It took me a while to get interested in Mitt Romney's adamant refusal to release past years' tax returns.
We all are a little skittish about talking about our personal money matters; it's easier for some Americans to talk about sex than how much they earn. I figured Romney eventually would lay it all out; we'd titter for a few days at the immense figures and then go on to something else.
But having released his 2010 return and an estimate of his 2011 return, Romney insists he won't release any more. His people say Democrats would make such hay of what the returns would reveal that it wouldn't be worth ending the controversy over why he won't release them. Now, that's interesting.
We are told that Romney declared a $77,000 passive activity business-expense loss in 2010 for Rafalca, the beautiful dancing horse of Olympic Games dressage renown that Ann Romney co-owns with two other women. Do you suppose he took a tax deduction for Seamus, the Romney family pet who famously rode on the roof of a station wagon on a vacation to Canada?
Really rich people such as Romney resent being questioned about their money and how they spend it. They think it is gauche to talk about money, so they don't. But the responsibilities of running to be president as a businessman qualified to fiddle with the national economy are not the same as a gentleman sipping gin and tonic while sitting comfortably in a yacht club pondering the dinner menu.
The example of Romney's father George releasing 12 years' worth of tax returns when he was running for president, setting an admirable precedent for future candidates, seems to be irrelevant to Romney. So is criticism from fellow Republicans such as former Mississippi governor and rainmaker Haley Barbour on Romney's refusal to disclose tax information. Barbour said Romney has created a needless distraction.
We know from Romney's 2010 return that he pays a lower percentage of his income than many middle-income Americans, but he still paid a lot in taxes ($3 million on gross income of $21.7 million). Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, who reviewed 23 years' worth of Romney's tax returns when he was considering whom to choose as his running mate in 2008, says he saw nothing that would disqualify Romney from being president. Asked if returns show that in some years Romney paid no federal taxes, McCain said he was not at liberty to discuss details.
The returns would definitely show the Romneys contribute a lot to charity, including tithing to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Lack of generosity can't be the issue.
But Romney's refusal to release his tax returns points to a seriously worrisome problem: He is instinctively unforthcoming. A Romney administration would be unresponsive to demands for openness. We already have seen how Romney refuses to hold regular news conferences and shuns interviews. This authoritarian, I-know-best attitude is troubling. Clearly, he figures the less specific he is, the bigger chance he has of being elected.
The Center on Tax Policy, a nonpartisan think tank, analyzed Romney's proposal to slash tax rates by 20 percent. It concluded wealthy Americans would save an average of $87,000 a year but taxpayers earning $50,000 to $75,000 would pay an average of $2,000 more. That's because avoiding raising the budget deficit would mean ending such popular tax deductions as mortgage interest and state and local taxes and raising taxes on employer-provided health insurance. (There was no analysis of potential budget cuts, which Romney has not specified.)
Such a proposal in this shaky economic climate from a candidate who owns homes from coast to coast, has a Swiss banking account and is accused of having sent American jobs overseas seems incredible.
Polls in such swing states as Ohio and Florida indicate Americans are beginning to wonder about this man who claims he would do wonders for the economy, as long as we don't ask him how.
Ann McFeatters writes for Scripps Howard News Service. Email her at amcfeatters@nationalpress.com.
Island foxes
Oxnard Powers Past Righetti
Camarillo Opens Spring Practice
Oxnard celebrates Bike to Work ...
Camarillo's postseason push
Boys Volleyball: Westlake 3, Saugus ...
Baseball: Agoura 2, Simi Valley ...
Springs fire reaches Hidden Valley
Camarillo fire burns into the ...
Camarillo Fire
Devastating tornadoes hit midwest
Ventura County's Most Wanted May 16th
Ms. Senior Conejo Valley Pageant
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
Comments » 108
thew writes:
This is a FACT! There is no confusion, there is no argument. Every major candidate for president of the United States has, historically, released multiple years of Tax Returns; except for Mitt Romney! WHAT IS HE HIDING FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE? ~ ~ ~ Why would you even entertain the thought of listening to a man .... THAT IS OBVIOUSLY HIDING SOMETHING FROM YOU and tells you he's going to continue to hide certain matters from you?"
