home

Journamalism From The Usual Suspects

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 02:14:09 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Look at this "reporting", via Hunter:

So, now we know. After months of his campaign dodging direct questions on the matter, Mitt Romney said Thursday in South Carolina that at no time in the past decade has he paid less than a 13 percent tax rate.

Mitt Romney refuses to release his tax returns, and this WaPo "journalist" pronounces the question answered.

Simply pathetic. I suppose the new standard is what the candidate says is taken as gospel and enough. Why would any candidate ever release their tax returns applying this standard? What a pathetic excuse for a reporter.

< Ecuador Grants Asylum to Julian Assange | 4th Cir. Affirms Overturning Death Sentence for Prosecutorial Witholding of Evidence >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Journamalism From The Usual Suspects | 83 comments (83 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    gosh BTD, you act so......................... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by cpinva on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 03:13:26 PM EST
    surprised! well yeah, romney's a republican, and it's a well known fact that republican's never lie, so why wouldn't this young "journalist" take him at his word? i assume his editor was fine with it as well.

    myself, i'm a cynical old fart (and also an auditor by profession), so i kind of like to actually see the source documents myself. it's not that i don't believe you................

    i assume this is the "arthur anderson school of professional journalism"?

    I'm not sure who Arthur Anderson is (none / 0) (#50)
    by coast on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 08:30:19 PM EST
    but the accounting firm is Arthur Andersen.

    Parent
    Well, we could believe Romney (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 03:30:08 PM EST
    (that no time in the past decade has he paid less than 13 percent tax rate), and still not be satisfied without the tax returns.  What if he should have paid, say 20 percent based on an analysis?  It may be legal, but somewhat tawdry for a patriot running for president.  And, of course, we need to have clarified, is Romney referring to income taxes as opposed to a cumulative tax rate, of real estate taxes, gas guzzler auto taxes, gift taxes and state taxes.

    Now there's the transparency (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 03:32:58 PM EST
    and accountability I look for in a President.  He really is a CEO talking to his little office slaves through and through isn't he.

    Anyway it's funny that the WSJ thinks that Democrats are now forced into the position of calling him a liar.  I think they just have to say "prove it" and the conversation will continue.

    This is Worthy of a Post ? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 03:58:57 PM EST
    It's nearly impossible to find a political 'news' story in any MS media that doesn't boil down to opposing quotes with no actual effort from the 'journalist' to determine, or even care if either claim is legitimate.

    I'm still trying to figure out the difference between the Medicare cuts and whose are going to effect us the most.  But all I get is he/she said.  

    Common sense tells me there is no way in hell Romney is looking out for me or us in regards to cuts to Medicare.  But it would be really see the differences and know who is full of it and who isn't.

    And by "rate" I suppose he means (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 04:37:04 PM EST
    "the margin rate on that part of the taxable income that consists of ordinary income"?  Or relative to gross income? Or adjusted gross income? Certain not on the larger part of his (taxable) income that consists of capital gains, anyway.  

    David Dayen expands on that thought, (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 04:46:07 PM EST
    in a rather pointed way.

    First, Romney says:

    I just have to say, given the challenges that America faces - 23 million people out of work, Iran about to become nuclear, one out of six Americans in poverty - the fascination with taxes I've paid I find to be very small-minded compared to the broad issues that we face. But I did go back and look at my taxes and over the past 10 years I never paid less than 13 percent. I think the most recent year is 13.6 or something like that. So I paid taxes every single year. Harry Reid's charge is totally false. I'm sure waiting for Harry to put up who it was that told him what he says they told him. I don't believe it for a minute, by the way. But every year I've paid at least 13 percent and if you add in addition the amount that goes to charity, why the number gets well above 20 percent.

    And Dayen responds:

    First of all, money to charity has nothing to do with paying taxes. I spent a lot of money on burritos in 2011. If someone asks me about my tax rate, and I say "I paid 30%, but with burritos that goes up to 35%," that's about as meaningful as what Romney said. His charitable deductions reduce his tax rate, in fact, so it's worse, because he's counting money on one hand that lowers his rate on the other.

