The only thing Mitt Romney can't hide anymore is that he's hiding something.
Unlike President Obama, and unlike Romney's own father when he ran for president, Romney is refusing to release many of his recent tax returns. What is it he's afraid to show us? That something in his returns will help voters finally see him for the candidate he is -- the candidate who would raid the poor and middle class to transfer wealth to the 1%?
Maybe it's that Romney's returns would tell us more about his involvement in Bain Capital's bankrupting of American companies and offshoring of American jobs -- contrary to his assertions that he wasn't there when all of that happened. Just yesterday the Boston Globe broke an explosive story indicating Romney was involved with Bain years after he claims he left. The returns could shed more light on Romney's questionable statements about his Bain departure.
Or Romney's returns could tell us more about he got his tax rate down to 14% -- well below that of most middle-class families. We already know Romney stashed millions in a Swiss bank account, and that he invested in shell corporations in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. His returns might help us learn more about other investments in offshore tax havens.
We could also get new information about how Romney stands to benefit from the policies he's proposing. Romney's hardly the only 1%er to take advantage of a tax code tilted in his direction. Warren Buffett famously paid a lower tax rate than his secretary. But Buffett wants to close the loophole that allows him to do so; Romney wants to keep it in place. A recent analysis found that Romney stands to reap a personal gain of $5 million if the tax policies he's pushing are implemented. Maybe his hidden tax returns show Romney would actually gain far more. That's something voters have a right to know.
In the 1960s, when Mitt Romney's father ran for president, he released 12 years of tax returns, proclaiming: "one year could be a fluke, perhaps done for show." President Obama has released a decade of returns. But Romney has only released his 2010 return, with a promise to release 2011 when it's ready. So what is he hiding?
When Romney vied to become John McCain's running mate in 2008, and was considered by many to be a favorite to join the ticket, he provided the McCain campaign with 23 years of his returns. Call it coincidence, but McCain then passed over Romney and picked Sarah Palin instead. As Joe Trippi recently argued on FoxNews.com, there's no way in hell the Romney campaign would let one of his potential Veeps get away with forking over only one year's return during the vetting process.
Today, MoveOn members in swing states and across the country are visiting Romney campaign offices to demand he stop keeping the truth from voters. If you're on Twitter, you can join in via #ReleaseTheReturns. We're also having a little fun with Mitt by flying a 99airlines banner over his Boston headquarters. The banner compares the solitary return Mitt has released to his father's 12 and reads: "ROMNEY: 1/12 THE MAN HIS FATHER WAS."
Any way you cut it, Romney should release his tax returns so that Americans left, right, and center can see what he's all about.
A veil of secrecy about taxes should not conceal from voters the real choice they are making this election: the choice between a candidate running for President of the 1% versus a candidate for President of the United States. Mitt Romney, put your money where your mouth is and release your tax returns!
Image by Mark Howard
1) we got a 2.6 trillion bill coming due for healthcare.
2) we (each of us) must pay $31,000 for existing debt.
3) obama reverses clintons welfare reform to get votes
4) obama needs all mexicans to help him get elected - who needs IDs?
5) holds information from F&F victims via executive order.
6) ~50% stimulus goes to unions
OH --- SING WITH ME --- ONLY GOVERNMENT KNOWS BEST FOR YOU AND ME! --- OH SING!
Nice try....but no fly.
And when you examine why his tax rate was so low, it's important to acknowledge that he gave 20% of his income to charity, MILLIONS of dollars. And that 15% capital gains rate? The secret that progressives don't want you to know is that his capital gains were taxed TWICE, first as income of the corporation and then again at the cap gains rate on his personal income tax return. (see http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/CapitalGainsTaxes.html) Consequently, he paid a far higher percentage of his income toward taxes than his average federal income tax rate shows.
The broader progressive lie, of course, is that the top 1% pay little or no taxes. But in 2007, the top 1% of income earners paid a greater percentage of all federal income taxes than the bottom 95% COMBINED!. The bottom 50%, by contrast, paid less than 3% of all federal income taxes.
Soaking the rich is undoubtedly popular and perhaps practical (at least in the short term). And for those who are truly victims of poverty (and not simply lazy, irresponsible and/or self-indulgent), it's compassionate. But it's certainly not FAIR.
The American public has a right to know this.
And while you like to harp on the 50% paying 3% of the total, what about the (shrinking) middle class who "work hard and play by the rules" and are paying a higher percentage of their incomes that 14%? Couples who have two jobs and have to stretch every dollar to pay for their one home (as opposed to Mitt's several) either through rent or a mortgage.
My wife and I make a very comfortable living that puts us well into the top 2%. I don't like that Mitt Romney (whose fortune eclipses ours by unimaginable leaps and bounds) pays less of a percentage that we do.
It's absolutely unfair that Romney pays less. Working people need to know what kind of person they are voting for, and this kind of disclosure comes with the territory. He will eventually have to disclose it, because he will not be able to continue to campaign on any other issue until he does.
Check the Constitution. The American public ONLY have a right to know the age of a Presidential candidate and whether he's a natural-born citizen.
And I'm betting that when you write a check to the IRS to pay your income taxes, you don't make the check out in percentages. You make the check out in DOLLARS. So did you pay more than $3.2 million in income taxes? I thought not. What about multi-millions to charity? I thought not. What about income that was taxed once BEFORE you paid income tax on it (capital gains)? I thought not.
Go find a legitimate gripe.
Unlike you and your amnesia, I remember Obama signing both the tax cut extension, and the gutted Dodd-Frank bill that he knew wouldn't change anything.
I guess he forgot this was a job interview, or maybe he's never been on a job interview. He needs to be reminded that the American people are doing the hiring.
On income of millions, he paid zero dollars, zero cents in taxes.
After all, if General Electric Corporation - with domestic (inside the U.S.) profits of $5-billion ($15-billion worldwide) paid zero dollars, zero cents in taxes, and claimed a credit upon taxes to be assessed in subsequent years - then Mitt could certainly be similarly situated.
Another prediction: That some of the methods used by him to reduce his tax liability to the lowest amount possible are quite exotic. I doubt that there are five people total inside the IRS that could effectively audit his tax returns. (Have you seen them? They're amazingly complex and difficult to comprehend.)
Mitt has lots to hide. And he continues to hide lots.
Now the question becomes - what is motivating Romney to *not* release them?
Now those who claim we're soaking in envy start to squirm a bit.
But if he released all those returns in...2008? We at least have those, right? Those are the ones that show he was still with Bain after he said he wasn't.
So we're looking at getting the last four years.