Barney writes:
As long as he has done nothing illegal his finances, and tax returns, are nobodys business.
troutcon writes:
It's been said before and I'll say it again -- as an American voter/taxpayer, I'm a lot less worried about what Mitt Romney does with his money than what Obama and the Democrat jackals in Washington and Sacramento are doing with MY money.
viking2265 writes:
I have to wonder what Obama is hiding in his college transcripts. He's making such a big deal of not releasing them. Harry Reid accused Romney of not paying taxes for the last 10 years and should release his taxes to prove he had. Well, I think Obama had such terrible grades at Harvard, that he barely (if even) graduated. Let him prove it by releasing his transcripts. What's Obama hiding? The D-'s he received in Community Activism?
chair#208777 writes:
All persons planning to run for public office should have to undergo a background investigation equivalent to that for a top secret clearance. The results of these would be released by the clearing agencies when the office seekers actually apply to run for office. At that time the IRS would release their entire tax returns for the past ten years.
It would be nice to weed out the chaff before being inundated with illogical, fictional ads. Having hard facts would help me greatly in deciding on whom to vote for.
rationalthinker writes:
Willard....PUT UP or SHUT UP & DROP OUT and retire to Grand Cayman
rationalthinker writes:
Know what they call the graduate at Med School who graduates last in his class? "Doctor". Know what they call the law schjool graduate who graduates last in his class? "counselor"
Know what they call a taxpayer who lies on his Utah Tax return and his Massachussets tax return? Mitt Romney. LIAR in Chief .
There is absolutely NO reason to believe Romney about his Federal Tax situation and every reason, based on his past, indisputable history of lying on his State tax returns to disbelieve anything he now says about the Federal returns he is concealing.
Until Romney releases his returns, based on his proven history of tax lying, anything he says should be presumed false. Did he take advantage of the 2009 Overseas Asset Tax Cheat Amnesty? If he did, he may be an excused felon but still a felon. He needs to prove the contrary to the American people.
stanchaz writes:
Reid is Right as Rain ...and Willard is all Wet.
‘Cause Americans have a RIGHT to see the tax returns
of anyone who wants to be their President!
NO if’s, ...No and’s, ....and NO big fat butt’s about it!
Confession is good for the soul Mitt..... assuming you have one. So Relax, Repent, and Release your Returns, Mr. Romney …OR… just go back to playing with your pet dancing ponies. No problem. We’ll understand. Unless …perhaps ….just perhaps …you’re HIDING something, dear Willard? Just asking.
P.S. By the way, Mr. Mitt: just how DID you manage to stuff all those millions into your tax-loophole IRA account?… while the REST of us poor smucks have strict limits? Inquiring minds want to know.
And you want even MORE tax cuts for you and your rich buddies, Mitt? WHAT GALL! These fat cats aren’t satisfied - they want it ALL ...EVERYTHING!!
But tell me Mitt, just how MANY cars and houses can you hog? And just how MANY silver spoons can you stuff into your smirking mouth?
Mitt baby, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but -please- take my advice: if you want to run for dog-catcher
KEEP your precious tax returns, and just clean off your car roof. OTHERWISE, if you wanna be our President, THEN PUT UP, …or shut up and go away ….preferably BEFORE the convention.
The super-rich think that they have the God-given right to do anything they want in this great country -while the REST of us get screwed! ENOUGH!!!
The divine right of kings ended a long long time ago Mitt.
And so should your sorry excuse for a candidacy.
Nothing personal, guy. Really.
Rich, arrogant, power-hungry Republicans are people too!
It's just their "culture" I guess. .....As you are so fond of saying.
viking2265 writes:
So following your logic, there is no reason to believe anything about Obama's education until he releases his transcripts. Anything he says should be presumed false.
Of course that's a given anyway.
VenturaMusician writes:
If the current President was not playing the rich and race cards during this election cycle, I do not think Romney would have a problem. But this President cannot run on his own achievements so the only option he has is to run on a smear campaign of Romney.