    In addition, as Michael O'Hare notes, Romney said he paid 13% "in taxes." He did not specify. Is that on adjusted gross income? Total income? Total income including sheltered money in offshore accounts? Does that include sales taxes? Property taxes? Gas taxes? Excise taxes? State taxes? What? I don't think this does anything but intensify the intrigue on this issue.

    Also, there's the matter that 13% is an obscene federal income tax rate for someone with the income of a Mitt Romney.

    Really love the part about the burritos!

    Parent

    I should have checked Romney's actual words (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 05:39:42 PM EST
    before commenting. I was going off the post, which claimed Romney said he paid a "13 percent tax rate."  If all he said was that he paid "13 percent [of his income, in some sense] in taxes" that's even more squirrely.  It is intended to make people think he is saying that he paid federal income tax equal to 13 percent of his [total?] income, when it probably does include property tax, state taxes, excise taxes, and sales tax.

    Parent
    Yet (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Lacy on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 07:25:17 PM EST
    we must recall that Romney seeks to refute the comment by Harry Reid that a former Bain associate called him to say that Romney did not pay any taxes for 10 years.

    BUT, the Bain link ended in either 1999 or a couple years later, so the years in question were most likely to be 10 or more years ago, if, as seems reasonable, the alleged Bain person was speaking of the time of their association.

    He may no longer be running Bain Capital, ... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 08:02:49 PM EST
    ... but he's still receiving a substantial amount of income from them, so he still has substative ties to them. Let's not forget that.

    Parent
    C'mon! It's Chris Cilizza, BTD. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 08:06:55 PM EST
    What do you expect from him? He's to journalism, what Burger King is to healthy nutrition.

    OK, before I ban myself too (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 10:40:34 AM EST
    If a POTUS candidate was the president of Boeing, you would easily see his potential conflict of interest in how he would run the government. Armed with that information you could make a decision as a voter. It is the same thing with a very rich man who uses the tax code to his advantage, and then is put in charge of the tax code. I for one would like to see which parts of the tax code he uses to his advantage.

    Before I vote, I like to know which parts of the hen house the fox will be sniffing around.

    If you don't believe what a candidate says . . . (2.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Payaso on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 02:32:34 PM EST
    . . . don't vote for him.

    Cilizza will vote for Romney (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 02:37:02 PM EST
    so there you go.

    Great journalism!

    My gawd, some of you are so stupid.

    I'm banned for the day.

    It was worth it.

    Parent

    Hey, not so fast with the self-banning... (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 02:52:32 PM EST
    makes it seem like drive-by posting; delete your comment, if you must, but stick around if you think you can stand it!

    As for the new standard of "because the candidate said so," it sure would shorten the already short shrift the media give to these kinds of details; why it's almost like they think it doesn't really matter.  

    Better we should spend days parsing the meaning of Joe Biden's "y'all" combined with his use of "chains" or "shackles" or whatever it was he said, and deciding who is more falsely outraged about it.  Or giving air time to Sarah Palin, who thinks we should seriously consider dumping Biden for Clinton.  Yes, because we all want to go "there" again, don't we?  Lordy.

    Yes, there are a lot of stupid people in this world, but some of the most egregiously lacking in intelligence are the so-called journalists and not a few of the candidates they purport to cover.

    Parent

    in the post 911 universe I pondered (none / 0) (#78)
    by LeaNder on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 11:18:45 AM EST
    but some of the most egregiously lacking in intelligence are the so-called journalists

    in the post 911 universe I pondered a lot about journalism, news value theories and especially objectivity, I read a brilliant article by an American about "objectivity" at the time, add to that "balance".

    Admittedly I couldn't help but think about our German history in this context. During the Weimar republic over here, or in other words the German post WWI world up to Hitler, there were developments including draft laws towards giving  journalists freedom of expression. As you may imagine this development was stopped by the Nazis who institutionalized a person in the papers they left intact. This "institution" was was personally responsible for everything a paper published. In other words someone that checked that no deviation from the Goebbels control occurred.

