Mitt Romney has been known to change his mind, but on the subject of his tax returns he's been isentropically consistent. Here's his position:
What's the least, the absolute least, I can show you so you'll shut up?
In December he said he might not release anything. Two weeks ago he said he might release something in April. Now he says he'll release his 2010 tax returns on Tuesday.
RICHARD NIXON: You think, you think we want to, want to go this route now? And the -- let it hang out, so to speak?
BOB HALDEMAN: It's a limited hang out.
JOHN DEAN: It's a limited hang out.
JOHN EHRLICHMAN: It's a modified limited hang out.
Romney in December:
"We've released, of course, all of the information required by law, which is a pretty extensive release. But down the road we'll see what happens if I'm the nominee."
"I don't know how many years I'll release. I'll take a look at what the -- what our documents are and I'll release multiple years. I don't know how many years, and -- but I'll be happy to do that."
(On why he's not releasing 12 years of records, like his father did)
"I'm not going to go back to my dad's years. That was even before the Internet."
(George Romney also released his tax records before Rachel Weisz wowed West End audiences with her performance as Blanche in A Streetcar Named Desire. As long as we're just saying whatever pops into our heads.)
I don't know why Mitt Romney treats his tax returns like Nixon treated running a burglary ring, but I have a theory, and if I'm right, someone should keep pushing.
I think Mitt Romney didn't pay any taxes in 2008.
Not 35%. Not 15%. Zero.
Between February 2007 and February 2008, Mitt Romney made a huge financial blunder. He lent Mitt Romney $45 million to run for president. (In July 2008, he wrote a letter to the FEC, informing them that Mitt Romney was "forgiving the outstanding loans" to Mitt Romney and that the loans should be "reclassified as contributions.") Where did successful businessman Mitt Romney get the $45 million to lend politician Mitt Romney, loser and clod? If he got the cash by liquidating stock, he did at least some of it during the Dow's 200-point decline in the winter of 2007/2008.
I'm not saying that's what he did -- and it's impossible to know without his returns -- but if he did, isn't possible that he took a substantial loss?
Of course, I'm in way over my head. And I could just be bluffing, to see what happens. But isn't it possible that a brilliant financial mind could find a way to deduct a disastrous political campaign?