Releasing those returns only plays into that hand, that is why only Democrats want him to release his taxes. He released two years worth, if Obama and Soros does not have enough ammunition in those, then move on and come up with something else.
Bongo writes:
Wow Ann is this the best liberals can do? The "failed" overseas liberal media circus was a hoot.
Getting desperate are we.
Your doper in chief hasnt seen the worst yet. Romney has plenty of unexpended ammo. The pictures from his Choom squad days are yet to come.
Can Obama please answer a question? We are at 7 weeks and counting now.
Oceaneagle writes:
Who would employ a columnist like Ann McFeathers, who simply writes the offical line of the Democratic Central Committee? Why not employ one of them for less? Partisan bias is unprofessional as well as boring.
GuideDog writes:
If he really expects to win, Romney should act like he is a real candidate for the Presidency of the United States and release the information. The voters have made it a part of the job application process.
Ronald Reagan disclosed his taxes. So has every other candidate for the presidency for nearly 100 years - regardless of party.
What makes Romney think he deserves a special privilege of this exemption from voter scrutiny? Or hasn't he figured out what running for what being the nominee for the office requires? Or does he believe that doing so would reveal such damaging information that it would spell an end to his chances completely?
"You pays your money and you takes your choice."
eng42 writes:
I can always tell those who are fooled by the right wing lies they get in their email. Obama did not "surrender" his law license. He put in on inactive status because he did not need it.
eng42 writes:
And Romney cannot run on his plans for the country, so he refuses to spell them out.
bionox writes:
Mitt pushed the envelope for sheltering income and his team knows its disclosure would be a huge negative for his campaign. Americans believe in at least the semblance of a level playing field. The super-rich have long rigged the system to their benefit at our expense. Previous presidential candidates have released their income tax forms. Mitt should also. There really is no counter argument.
MOR writes:
If Obama had the guts, he'd just hit on two talking points (much the way the Republics do). "If you make more than $250k, vote your wallet and go with Romney. If you make less than $250k, vote your wallet and vote for me." And, "Romney does not want to reveal his tax filings because it will bring attention to just how much the tax code is rigged in favor of guys like him. Elect him and those laws are extremely likely to be enhanced in his favor, as per his highly quotable claims." The best thing Obama has going for him is Romney, and the reverse is equally true. Bleah.
Bongo writes:
Hey Liberal.
Your boss probably makes more than 250K.
His bankruptcy via taxation, regulation, and red tape and means you will be out of a job.
Get it?
But if nanny state foodstamps is what you want then of course vote Obama.
Get it?
GOSC writes:
Personal tax return information will not necessarily provide a clearer picture of who the candidate is, but rather the lengths he'll go to (and the skill of his tax advisors) in order to pay the lowest amount possible.
It's reasonable to believe that he embellishes income and assets to potential investors and/or financial institutions quite differently from how he presents that information to the Internal Revenue Service. But true value and location is probably reserved for only a very select and vetted few.
Limiting income tax iability is a puzzle all citizens try to solve in the months from April through the automatic extension period of October of every year.
This is where business and politics part ways. When it comes to money as it relates to personal wealth and a family legacy, the risk of full disclosure increases as net worth ncreases.
The real question is not necessarily what's being hidden, but who is it really being hidden from?
Perhaps for the mega rich, the penalty of disclosure may bear a far greater risk from business competitors than from Voters' reaction to their actual rate, investments, or charitable contributions over the years.
Apparently, even if it can cost them the Presidency.
rationalthinker writes:
How silly can you get? The undisputed evidence regarding Romney is that he lied about his residence on tax returns claiming to be a resident of Utah. When he wanted to run for Governor of Massachusetts he did a reprise of Edith Ann of Laugh In fame, squawking "never mind" after which he claimed that he was a 7 year continuous resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Which was the lie? When he said he was a resident of Utah? Or when he changed his returns to claim he was always a resident of Massachusetts. Either way, Romney is a proven liar.