    The only space to express deviant positions were talking between the lines, or the actual words expressed just as there were what we call "scissors in the mind" or strictly in the head, meaning you'll more likely to cut out everything that you realize will cause you troubles. I thought about that a lot in the last decade, and wondered about similar structures. Add to that the fact that most people are no heroes and even without being a follower of Ayn Rand are aware what they need to do to keep their jobs. This is a good recipe to always remain on track to save your pension.

    An elder lady once told me this really simple fact. Her father had been a socialist, he went to the camps and he had almost no pension when he was older after the war, compared to the party members. We all need to confirm to the powers that be to a larger or minor degree, this is a simple fact of life, not just in journalism.

    By the way, if this sounds like a challenge, I respect you a lot Anne.

    Parent

    conform not confirm (none / 0) (#79)
    by LeaNder on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 11:22:26 AM EST
    I should reread before I push the post button.

    Parent
    Oh well, you said exactly what I was thinking (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 03:19:44 PM EST
    Now I don't have to get banned for the day.

    Parent
    At what point do they quit beating a dead horse? (1.50 / 2) (#9)
    by Payaso on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 03:38:59 PM EST
    They have asked for his returns.  He has refused to provide more than two years worth.  They have reported that fact.

    When do they quit asking and getting the same answer?

    When does this quit being a story?

    Anyone not satisfied with Mitt's response should not vote for him.

    Parent

    that is some fine journalism there (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 03:43:57 PM EST
    'Oh well, I tried and he just won't answer!!!

    You keep effing asking.

    Parent

    Not the way I see It. (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 03:55:16 PM EST
    For a candidate seeking the highest office in the land, the citizens have a duty to ascertain that candidate's financial interests.  This story is not beating a dead horse, it should remain as active as Rafalca---if Romney drops out of the race or otherwise returns to private life, his tax returns can  remain within the  confidentiality of  Romney's and the IRS's vault.

    Parent
    Answer to Payaso: It doesn't quit! (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by christinep on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 04:04:53 PM EST
    Given the flip-flop history of Romney--see, e.g., this week 's Repub contortions about Medicare--the story ends when he proves his new-found claim about taxes.  That's the buzz outside D?C.

    Parent
    Because this ISN'T a dead horse (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by cal1942 on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 04:37:41 PM EST
    People are entitled to know what they're getting in a candidate.

    People must know if Romney does everything possible to avoid or minimize his principal responsibilities as a citizen.

    Letting Romney off the hook is not acceptable.

    Parent

    How about college (1.50 / 2) (#35)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 06:42:19 PM EST
    transcripts?

    Parent
    Yeah, what about 'em? (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 07:51:27 PM EST
    After all, the fact that Barack Obama graduated magna cum laude -- that's Latin for "with high honors" -- from both Columbia University and Harvard Law School, and was named president of the Harvard Law Review, is completely meaningless, right?

    Why, those two schools probably joined in a five-decade-long conspiracy with all those liberal commies in the State of Hawaii, who had already created a fraudulent birth certificate for the guy, as part of a scheme to get the Mandingo Candidate elected president.

    Dude, I want my bong back. You've obviously had more than enough.

    Parent

    There is, in fact (none / 0) (#56)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 11:19:56 PM EST
    I've recently learned, a Big Deal circulating in right-wing blogs that Obama was accepted to Columbia as -- wait for it -- a foreign exchange student and that's why he's "hidden" his college transcripts.

    Parent
    It's not Obama's fault... (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by unitron on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 04:54:10 AM EST
    ...if Columbia's not smart enough to know that Hawaii is a state.

    : - )

    Parent

    LOL, way to go, Rush (none / 0) (#36)
    by NYShooter on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 06:54:12 PM EST
    transcripts, yeah, that's good. Maybe we'll find out what kind of President Obama will be........if, that is is, we ever vote for him.

    Parent
    I believe that is what we pay the IRS to do. (none / 0) (#52)
    by coast on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 08:43:14 PM EST


    Parent
    No, it isn't (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 11:20:33 PM EST


    Parent
    He hasn't even provided the two years. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 07:46:02 PM EST
    The Romneys' 2010 release was incomplete, and further, the couple asked for an extension on their 2011 return, which means that it doesn't even have to be filed with the IRS until two weeks before the election.

