There has been a great deal of noise from the Obama Campaign about Governor Romney releasing all of his tax returns for their scrutiny. Even some people who label themselves as conservatives are calling for him to release 'the customary twelve years' of returns. So far, Governor Romney is holding out and says he will only release his last two years:My tax returns that have already been released number into the hundreds of pages. And we will be releasing tax returns for the most current year as soon as those are prepared. They will also number in the hundreds of pages. In the political environment that exists today, the opposition research of the Obama campaign is looking for anything they can use to distract from the failure of the president to reignite our economy. And I’m simply not enthusiastic about giving them hundreds or thousands of more pages to pick through, distort, and lie about.
In this particular case, I totally agree with the governor's decision.
We are dealing with one of the sleaziest and immoral political campaigns in my memory, and since running on the president's record is impossible, virtually all they have left is the politics of destruction. We have already seen how the Obama Campaign has been willing to blatantly lie and distort the governor's tenure at Bain Capital, aided and abetted by their lackeys in the media.
In fact, before anything further is released, if I were Governor Romney I'd ask for a quid pro quo, and call on President Obama:
There are a number of other things I could mention concerning this most secretive and hidden of president that the American people have a right to know. Full transparency, right?
Until President Obama comes clean, I don't see any reason to point fingers at Mitt Romney.
Instead, this president can do what a leader does...provide an example he wishes others to follow.
8 comments:
crickets
Mitt's refusal to follow the precedent set by his own father has given him by far the worst week (yet) of his campaign. The people you describe as 'labeling themselves as conservatives' are different from you only in that they're able to take off their rose-colored glasses, admit there's a problem, and look for a way to fix it. I personally wish they would take your head-in-the-sand approach. Never interfere with an enemy when he's in the process of destroying himself. That being the situation, I hope he takes your advice.
But what's amazing is that Mitt has taken a look at the damage he's done and calculated that he prefers his current predicament over releasing his tax returns during the years he was at Bain - seeing as those years are relevant, as opposed to the years he was running for president. If that's the case, the information in those tax returns must be damn near explosive for him to decide that this current course is preferable.
Do you guys have a backup candidate?
I absolutely chortle over the way you and the Left are trying to spin this, Roland.
The easy answers:
1. George Romney was running against people who actually had a sense of decency, as opposed to Barack Obama and his Chicago thugs, and the dinosaur media was still at least somewhat objective back then.
2. Let Obama be a leader and set the example in transparency, as I mentioned.You and the Left on on a fishing expedition because you have nothing else.
OTOH, everything I mentioned I want the president to be transparent on is sheer dynamite, as you know, and some of it would almost certainly get him indicted and perhaps even impeached if the Democrats in the Senate have any decency whatsoever.
Speaking of backup candidates, do the Democrats have one? Someone who at least has some integrity and an idea of what being president means?
The last three candidates have been:
(A) a hysterical and obnoxious blowhard who made his fortune off the Global warming scam and was so unlikeable that he lost to a light weight like George W. Bush, someone he should have beaten easily as a sitting Vice President.
(B)a gigolo and arrogant poseur who arguably committed de facto treason while still in uniform by meeting with North Vietnamese cadres in Paris and plotting on ways to undermine the US war effort, and who arguably perjured himself while testifying before Congress in the Winter Soldiers hearings.
C) A corrupt, ineffectual radical with no qualifications for office whatsoever and an execrable record he can't possibly run on.
Your complaints about Obama are duly noted and I get that you'd rather attack him than defend Romney. It's easier, and more fun as well. But if your goal is to replace Obama, denying reality by calling reailty 'spin' is a strange, albeit fascinating, tactic. Whether you like it or not, the simple truth is that Romney's taking a beating on this one and Obama's team has played this one extremely well. You can either confront the problem or whine about it. But if whining is more your style, then I am absolutely cool with that.
Hah ha! What did you do in our original comment but attack Romney and avoid defending Obama?
Nice try though.It mirrors how the Obama campaign has been acting from day one, and with good reason.Because his record is indefensible.
Moreover, you are intellectually dishonest, since you are screaming about 'transparency' for Romney while holding your nose to avoid the stench and avoiding calling for any sort of transparency rom Obama..because you support his agenda.
Be careful about whom you accuse of wearing rose colored glasses, Roland. In your case, they're blinders.
The bottom line is that this election is a referendum on the incumbent, just like any campaign involving re-election is.It's Barack Obama and his abysmal performance that needs defending, not Romney's.And that's an impossibility, especially as the economy goes further south.Seen the numbers lately? Or the right track wrong track numbers?
The issue of Romney's taxes is going to end up being just another Dem talking point. Either he'll release the 12 years the Obama campaign wants or he won't (And don't be surprised if Obama doesn't order the IRS to selectively leak anything he feels he can distort anyway. It's how he slithered into the senate).
Obama's record, on the other hand, is something he's stuck with, and that's what the election is going to hinge on.
If he manages to win,he will have done so under such crooked and massively dishonest conditions that it will be impossible for him to govern.
And if that doesn't finish him, the scandals he's racked up over the past three and a half years will, just like Nixon post '72.