No such thing in Obama's past. Harvard says he graduated.You may not want to believe that, but if you don't it says little for your skills at factual evaluation. Hawaii says his Birth Certificate is legitimate. If you remain a "birther" that screams loudly about your motives. Not in a good way.
The difference is evident. There is undisputed evidence to support a charge that Romney is an unrepentent, habitual pathological liar. The evidence about the claims regarding Obama supports a conclusion that those who believe the charges reside in an alternate universe where facts mean nothing.
raylaw43#321876 writes:
With respect to "surrendering" Obama's law license, he became voluntarily "inactive" because of Illinois MCLE licensing requirements, like almost all states have, with different degrees of severity. The courses must be approved and take time and cost money.
Lawyers who retire from practice do not surrender their licenses; they are too valuable. We become inactive, and can re-activate the licenses thereafter.
Why are Obama's transcripts relevant to anything? Only top students, legacies or very wealthy people get into any Ivy League college. See GW Bush and Willard. Harvard Law is a different situation. Being a legacy or having a prominent family makes up for average college grades, but for the rest of us peons, you get in on merit.
Once in, nobody gets on the law review in any of the top 100 law schools, and particularly those in the top 25, and Harvard is the top 1, without the best grades, no matter the parents, or race or national origin. Nobody is elected editor in chief without the academic qualifications. Just ask Willard and the TParty favorite in Texas for Senate, Cruz.
Let's see full disclosure from Willard: his college and graduate school transcripts. Let's see full disclosure of whether he is a "natural born" citizen. After all, his father was born in Mexico in a polygamist family that fled to Mexico to practice polygamy.
rationalthinker writes:
No, it's not "semantics". Keeping a licence to practice law requires more than the payment of an annual fee. It requires taking Continuing Education Classes among other tasks. The Chief Executive, Commander in chief of the Armed Forces has no time for such stuff.
So he places his licence in the status of "inactive". And the right wing conjures up some new nefarious claim.
PedroPelican writes:
After reading the first person's comment about past presidents releasing their tax information I did two things:
1. Checked on John Kerry and Ted Kennedy. Guess what? They didn't release theirs either.
2. Looked into McLiar's past op ed's. NEVER has she raised the question about the aforementioned two and their tax returns.
McLiar, do your homework before you start talking point lies again.
raylaw43#321876 writes:
Did Willard vote in the 2000 presidential election? If so, in which state? I saw pictures of his house in Utah. It was not a temporary residence. Did he own it?
Whether Willard wins or loses, I suspect that Massachusetts lawyers will have a field day attacking many laws he signed on the basis that he was not qualified to be governor because of fraud.
raylaw43#321876 writes:
The law does not require the disclosure of any tax returns; there are disclosure statements.
Did you graduate from college? From graduate school? Without asking you to disclose them, do you have possession of them now to disclose? I don't, and my estimate is that I have far more higher education than you do.
The proof is my diplomas. I do not need transcripts to prove that I have a diploma; the diplomas speak for themselves. A diploma is the best evidence of educational accomplishment.
But you do not want that information, you already know it. You are looking for birther information to prove that Obama was not natural born.
Be consistent: demand Romney information that he was natural born. Why do you think he was, without any question? Because he is White?
bionox writes:
http://www.boston.com/politicalintell...
"“The Romney campaign needs to stop getting their facts wrong about John Kerry and Teresa Heinz Kerry,” Wade added, saying Kerry had put a total of 20 years of tax returns into the public domain by the time he ran for president."
That takes care of the Kerry question. As for Teddy boy, that was a Senate race, not a presidential one . . . different standards. Once again, lies and misdirection from the right. Sigh . . . it gets so tiresome dealing with Faux news ditto heads.
ceeyh805 writes:
Where are the multi millionaire community organizer and chief's tax records and school transcripts.....Did he graduate? where his student loans issued to a non resident alien.
ceeyh805 writes:
You affraid he's gonna win and all you can hang your hat on are private tax returns that are non of your business and are not required by law to run for anything.