    And to answer your question, it all quits being a story when Mittens finally stops dissembling. But he won't, because it's pretty obvious that whatever is in those returns is probably a game-ender -- such as perhaps, let's say, filing an amended return under the IRS's amnesty provisions that discloses information about his Swiss UBS bank account, under penalty of felony prosecution.

    Romney's plainly made the political calculation that the potential damage to be incurred by releasing the tax returns far outweighs whatever grief he's currently getting by stonewalling on the issue.

    If Mittens wins in November, the roll of the dice will have paid off. If he doesn't, then the post-mortem on his campaign can probably look to this particular issue as the one in which most of the electorate decided it could not trust Mitt Romney with the reins of government, and turned against him.

    Parent

    The problem (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by cal1942 on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 04:26:03 PM EST
    is the press makes no effort to report the truth.  

    The electorate is badly under-informed and the responsibility for that lies with the press.

    Parent

    Good point (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by NYShooter on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 04:49:47 PM EST
    "..press makes no effort to report the truth."
    They don't know the truth, and what's worse, they don't care. When they come upon a story worthy of reporting, they don't read it to ascertain what the truth is. They read it, as a movie director would read a script, to see how they can get a "wow" factor out of it.
    *************
    This just in:
    "Last night thousands of Jewish shops and businesses were bombed by elements of the Reich. So, why were those shopkeepers, the victims, arrested?

    Stay tuned, the answer after the break"
    --------------------------

    They look for the "two sides," not the truth.

    Parent

    I find this whole tax thing amusing (1.33 / 3) (#11)
    by Slado on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 03:50:51 PM EST
    We all know he's rich.

    We all know he paid taxes according to the law.  If you think he didn't you're a partisan nut job.

    All democrats want to do is tell their base..."See he's really rich and rich people don't pay enough taxes!"

    Romney's not playing along.

    Next.

    Boooo!! (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by magster on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 04:00:40 PM EST
    If he had nothing to be ashamed of, he'd release them. Tax havens, foreign investments, massive IRA, low tax percentage, shorting the Mormon church, Rafalca tax credit... it's all relevant to what values he has as he asks America to vote for him.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 04:09:34 PM EST
    He should release the same 11 years worth of tax returns that Obama has.  Put this to bed because this is a stupid thing that has become the main message of both parties.  We have real problems in this country, and it might be nice if the two major presidential candidates actually started addressing those issues as opposed to this summer-long game of  "Did so!" / "Did not!".

    But I doubt that Rafalca tax "credit" (I think you mean "deduction") probably won't stir up much hoo-hah since it was only $50.

    Parent

    "we have real problems in this country" (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by magster on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 04:15:44 PM EST
    Namely, the growing disparity in income growth between the haves and the have nots. The tax return issue is right on topic, it's why Mitt won't release them as he attempts to make the problem worse, and why it's more than a "did so, did not" political game.

    The tax returns issue is emblematic of why Mitt can't be president.

    Parent

    The "Did so / Did not!" (none / 0) (#23)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 04:29:45 PM EST
    problem is much, much bigger than the tax return issue.

    It is about campaigns who are running around acting like children and pointing fingers, instead of attempting to address the very real problems that face us. Instead, we are hearing about tax returns, horses, dogs, what Joe Biden says, Paul Ryan shirtless, and Obama going to a beer tent in Iowa (where the owner complained the visit cost him $25,000 in lost revenues).  Here's a novel idea - how about they talk about things like their respective jobs plans, or their foreign policy philosophy, or their outlook on trade, or what's going on with the European economic crisis and how they plan to address that?  Scandalous, I know.

    We all know Romney is rich.  Not releasing these tax returns makes it appear that he has something to hide, and that is but one factor that voters must consider when going into the voting booth - is he trustworthy?  We don't know if that's true, but it makes for good theater on cable news in these dog days of summer to speculate as to all the taxes he hasn't paid, at least according to Harry Reid's unnamed source. But I'm not sure what new information you are hoping to see in these returns - that he's really, really rich and can take advantage of tax shelters?  Is there anyone who thinks this isn't the case already? Or do you actually believe that he really hasn't paid taxes for the last ten years or so?