What did you do in our original comment but attack Romney and avoid defending Obama?
There is no attack on Romney above, or even in my follow-up post. I've given up trying to understand where you find your imaginary monsters.
I didn't realize it was incumbent upon me to defend Obama when I'm offering what some may actually call helpful advice to a floundering candidate. Is commenting on the content of your post not enough? Maybe you should add a list at the bottom of your posts as to what you'd like us to discuss.
But here's some good news. If you're looking for some vindication, you might be pleased to know that Obama lost my support this week with his comment about businesses that 'someone else built.' He sounds like a villain in an Ayn Rand novel. And I'll give you further vindication by saying that it is criminal that the media is trying to bury that quote. I've always considered the 'liberal media' bias to be just unattractive whining, but there's certainly a convincing case here.
So god knows what you'll try and find in the preceding paragraph to prove that I'm a socialist, but I'm always amused to see my words either twisted or (more commonly) invented out of whole cloth. In the meantime, as a newly-minted swing voter who can possibly be persuaded to vote on election day, maybe I can finally get an explanation from you as to why Romney should stay on this current course. It's been disastrous. Just get it all out there and move on. I just can't for the life of me understand why he's doing this to himself. The only rational explanation is that he has something to hide. And that's the problem. You want to know why the Republican talking heads are screaming for him to release the returns? Because what he's doing looks shady as hell.
Oh, and before I'm called names again, I should at least let you know where I'm coming from. I'm a moderate on economic issues, liberal on social issues, and staunchly pro-Israel (though I've become slightly less so since I started reading your site, I'm afraid). Romney could conceivably win me over because he's not ashamed of capitalism and I strongly suspect that he doesn't care one whit about the Republican social issue stuff. I can no longer support Obama (he seriously pissed me off with that comment), and I can just barely imagine myself voting for Romney. However, unlike you, I live in a swing state. Maybe if you engaged your readers rather than insulting them, you could bring some of us over into your column.
Oh I understand, Roland. It's 'insulting' for me to point out your inconsistencies, no?
Fine.
Just between us, I rather doubt your professed tilt from Obama to Romney based on every comment you've made here...including the one on Mormonism I didn't allow on, because I frankly found it bigoted.
Just for the record, as a somewhat observant Jew I found what the Mormon Church was doing re: Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust to be a well meaning act of compassion, a bit misguided at worst.Also, knowing a bit where the LDS are at philosophically, I understand why they felt compelled to do this.
The Jews who screamed loudest about it were for the most part totally secular, left wing Jews. Exactly the sort of people who support Obama in lockstep and who have the views you appear to have about the LDS, based on your past comments
I also have to admit to thinking that if it took you this long to realize how biased the media is when it comes to Obama and how bad his performance as president has been, you're not half as smart as you appear to be.
But I'd certainly rather be wrong about that than right. Perhaps you might even surprise me and prove me wrong in some of your future comments.
One never knows.
Regards,
Rob
The IRS generally has three years from the due date of a tax return to audit a taxpayer. There are exceptions, such as in cases where fraud or significant under reporting of income is suspected. In these cases the IRS has more time to conduct an audit of a taxpayer.
In the case of Mr. Romney as with all high income/high net worth taxpayers, there tax returns are closely scrutinized by IRS personnel. This is is especially going to be the case for an entity such as Bain Capital. As such fraud or under reporting of income is NOT going to be an issue.
Since the IRS has only three yers from the due date of a tax return in the case of Mr. Romney to conduct an audit, 2009-2011 would be the only tax returns that could be considered at this point in time. As such, Mr. Romney and his team are entirely correct in not releasing the last twelve years of tax returns. To do so is an undue hardship and contributes nothing to the current situation.
Furthermore given the complexity of the tax returns of someone like Mr. Romney these are unlikely to be completed until very close to the October 15 deadline for individual US tax returns. Furthermore, while it might be reasonable to ask for the 2009 tax return to be released, it would be impractical.
As a CPA and an income tax accountant, I have a comprehension of the complexity involved in the record keeping and preparation of income tax returns that involve the type of complexities involved in the preparation of Mr. Romney's tax returns that goes far beyond that of most Americans and can empathize with his concerns.
Given that these returns will run in the hundreds of pages and perhaps even thousands of pages long and involve highly complicated issues, it would be very easy for someone to "cherry pick" certain things from a number of years ago to take entirely out of context and to focus on. As such, Mr. Romney is entirely correct in not wanting to release this information. Furthermore as stated previously for someone of his income level or at least the income level he is purported to have, the tax returns have already been closely scrutinized by the IRS. There's nothing to see that is relevant.
A better question would be why does Mr. Obama and his team feel it needs the information. If one of Mr. Obama's opponents made such a request of Mr. Obama they would rightly be chastised as being unreasonable.
To summarize, Mr. Romney is entirely correct in not wanting to release this information nor should he be expected to do so. His explanation is largely a correct one, however, I don't think it goes deep enough. The problem he and his team have is trying to explain this in a manner that people who are not versed in income tax law can understand. Addtionally the problem is compounded by the fact that many of the voters are absolute idiots who would never take the effort to try and understand such things.
Post a Comment