Did the Messiah you love so much even graduate, before you answer do you really know or just believe what your told to believe.
ceeyh805 writes:
Very thin.....very thin indeed, there's no such evidence other than Clinton and Holder pardoned a tax cheating Democrat Mark Rich. Now his millionaire Democrat donor ex-wife has moved out of the country to avoid her taxes.
Guess it's ok there Democrats at least Romney stayed in the country.
ceeyh805 writes:
The plan is simple, take everything a Democrat union hack would do, and do everything opposit. Sit back and watch the economy grow strong. Sorta like California were we keep electing the same (name calling removed) Democrats and watch as the water circles the bowl.
Don't forget to make a union owned Democrat happy vote to raise your sales and income taxes to give to wise Democrats to give to there union owners.
ceeyh805 writes:
Except for 1980s affirmitive action babies with low IQs and low GPAs, chosen be lib's to make lib's look inclusive.
Whast wrong with polygamy by the way, that's not very progressive of you. If I'm free to pork my male friend and marry him, than why can't I have 2 wives.?
After all it's my civil right and since I can afford 2 wives why not?
I can and should have twice as much fun to, at least until the lawyers get involved anyway.
ceeyh805 writes:
The only good thing Teddy did was run against Carter, for President. And no he didn't release his tax returns.
ceeyh805 writes:
Sounds like a ready made an ambulance waiting for you to chase.
raylaw43#321876 writes:
All I have to do is to go to the LA County and likely the Ventura County law libraries and get copies of the Harvard Law Review, which shows Obama's name on the editorial board. But, of course, to you, the Harvard Press is located in Kenya and not Cambridge.
bionox writes:
One thing I'll say about the pro-Romney folks, they don't no an homophone from a whole in the ground.
Bongo writes:
Id like some transparency from Obama on his coke and pot habit, the "Choom squad" interceptions and the effects of polysubstance abuse on his brain..
Obama's drug abusing past explains his inability to speak to an elementary school without a teleprompter.
Yes transparency would be very interesting.
sslocal writes:
I don't suppose you left leaning types have thought that this is nothing but a distraction have you? Mittens has released two years of tax returns. No more returns are needed nor required.
Focus on Uncle Barry's record instead.
ceeyh805 writes:
I can speck to a crowd of any age for over an hour without the aid of teleprompter, and I didn't go to Harvard. Harvard is a high priced mythological reputation without merit. Kennedy's Bush's Clinton the Messiah et.al. Law & Business review's by students without license hardly qualify as grand achievements. Two Harvard lawyers asked the same question you'll get 2 highly educated, completely different answers, both degreed and licensed and so the law is as it is, individual interpretation of a constitution written by those with educations not much better than today's 6th graders. Harvard made the simple complex and expensive, and gave us lots of crummy politicians on both side. You can give and education to an i d i o t and at the end of the day all you've got is an educated i d i o t.
ceeyh805 writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
SS93035 writes:
I just bought a house so I could benefit from the tax deduction. Can you seriously look me in the eye and tell me to pay 2k more in taxes so you can save 87k?
While I think there needs to be a more fair tax system. Nobody ever figures in the cost of survival in that equation. They balk that 50 percent do not pay any income taxes while easily looking over the fact that these same people are barely making "the cost of survival" figure in the first place.
When we talk about fairness, let's include the COS. Are you making millions above the COS, or are you like most of us whose paychecks go to all of our bills just to be able to get by?
This isn't about Democrats versus republicans...It's about those who need a job, and those who are just getting by wanting to continue getting by. I apologize that I am not as empathetic to those of you need to make more millions so you can stash it in an offshore account to not pay as many taxes.
bionox writes:
I guess you do know your homophone from a hole in the ground.
SS93035 writes:
Yes I have heard this talking point before. If Mitt becomes President..It will be your money. And if you own a house, count on your Mortgage Interest being gone. Who in their RIGHT mind votes against themselves by picking a candidate telling you he is going to take away the one major benefit of owning a home?
SS93035 writes:
I don't remember any of these two people being President. Where was I?