    You think the Romney camp would have learned from the Obama birth certificate fiasco - the longer you refuse to release this information, the more people want to see what's really inside and the more they will assume you are hiding something.

    It's disgusting that one of these two men will be leading our country when all they seem to want to talk about is how much the other guy is a "doo-doo head."

    Of course, if Democrats want to make this an issue that sticks, maybe they should ensure get their own talking points are accurate; otherwise, people who are just tuning in will see it as a desperate ploy and will tune it out to "politics as usual."

    Parent

    Of course the issues matter... (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by magster on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 04:38:55 PM EST
    but to equate the tax returns issue to the birther conspiracy is kinda silly. Obama released his birth certificate, along with his tax returns in 2008.

    The question you ask of "what do I want to see in these tax returns" is weird insofar as if it was only that Romney took advantage of what was legally available to him, then he should have released them long ago and said "so sue me, I beat the IRS". That he hasn't makes it all the more likely that there's something wrong. And something worth not ignoring.

    Parent

    Jb, (none / 0) (#32)
    by NYShooter on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 05:00:57 PM EST
    "... how about they talk about things like their respective jobs plans, or their foreign policy philosophy, or their outlook on trade, or what's going on with the European economic crisis and how they plan to address that?"
    ____________

    Do you think Fox News got to be the #1 station on TV by talking about those things?

    Remember, first you have to get elected. And, if the American public had indicated they were interested in hearing the issues, FOX wouldn't exist.

    Sad? Yes. But, as many politicians have quoted (with a different meaning, of course) "We want as good a government as are the American people."

    And, that's what we've got; Stupid in, Stupid out.

    Parent

    You are mistaken (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 07:20:05 PM EST
    to think that either Obama or Romney has a solution. They don't. The only thing either one of them is offering is more supply side garbage and that is PRECISELY why we are spending all this time talking about tax returns because frankly there's not much else to discuss.

    Parent
    I Think A Lot of People.... (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 04:04:26 PM EST
    ...on both sides want to know how much money is exported to avoid taxes, legally no doubt.  At least both side have made calls for them, more from the left, but the right has made the same calls.

    But if it's no big deal, what's the problem with doing what other Presidential candidates have always done, including his father ?

    And since the stone wall, now it really matters to know if he is being honest.  Obviously this site isn't voting for the guy, but people on the fence deserve to know if he's lying about his income taxes.

    Parent

    .... and even if he's not lying (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by magster on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 04:08:55 PM EST
    knowing what he stands for as he asks us to make Medicare a voucher system so he and his rich colleagues can pay even less and buy even more dancing horses while socking away money on some island in the Carribbean.

    Parent
    It's called politics (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 04:35:28 PM EST
    And there's absolutely nothing with pointing out that a multimillionaire candidate is paying a lower percentage of his income in taxes than many working-class people.  Plus, I would assume this would be aimed at independents or swing voters rather than the Democratic base, who aren't going to vote for Romney, anyway.

    OTOH, I understand why Republicans and/or those who empathize with the wealthy would want to change the subject, but I would argue just the opposite.  C'mon, Anne R. .... beat this horse till it's dead, then dig it up and beat it some more!

    Parent

    "We know he paid taxes according (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 04:41:06 PM EST
    to the law."  

    Really?  We do?  How do we know that?

    It isn't that Democrats want to tell their base that rich people don't pay enough taxes, it's that they want their base to know that Mitt Romney's plans show that he thinks average people should end up paying more so rich people like him don't have to.

    Mitt's "because I said so" isn't going to work, nor should it.

    Parent

    Come on Anne (2.67 / 3) (#31)
    by Slado on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 04:56:10 PM EST
    We know he paid taxes according to the law.  If you don't like the law call your congressman.  They are the ones who write the tax code.

    Romney has calculated that wild speculation by the left is better then the eventually misreading of his tax records by partisan democrats.

    Some republicans disagree but at this point I think it's a non issue.

    If he did anything illegal let the IRS go after him.

    Does the election law require him to release more than 2 years?

    Didn't think so.

