an expected drain on the budget. Clinton’s predecessor also had kicked in motion a huge decline in defense spending (which Clinton accelerated) and also had overseen a painful restructuring of the banking industry. Even a potential shock, such as the Asian financial crisis in 1997, brought the silver lining of lower oil prices that bolstered the U.S. economy.

Credit Clinton with this, however: When the prospect of budget surpluses (due to Social Security monies) emerged in 1998, he adroitly blocked GOP demands for a tax cut by forcing a bidding war on how much to reserve for Social Security — a political maneuver that likely prevented the (Social Security) surpluses from disappearing as quickly as they appeared. We all know what happened after Clinton left office.

For claiming that Bill Clinton was for a balanced budget from the beginning, the Clinton tax hikes was responsible for the majority of increased revenues, led to the booming economy, etc., Sen Boxer got the dreaded 3 Pinocchios from the WP.

Sources:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/barbara-boxers-gross-rewriting-of-history/2011/06/30/AGFGVqsH_blog.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/fact-checker/BudgetOutlook1993.pdf

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy96/pdf/bud96.pdf

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-839508.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/budget/stories/020198.htm

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/32xx/doc3277/EntireReport.pdf

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/01/cutting_the_defense_budget.html

Resist We Much on August 12, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Continued…

Between 1994 and 1999, realized capital gains nearly quadrupled, the CBO concluded , with taxes on those gains accounting for about 30 percent of the increased growth of individual income tax liabilities relative to the growth of GDP.

There were other factors as well, such as lower than expected health costs that reduced an expected drain on the budget. Clinton’s predecessor also had kicked in motion a huge decline in defense spending (which Clinton accelerated) and also had overseen a painful restructuring of the banking industry. Even a potential shock, such as the Asian financial crisis in 1997, brought the silver lining of lower oil prices that bolstered the U.S. economy.

Credit Clinton with this, however: When the prospect of budget surpluses (due to Social Security monies) emerged in 1998, he adroitly blocked GOP demands for a tax cut by forcing a bidding war on how much to reserve for Social Security — a political maneuver that likely prevented the (Social Security) surpluses from disappearing as quickly as they appeared. We all know what happened after Clinton left office.

For claiming that Bill Clinton was for a balanced budget from the beginning, the Clinton tax hikes was responsible for the majority of increased revenues, led to the booming economy, etc., Sen Boxer got the dreaded 3 Pinocchios from the WP.

Resist We Much on August 12, 2012 at 4:46 PM

All of this should’ve have been cleaned up long before Senator Obama became President Obama. But, I seriously did not come here on this fine Sunday morning to talk foreign policy, because I am not at liberty to discuss that, because I am still in.

StoneKrab on August 12, 2012 at 2:27 PM

cut that crap, will you pls. my spouse is a Cpt in the AF, and while herself does not comment on public blogs for different reasons, there’s no rule against it, especially for enlisted personnel, you can say whatever you pls, foreign policy or else, as long as you keep it civil and make it clear you express your personal opinions and views…and sure you do not disclose location or whereabouts, or post pics of it (if you are not supposed to). there’a an excellent poster on Hot Gas (one of my fave commenters actually) – thousands of apologies I can never remember his exact moniker – who posts here regularly and states his opinions about Obozo and his inept foreign policy unequivocally, and he is currently in Afghanistan…

jimver on August 12, 2012 at 4:50 PM

For claiming that Bill Clinton was for a balanced budget from the beginning, the Clinton tax hikes was responsible for the majority of increased revenues, led to the booming economy, etc., Sen Boxer got the dreaded 3 Pinocchios from the WP.

Resist We Much on August 12, 2012 at 4:46 PM

I’m sure that quote must have come from Limbaugh and Beck’s notorious column in the Washington Post. Heh.

ghostwriter on August 12, 2012 at 4:50 PM

There is one important demographic that Romney and Ryan will never be competitive in. It started in Chicago and is now expanding throughout the nation – signs in more and more cemeteries reading, “We are all democrats now”.

VorDaj on August 12, 2012 at 3:22 PM

You’d have to be dead in mind or spirit to vote democrat nowadays. Or a deadbeat.

Sterling Holobyte on August 12, 2012 at 4:52 PM

flapmymouth and floatingboat qualify too, or are they one and the same person :-)….

jimver on August 12, 2012 at 2:36 PM

..what about The Yeasty One and unPragmatic?

The War Planner on August 12, 2012 at 2:39 PM

yeasty is in a league of himself/herself, have yet to invent a category (or a mental disorder??) to describe that one…

jimver on August 12, 2012 at 4:53 PM

I’m sure that quote must have come from Limbaugh and Beck’s notorious column in the Washington Post. Heh.

ghostwriter on August 12, 2012 at 4:50 PM

No, it is mine.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-839508.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/budget/stories/020198.htm

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/32xx/doc3277/EntireReport.pdf

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/01/cutting_the_defense_budget.html

Resist We Much on August 12, 2012 at 4:56 PM

I’m sure that quote must have come from Limbaugh and Beck’s notorious column in the Washington Post. Heh.

ghostwriter on August 12, 2012 at 4:50 PM

No, I pretty certain that it is mine. I wrote all of that a while ago.

I’m trying to finish posting the links for the footnotes, but I can only do a few at a time.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-839508.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/budget/stories/020198.htm

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/32xx/doc3277/EntireReport.pdf

Resist We Much on August 12, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Just saw tweet from Guy Benson who tallies it at $4.7 million online donations so far w 65K donors…

Buy Danish on August 12, 2012 at 6:00 PM

Look, I want to see B.O. out of here as much as any conservative. But I have an honest question. I’m almost afraid to ask it because of the blow-back potential in light of the most recent Paul Ryan euphoria, but here goes:

If you’ve been in Congress the last 14 years, just what, exactly, do you have to be proud of?

Galtian on August 13, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3