RoadWarrior writes:
Nice to see Romney stand his ground like he should.
cassandra2 writes:
Suddenly we are talking about Obama and his occasional use of what all of us generally extant occasionally used or inhaled secondarily. It was a generational event, maybe like bathtub gin.
BFD
There are soooooo many more relevant issues. Mitt's taxes are the tippy tippy top of his deficiencies. For those who listen to his utterances, wholly bluster and empty slogans, when not gaffes, this guy is not ready to run the country.
But then he doesn't have to. His funders will do it for him. Look behind the curtain, Dorothy and crew.
greaterthanroomtempIQ writes:
Reasons not to vote for Romney:
Romney is a total sleaze--he has no conviction on any matter and stands for nothing. He will never do the right thing if it is hard or inconvenient and hence he is of poor moral character.
He is a compulsive liar. He lies constantly and knowingly cuts and splices campaign ads to misrepresent the truth over and over again. He lied about his residency when he ran for governor.
He is a bully and has been since he was a kid. Not only did he torture smaller, younger classmates, he lead a crowd in doing so, and he claims he can't even remember his poor behavior. Clearly no remorse or another huge lie or both. He also put his sick dog on top of the car and instead of tending to him when the dog's diaherria was running down the car windows, he hosed the poor animal off and put him back on top for several more hours.
He has extremely poor manners as witnessed with regard to the Olympics. But not only that he is totally devoid of any social graces and diplomacy. He met with leaders and could not remember their names. He made inflammatory and bigoted comments regarding the Palestinians to the Israelis to more inflame that fragile peace process for his political gain. My guess is that he is a closet bigot (and so are many of his followers).
He can never put himself in anyone else's shoes because he just doesn't give a damn about anything except his extremely rich buds and the almighty dollar.
He is not very smart. He is arrogant and ill mannered. On top of that he is just totally dislikeable--not even republicans like him.
He made his money destroying U.S. businesses with glee.
He cannot talk about any of his accomplishments as governor because he had virtually none, and the health care law he passed is demonized by his "base".
Clearly the reason he will not release his task returns is because there is something so damaging in them that he would be unelectable if he released them.
How anyone can support him is beyond me. He is so clearly unfit to run our great country.
jona writes:
I love how liberals are just now getting their vetting skills. Romney's tax returns are between him and the IRS. You're only using this as a wedge because you have nothing else. Not a thing.
Stuff it!
jdgab#210399 writes:
Quoting the article. Just changing names.
"But Romney's refusal to release his tax returns points to a seriously worrisome problem: He is instinctively unforthcoming. A Romney administration would be unresponsive to demands for openness. We already have seen how Romney refuses to hold regular news conferences and shuns interviews. This authoritarian, I-know-best attitude is troubling. Clearly, he figures the less specific he is, the bigger chance he has of being elected."
But Obama's refusal to release his college transcripts points to a seriously worrisome problem: He is instinctively unforthcoming. An Obama administration would be/is unresponsive to demands for openness. We already have seen how Obama refuses to hold regular news conferences and shuns interviews. This authoritarian, I-know-best attitude is troubling. Clearly, he figures the less specific he is, the bigger chance he has of being elected.
BLW930 writes:
He's hiding something... Flat Out Hiding....
A presidential candidate running on his business record with unemployment at 8.3% would be proud to show the country his financials and all the jobs his tax breaks have made for the middle class.....
RIGHT???
Bongo writes:
Lurker
Your very own Harry "hypocrite" Reid is refusing to release ANY of his own tax returns.
How is Guantanamo working for you lately? is it Ok now hypocrite?
NOw you say pot heads make good presidents?
Yes Im afraid Obama was a cocaine user. It is in his autobiography. He didnt use smack because he says he didnt like the pusher!! You are in denial. Google it for yourself "Obama cocaine autobiography"
Now your hypocrite in chief is enforcing laws of the land that put folks like himself in jail.
Hypocrite hypocrite hypocrite!
later
Want to participate in the conversation? Become a subscriber today. Subscribers can read and comment on any story, anytime. Non-subscribers will only be able to view comments on select stories.