    Parent

    Romney has NOT (none / 0) (#42)
    by kmblue on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 07:37:23 PM EST
    released two years.  He's released 2010 and only part of 2011.  

    Parent
    If Romney took advantage of the (none / 0) (#44)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 07:48:01 PM EST
    amnesty on reporting previously unreported offshore income, then no, he hadn't been paying taxes or filing returns in accordance with the law - and that's something that release of the returns would allow us to see.

    I think he wants to avoid having to say, "yeah, I didn't report the income, but then I did, so it's all okay," because he knows he could never, ever sell that one.

    Maybe you're comfortable taking Romney's word for his tax-reporting and -paying history, but some of us are not.

    Parent

    Anne you are usually a voice of reason here. (none / 0) (#53)
    by coast on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 08:54:24 PM EST
    Do your really believe that the IRS hasn't reviewed Mitt's returns with a fine tooth comb?

    Parent
    I'm saying there's a possibility that (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 09:13:32 PM EST
    he took advantage of the amnesty with respect to offshore income not previously reported.

    Nothing at all unreasonable about that, I don't think.

    Parent

    Not unreasonable, but very unlikely. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by coast on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 09:57:03 PM EST


    Parent
    Much as it pains me (none / 0) (#59)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 11:41:58 PM EST
    I'm forced to agree with you.  This whole theory about the amnesty that's taken hold strikes me as absurd.  The man has a ridiculous, obscene amount of money, and he's been heading for a presidential run for at least a couple of decades.  He had zero reason to play it cute with the Swiss so that he would need the amnesty when it became available, and every reason not to.

    He's been able to afford the absolutely best top tax advice, so I doubt very much that there's anything even remotely legally -- legally -- iffy in his use of the tax code to minimize his taxes.  It's also very much not his self-image, which is of a phenomenally upright and virtuous person.

    Politically is another story.  It's only recently that how much a rich man pays in taxes has become an issue, and I'm 100 confident there's stuff in those tax returns that would be politically hugely embarrassing in the current climate.


    Parent

    Based on what? (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 09:19:17 AM EST
    The percentage of returns that are reviewed by the IRS "with a fine tooth comb" is tiny (1-2%).  Do you have some evidence that Mitt was audited, or is this just wishful speculation?

    Parent
    and I suppose (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Amiss on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 06:18:25 PM EST
    You were one of those that just were NOT CONVINCED that Obama was a citizen because he was born in Hawaii eitherI bet.
    Lets just drag this out for years and years even if he does produce the returns.

    Parent
    No, it's (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 07:17:52 PM EST
    not just about the "base" it's that it will prove that our laws are set up precisely to help people like Romney while the rest of us have to pay.

    I mean if you don't want to turn over your taxes then don't run for President. It's like the same thing Obama does when talking about George W. Bush. Everybody knew George W. Bush was a disaster and if you don't want to deal with the disaster then don't run for president.

    Parent

    What deductions and other parts (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 10:30:55 AM EST
    of the tax code did he use that as POTUS he would fight to protect, based on his own self interest?

    That     is the point, not 'oh, looky, he is rich.'

    Parent
    My Man Charles Pierce (none / 0) (#41)
    by kmblue on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 07:31:01 PM EST
    says the Romneys think of us fine little people as
    "the help."

    Pierce is so right.  You have only to catch phrases from the Romneys like "you people."  How dare the help even have the guts to ask a presidential candidates questions?

    I don't think the tax issue is dead.  I don't wonder that Romney took so long to directly respond to it, and that his response sucks.

    And BTD is right--our mighty press sucks too.


    Parent

    To be fair (none / 0) (#60)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 11:43:31 PM EST
    the wretched Ann Romney was very obviously referring to media in that interview if you see more than a sound bite of it.

    Parent
    of course (none / 0) (#64)
    by kmblue on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 03:03:08 AM EST
    and journalists are also "the help" and should not dare to ask questions of their betters.

    Parent
    Soledad O'Brien and Chuck Todd... (none / 0) (#8)
    by magster on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 03:36:54 PM EST
    ... yeah, that Chuck Todd, actually tried to be journalists the last couple of days. Wasn't expecting that, Sununu and Brandstadt probably didn't either.

    Soledad has always (none / 0) (#58)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 11:28:03 PM EST
    been pretty bold and free of most conventional restraints, but Todd really surprised me.  He's as Beltway as they come, and usually likes to very much downplay these disputes.

    Parent
    Soledad (love her name) (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by sj on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 10:52:04 AM EST
    has always been uneven.  When she's on, she can be very on.  But she can also shill with the best of them.

    Parent
    Mrs. Romney stated they have disclosed (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 04:10:38 PM EST
    all the tax returns they are "legally" obligated to disclose.  What does that mean?  Is there any "legal" obligation to disclose any?

    Mrs. Romney also stated they gave 10%.   Hmmmm To whom?  Yes, I do know the answer.  

    Nope (none / 0) (#20)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 04:15:25 PM EST


    Parent
    I believe there's an FEC rule (none / 0) (#61)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 11:45:39 PM EST
    as in Federal Election Commission, about tax returns for pres. candidates.  Not a law, I don't think, but a rule.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 06:47:06 AM EST
    they have financial disclosure requirements, but they have no legal obligation to release any tax returns.

    Parent
    Per link (LAT blog), it's up to (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 01:15:02 AM EST
    each candidate:  LAT

    Parent
    Who care how much tax Romney paid? (none / 0) (#37)
    by David in Cal on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 07:16:47 PM EST
    Suppose our tax code allowed someone as rich as Romney to pay only 13% income tax in some year.  Maybe that's a flaw in the tax law.  However, it tells us nothing about how good or how bad a President Romney would be.

    Well, would it tell you how good or bad ... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 08:01:04 PM EST
    ... a president Romney would be, if you found out that he had been hiding income in Switzerland at his UBS bank account, and had to file an amended return in under the IRS amnesty provisions to avoid being charged with felony tax evasion?

    This is a very big deal, and right so. Personally, I think it's pretty apparent from the Romneys' stonewalling about releasing their returns that they believe whatever's in those returns could be a potential game-ender for Mittens, politically.

    Parent

    Birther analogy (with apologies) (none / 0) (#49)
    by David in Cal on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 08:16:56 PM EST
    For years, birthers claimed that Obama must have something terrible to hide, because he hadn't released his birth certificate.  In fact, there never was any reason to think that Obama had anything to hide.  

    Similarly, there's no reason to think that Romney commited felony tax evasion.  It's unreasonable to ask candidates to disprove any wild theory dreamed up by their political opponents.

    Parent

    Um, there was never any reason to (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by observed on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 08:36:18 PM EST
    think he didn't release the birth certificate, "moran".

    Parent
    Actually (2.00 / 1) (#68)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 06:48:59 AM EST
    Obama didn't release his birth certificate until April of 2011.

    Parent
    Long form (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 09:26:43 AM EST
    The short form was released in June, 2008.

    Of course, the birthers discounted both of them anyway, soooooo ...

    Parent

    Short forms aren't accepted by (1.00 / 1) (#73)
    by justincaselawgic on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 10:18:21 AM EST
    many government entities, so it's not unreasonable to be skeptical of the release of that short form. Personally, I think Hillary Clinton's camp would have looked into this and destroyed President Obama on it if there had been any merit. This line was always a non-starter, in my opinion. The President is using Romney's taxes to sew discontent between the wealthy and the working class, regardless of whether Romney releases 2, 5, 10 or 20 years worth. Like the President said, "If you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters. If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things."


    Parent
    It's entirely unreasonable ... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 11:24:34 AM EST
    ... and the reaction of the Birther's went far beyond "skepticism" - they called it an outright fake.  Not sure which states wouldn't accept it or for what purposes (or reasons), but the certificate of live birth had all of the elements required by the US State Department to receive a passport.  Moreover, the certificate was confirmed (twice) by Chiyome Fukino, the then-director of Hawaii's Department of Health.  Not to mention the contemporaneous birth announcements in Hawaiin newspapers at the time of his birth.

    The President is using Romney's taxes to sew discontent between the wealthy and the working class, regardless of whether Romney releases 2, 5, 10 or 20 years worth.

    Probably true, but it's a legitimate issue.  Nothing wrong with calling attention to the fact that the wealthy - who's income and assets have only grown substantially relative to the working class - can end up paying a lower percentage of their income than middle/working class people.  Not to mention Romney's proposals which will only exacerbate this growing gap.

    Parent

    Investing with more money, (none / 0) (#81)
    by justincaselawgic on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 12:38:53 PM EST
    even if the rate of return is exactly the same as a lesser investment amount, will always generate an ever-widening gap of "real dollar" return. The real question is whether or not the working-class would see their income go as far under Romney's plans. That is a legitimate question. We can see that during the last four years the President's policies, or lack thereof, have done the same thing as is suggested Romney's would do. So, while it is a legitimate question to wonder if Romney's plans would cause this, we know what the last four years has given us. Which then raises the question: is four years enough to make a judgement. The President seemed to think it would be and I think he was right.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#72)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 09:43:49 AM EST
    But like Romney and the tax returns, it took him a couple / few months after the first demands came out (I don't remember how long) to do so, which kept the story alive and distracted away from talking about actual policy and philosophy.

    Parent
    Beg to differ (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 11:50:04 PM EST
    It tells us a great deal about his worldview and his idea of what's a fair rate of taxation for the .1 percent.

    My dad, a university professor, so fairly comfortable but by no means wealthy, believed he was *under*taxed and quietly paid a not insignificant more in taxes than he was required to.  I'm sure the IRS thought he was nuts, but they took the money.


    Parent

    It tells us which parts of the tax law (none / 0) (#75)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 10:36:09 AM EST
    he is using to his advantage,a nd so which parts his own self interest could lead him to change/not change. It is a pretty simple case of potential conflict of interest.

    Parent
    He's a politician... (none / 0) (#66)
    by unitron on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 05:05:33 AM EST
    ...so obviously we can just take his word for it, right?

    It's always worked before, hasn't it?

    Well, we could go back and forth (none / 0) (#69)
    by justincaselawgic on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 09:15:02 AM EST
    about this nonsense, since we know that people of wealth use accountant's know-how to pay as little as possible, or in Tim Geithner's case, pay as little as possible by ignoring Social Security and Medicare taxes, but is this really what is important? Last time I checked it took the power of Congress to affect the taxes of Americans.

    Fool Me Once . . . (none / 0) (#82)
    by john horse on Sat Aug 18, 2012 at 01:55:03 PM EST
    re: Simply pathetic. I suppose the new standard is what the candidate says is taken as gospel and enough.

    Interesting factoid I discovered from watching Rachel Maddow last night.  Romney didn't want to turn over his tax returns when he ran for office in Massachusetts following the Salt Lake City Olympics.  The issue was whether he claimed to be a resident of Utah or Massachusetts during the time he was running the Salt Lake City Olympics.  Romney assured reporters that he listed Massachusetts as his state of residency (he could not run for office in Massachusetts if he was not a resident).  Unlike this reporter, the Boston Globe did not take Romney at his word and got the courts to release his returns.  Guess what?  Turns out that Romney told a fib.  He had to amend his returns so he could run in Massachusetts.  But that was then and this is now.  Just because he lied before is no reason we can't take him at his word this time.

    Regarding the Maddow Segment, (none / 0) (#83)
    by justincaselawgic on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 09:58:59 AM EST
    Here is the Ballot Law Commission of the State of Massachusetts finding:

    "The Commission finds, rules and concludes that the Respondent's testimony was credible in all respects regarding the fact that the Respondent intended Massachusetts to be his domicile from 1971 to the present. The Commission further finds that the Objectors have failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent ever abandoned his Massachusetts domicile and established domicile in Utah. The Commission finds, rules and concludes, as a matter of fact and law, that the Respondent has been a continuous inhabitant of Massachusetts from 1971 to present. The Respondent therefore has met the inhabitancy qualification of the Massachusetts Constitution and is eligible to appear on the ballot as candidate for the office of Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts."

    http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/07/13/romney.ballot.law.commission.decision.pdf

    Parent

    Journamalism From The Usual Suspects | 83 comments (83 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment