(UPDATE II) Mitt’s Tax Return Problem: ‘I Love The Smell Of Republican Panic In The Morning’
The 2012 tilt will be the 11th (count ‘em) presidential campaign that I have been involved with as a reporter, editor or blogger. That bit of lineage noted, I cannot recall anything remotely resembling the spitstorm — in which powerful Republicans and now a majority of voter have joined the Obama campaign and news media — in criticizing Mitt Romney over his continuing refusal to release income tax returns beyond a modest dump in January of his 2010 return and estimated 2011 return.
Count me among the people who have gone from believing that Mitt was merely being stubborn in not going with the presidential candidate flow, which included his dear old dad, in releasing all of his returns. It is now beyond obvious that his refusal is not about being bullheaded or private. It is about being scared — well, scared spitless — concerning the fallout from what might be revealed in those returns. Did he not have to pay any taxes in a particular year? Are there bombshells, or maybe one really big bombshell, that might effectively end his quest for the White House? Or as is most likely, would the returns show that he paid far less in taxes than he might have through financial sleights of hands not available to mere mortals like insider trading and pumping millions into a tax-deferred retirement account?
No one knows for sure and John McCain ain’t talking, but it is curious that Mitt made available all his returns when he was being vetted as the Arizona Republican’s running mate in 2008 and McCain instead gave the nod to Sarah Palin. An interesting theory that is being much bandied about given the vacouous responses of Mitt and his campaign spokesmouths, but one that is probably a little too neat to be true since McCain was said to be a fan of the Killa From Wasilla’s posterior and didn’t care that she had the world view of a tree stump.
While Mitt might have erred in putting his Irish setter in a cage on the roof of his station wagon on a now infamous family vacation, he screwed up majorly in failing to anticipate that his returns would be an issue. After all, his opponents made the returns issues when he ran for the Senate in 1994 and Massachusetts governor in 2002, specifically over his involvement in . . . are you ready for this? Bain Capital.
An alternate theory some 18 years on — 1994 being the year the Teddy Kennedy beat Mitt in a battle of millionaires — is that he not only has no empathy for a poor working stiff whose IRA is tens of millions of bucks less than his, he believes himself to be well above working stiffs in general. Besides which, Obama smoked pot as a teenager.
But change the subject as he and his surrogates might try to do, there is now a focus on those mystery returns not seen since the frenzy of speculation over what was in mobster Al Capone’s vault. As we found out, there was nothing in the vault except debris. While Geraldo Rivera has not yet been signed to do a television special on what’s in Mitt’s returns, there is little likelihood that it’s merely dirt and empty booze bottles.
At this point Mitt can run but he can’t hide.
Fundraisers in London that were expected to be low key opportunities for Mitt to bond with deep-heeled ex-pats are suddenly anything but as several of the events’ hosts are top executives at banks tied to the interest rate-fixing scandal that is now belatedly engulfing staid London’s financial and political world. And so Mitt is linked — however superficially — to yet another messy moment over a global financial market that is addicted to corrupt practices.
In yet another sign of just how politicized the scandal has become, 11 members of Parliament have signed a resolution naming Mitt that called for Barclays, the bank at the center of the rate-fixing scandal, to “cease fund-raising for political candidates” and focus on rebuilding consumer confidence in the banking system.
Wife Anne is furious that Obama and his surrogates, and now the news media, including Fox News, is impugning her honey bunny’s integrity.
“There are so many things that will be open again for more attack,” she said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “And you just [would] give more material for more attack.” Then in a Marie Antoinette moment, she added, “we’ve given all you people need to know.”
Thanks for the upbraiding, but try telling that to voters who by a small but growing minority tell pollsters that they are coming around to the view that Mitt should release more returns. In other words, something that had not been an issue among voters has become one because of the candidate’s intransigence.
Mitt himself obvious has his underwear — special or otherwise — in a knot. This has led a news source that is reliable except when it isn’t reliable to quote two anonymice in Mitt’s campaign as saying that they are now prepared to go eye for eye after ceding the momentum to the incumbent for weeks. This would entail calling him a liar, referencing that pot-smoking thing, as well as that Colombian marching powder thing that he also has fessed up to, and . . . hang onto your sombreros! that he associated with dirty Chicago politicians.
It will be left to the voters to decide who is dirtier: A Windy City pol who has his palm greased in return for leaning on the city to install streetlights in an alley or a pol whose claim to fame is getting filthy rich on the backs of those working stiffs. If you ask me, the tax return debacle defines Romney better than any opposition caricature could. And that might be fatal
Share This
F for mentioning “magic underwear”. F- for sexist remarks. F– for dragging a candidate’s family into the discussion.
I have a theory.
Romnney’s tax returns are squeaky clean — nothing there.
He is just waiting until the Democratic witch hunt builds up to a deafening, hysterical crescendo and then — just before November — release them all,showing what a bunch of scumbags Democrats are and win the election in a landslide.
I checked my crystal ball. 80% chance Mittens did some stuff with his money that will really hurt his election. 20% chance he’s doing what DDW said. Frankly I don’t see him being that savvy, as opposed to the financial high roller that would do something sketchy with hundreds of millions in an offshore bank account to protect his income from the taxes the rest of us have to pay.
Ohioan:
Unfortunate that you don’t recognize snark when you see it. And as for dragging his family in, who was that woman on Good Morning America this morning? The frigging tooth fairy?
Shaun — The tone of the election has taken on an extremely odd class-warfare kinda tone, and the last paragraph of your post embodies what’s bothering me exactly.
It will be left to the voters to decide who is dirtier: [...] or a pol whose claim to fame is getting filthy rich on the backs of those working stiffs.
What does “the backs of those working stiffs” mean, exactly? You mean… white collar?
And when did it become a crime to get “filthy rich” (and yes, he definitely is)?
Myself, I think he should release his returns, if only because there really are no excuses after the dirt and muck Obama was dragged through.
But it really sounds to me as if your issue here (and that of an awful lot of others) is simply that he has too danged much money. period end-of-story.
Shaun
Satire I understand and appreciate, snark not so much. Plus I missed Mrs. Romney on TV this morning so I’ll give you that one. I’m pretty touchy on religious and sexist put downs. Sorry ’bout that.
“The tone of the election has taken on an extremely odd class-warfare kinda tone”
What on earth is “odd” about that? Why on earth wouldn’t class warfare be a theme? Maybe some people don’t get out much, but there are are major, growing problems in this country related to income inequality and that includes the exploitation of people who are working their asses off in order to make the lives of the wealthy more convenient. I really get tired of this sort of surprise that class warfare shouldn’t enter the discussion. And no, I don’t want anyones money and I don’t envy anyone elses lifestyle, I’m quite happy with what I have. I don’t think empathy is a dirty word however.
“Maybe some people don’t get out much…”
LOL!!! Maybe not. Here in my personal cave, though, the common view of the management level types is not so much “exploiter” as “person who gave me this job”.
Very dark in here, though. Probably I’m just missing something… like where I (or anybody else?) suggested you want someone’s money or envy their lifestyle. Not sure where that came from.
I am, however, relieved beyond words to know that you are happy with what you have.
It’s of course not a crime, or even necessarily a negative, to be filthy rich. To do so while being unable to empathize with a public that is struggling, to do so while seeming to be oblivious of the major position of privilege this affords him over pretty much all of the rest of us, and to do so while promoting policy that would greatly benefit the super rich while cutting benefit from everyone else? Yeah, it doesn’t come off too well. And I’ve got to agree with zephyr that expressing confusion at this comes off as pretty disingenuous.
Polimom:
It is not a crime to become filthy rich. It is not a crime to gut mom-and-pop businesses that are key components of their communities. It is not a crime to fire workers and reduce or eliminate their pensions. It is not a crime to outsource and offshore jobs to lower-paying firms.
But this election is all about economics and Romney remains unable to close the deal with key blocs of voters despite Obama’s low standing because he cherry picked the worst aspects of capitalism, ran with them and became enormously wealthy.
His claims that he will wave his magic wand and poof! American will become profitable is flapdoodle. Countries are not corporations. But beyond that there is nothing in his record that shows a comparison for poor working stiffs, only that he was adept at fleecing them when there was money to be made.
WordPress is an unforgiving piece of crap, so let me try that last graf again:
His claims that he will wave his magic wand and poof! America will become profitable is flapdoodle. Countries are not corporations. But beyond that there is nothing in his record that shows a compassion for poor working stiffs, only that he was adept at fleecing them when there was money to be made.
Apologies.
“Not sure where that came from.”
Polimom, it’s an oft repeated theme whenever income disparity is discussed. I’m surprised you haven’t encountered it.
zephyr is correct. The term first appeared in the 1930s and since then has became slang for people just trying to get by, or alternately people who attained some success by merely trying to do their jobs.
shaun, good image for this article. And just a head’s up, trying to post the article about the slaughter near Denver last night at the movie theatre, wordpress was acting up over and over giving me fits, but I wanted to get it up before going to bed (soon) . Hang in there. ASnd please send prayer for the people in Denver as people are terribly undone and suffering.
zephyr, Shaun — yes, I’m familiar with the term and usage, just wasn’t sure how it was introduced to this particular thread.
@Shaun — It feels (to me) as if a whole lot of tangential resentment is being rolled up and fired at this particular candidate. I agree with you about the terrible loss experienced by “mom and pops”, and their communities… while I simultaneously recognize that far more people are employed by the megastore that replaced them.
What I, personally, resent about those lost ‘mom and pops’, though, is the knitted character of the communities.
Meanwhile, I cannot get angry at companies who cut benefits when the alternative is to close the doors or fire even more people. Nor can I really be angry at companies who manufacture goods offshore. I don’t like it at ALL, but I clearly see the how and why.
FWIW (and as I said upthread initially) — I do think Romney should release his tax returns. I think the garbage Obama was subjected to (Rev Jeremiah Wright comes to mind) means there is nothing too personal.
But I also think the most likely reason he hasn’t been forthcoming is that he has SO much money… and the vehicles he has used (like other mega-wealthy people) are going to be SO alien to the much of the population, that releasing them will hurt him irreparably.
Which takes me all the way back to my original comment: this is (to me) an odd kind of class warfare, yes. Because it’s not just about have and have-nots; it’s not even really about the uber, unfathomably rich.
As your response kind of underscored, it seems to be about business management versus workers; white collar versus blue.
This just feels different to me, all the way around.
(Oh! And hi! Nice to see you!)
A further thought:
Underlying many of the major social ills in American is an ever growing gap between the Haves and the Have Nots.
FDR, Teddy Kennedy and John Heinz come to mind when I summon up the short list of wealthy people who worked to close that gap. By no stretch of the imagination are Mitt and Anne Romney among those people and while they are not necessarily to be condemned for how they have chosen to live their lives, it is most salient. And all the more so when the incumbent has tirelessly worked to close that gap from the time he left university.
I feel in the interest of personal integrity, and all that of that psycho babble, that Shaun and others should contribute money (property is OK, also) to me so I can become “filthy rich”. I promise to report back to TMV on how it has changed me and my attitude towards “you people”.
Thanks, Polimom, I rate your comments the best on this thread.
dduck:
Agreed. I have an interest in some farmland in upstate Minnesota that is doted with glacial lakes where there your feathered brethren year ’round. I will speak to the farmer who leases the land about your coming on board. Oh, there also is an abandoned cheese factory on the property.
Yeah Shaun, but knowing duck if he went to Minnesota he’ll have to migrate…
Legal Migration I’m sure but migrate all the same.
Shaun, that’s the spirit. Actually, I am more of a city fowl, do you know anyone with property around Central Park; they have ducks there you know. Come to think of it, maybe I could convert the cheese factory into a multi-level presidential diorama (shades of the Museum of Natural History) celebrating the worst moments each president has had. (Won’t need the space for car parking as I am used to buses and subways.)
Anyway, short of disguising myself as a school-bus nanny and getting bucks pouring in
that way, perhaps you having been through 11 elections, might know some community organizers that could drum up bucks for this extremely worthwhile social experiment. If you can, I promise I will let you ghost write my TMV report.
“Nor can I really be angry at companies who manufacture goods offshore. I don’t like it at ALL, but I clearly see the how and why.”
Polimom — BTW, welcome back, I hope all is well.
Anyway, I think that one thing that is being missed is the fact that there is a how and why to offshoring. It’s a how and why that can be at least partially remedied by strong policies meant to do so. It’s not just some coincidence that it’s being done, and it’s not just the price of labor.
roro80:
This is the very definition of a slippery slope and government intrusion in free markets, but what you recommend is a start.
By the way, I am typing these thoughts on a MacBook Pro that would have cost considerably more if it was made Stateside and not in China, so color me hypocritical. And both our cars are Lexi.
Electronics is kind of a special case, because of the volume. It would be tough to pay the workers necessary to build things like iPhones and MacBooks, but it would be impossible to just find those workers.
@Shaun
Don’t slam WP, it’s probably just a problem at TMV. BalloonJuice seems to be working fine with WP. Your lucky your not using MT. Or it could be the host…
Polimom, “Meanwhile, I cannot get angry at companies who cut benefits when the alternative is to close the doors or fire even more people. Nor can I really be angry at companies who manufacture goods offshore. I don’t like it at ALL, but I clearly see the how and why.”
First of all corporations are sitting on loads of cash. Corporations, EVEN PROFITABLE CORPORATIONS, are laying off people to reduce costs. Some of the people they layoff have been loyal employees for 30, 40 years and have given their lives to their company. In the meantime the employees who are left cannot leave (no one is hiring) and are working even longer hours, sometimes without raises, just to keep their jobs. I have no problem with companies that want to make a profit, it’s why companies exist. But I do have a problem with CEOs making hundreds of times more than their typical worker, a company making profits but laying off people to increase profits, leaving others to work to the bone for a pittance while the executives earn mega millions. Especially when unemployment is high in this country and millions of people don’t know where their next meal is coming from. Greed is one of the deadly sins and it’s destroying this country. But then again it was a Democrat who said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” An idea wholly lost on Romney.
The reason why people are resentful towards and ganging up on Romney is that he closed companies, raided retirement plans of people who had worked hard all their lives… and he stashed the money in a Swiss bank account… on top of his hundreds of other millions of dollars. Meanwhile these laid-off people were just thrown to the street. And Romney wants us to think he’s a good person because he donates to charity? That’s like stealing $100 from the poor, then giving a few dollars to the soup kitchen and saying, “Look at me! I’m a good person- I give to charity!”
That’s not what I want to see in a president. He has said he’s going to reduce taxes…. what’s he going to do? Give tax incentives to corporate executives who save money by shipping jobs overseas…. who steal their workers retirement? As president Romney should work for the interests of the people of the US and that means finding jobs. Actually during the mid-terms the Republican leaders said that their number one priority is creating jobs. But they haven’t done anything yet. While they found the time to vote 33 times to repeal Obama’s healthcare law, they have not voted a single time on the president’s job’s bill. While Romney is not in Congress, the Republican values are still the same… look out for the corporate interests and ignore the pleas of the 99% of Americans.
As businessman Romney outsourced jobs to other countries. I understand it’s because of cheaper labor… and if Romney believes we should have cheaper labor, what is he going to do to encourage jobs in the US? Reduce minimum wage to $2 / hour? Just so people like him can continue to rack up hundreds of millions in their offshore accounts?
I thought the American Dream offered people a chance to work hard and become successful. In Romney’s world the American Dream is to earn as much money as possible while laying off hardworking people and taking the savings from their pension accounts. I think if you work, earn and put money in a retirement account it should be yours, not to be touched by some greedy gazzilionaire who wants more money to be a multi-gazillionaire. I don’t mind if someone is rich. But I don’t like the way Romney came about his riches.
As president Romney needs to be America’s (and American’s) number one cheerleader. He is not. He needs to believe in America… not run and put his assets in countries all over the world. Where is most of his money? In the US or in other countries? We won’t know until he releases his tax returns. Romney wants to be president to continue to pile up money. That’s the wrong reason to be president.
There are a lot of reasons why people channel their resentments into Romney. And there are a lot of reasons why people have genuine concern over the direction Romney wants to take this country… which is into the hands of people just like him… people who are entitled rich cats who layoff employees so they themselves can buy a sixth house overseas… while laid-off employee is in a homeless shelter.
So yes, I can understand companies wanting to make goods overseas and while I don’t like it I understand it’s business. But a President Romney should be looking for ways to keep jobs in America. He should not “payback” his friends and corporate sponsors who want to ship American jobs overseas.
Your examples of luxury items that are exactly what we could be producing here in the states. Sure it would add to the price but apple products are something that would sell regardless of the price and they have a pretty decent profit margin. Now one of the businesses than Mitt was blamed for off shoring jobs made picture frames, that is a no brainer.
I got an idea. Instead of making up nameless corps that do all these horrible things give us a real example. I’m sure there are some bad corps but I just don’t think they are as universal as people like to make out. There are also a couple of factors people seem to rush past when discussing these issues. One what’s a reasonable profit? I knew a guy who closed a buisness because it started to make less than 20% proffit. He said he was loosing money having so much value tied to the business if that was all the profit he made. So what level is ok and what’s profiteering? Two, the executive reembursment. Now in smaller companies it’s often set up so part of your compensation is how much money you handle. Corps have grown larger and larger, deals are bigger and the amount of money that runs thru the corps dwarf previous examples. Really in the last 30 years it has become a truly global marketplace with correspondingly sized corps. How could those on the top of such large pyramids not make money that corresponds? Shrinking corps won’t help because they will just go offshore or enable foreign corps to dominate the markets.
And how could they? Dems have a lock on the Senate and refuse to allow anything Republican thru.
Repubs wanted a vote because they believed that there weren’t enough Dems that would agree to pass it. They must of been right because Reid refused to allow a vote. The dem leader of the senate blocks a bill and you blame republicans?
Hi StockBoy, thank you for the comprehensive reply. This helps me a lot.
Do you mind if I unpack it a little bit?
“The reason why people are resentful towards and ganging up on Romney is that he closed companies, raided retirement plans of people who had worked hard all their lives… and he stashed the money in a Swiss bank account”
I understand this to say that Romney took money from people’s pensions, and then put that money into his bank account. Have I got that right? And if so, can you give me a link or something about these transactions?
You said, He needs to believe in America… not run and put his assets in countries all over the world. Where is most of his money? In the US or in other countries? We won’t know until he releases his tax returns.
You are probably quite right that the Romneys have their money in numerous vehicles, some of which are international. That’s precisely what I meant upthread about the very different way personal finances of that magnitude are handled. Heck… I myself, although far FAR from being in that category, look for vehicles and currencies outside of the US for growth and investment. I don’t actually see that as a problem, but it’s clear that many others will in a class warfare environment.
“Romney wants to be president to continue to pile up money. That’s the wrong reason to be president. “
I agree — a terrible reason to be president. Do you have something besides emotion, though, behind that statement?
All I’m hearing from people is incoherent anger and resentment and fear. And it’s really disturbing to me, because it looks and sounds very much like the emotional reactions the right had to Obama four years ago.
Give me something tangible. WHY do you think he will “payback” his friends who want to ship American jobs overseas? Which friends ARE these, do you have names? WHICH pension funds did Romney raid? How MUCH did he take from them?
You know a funny thing is a key part of Obamas job plan is tax breaks for moving jobs back to the US. But somehow the idea of lowering taxes so companies don’t go overseas in the first place is evil? You would think that the off shoring jobs is always bad but what if it’s that or the company closing? No one I’ve seen has taken an honest look at Bain’s activities while Mitt was there. They may have looked for numbers to throw out but where is honest assessment of their activities? Course that might not give you the correct result so…….
Terrific, Polimom, I wish I had your patience and skill to “unpack” the long emotional rants (being kind) that abound in the media and even here in our little TMV world.
But, if I may put on my moderate hat, and add my 2cents, I find that although we are in a global economic world, some times the outsourcing, off shoring and things of that ilk, could possibly be avoided with a little investment in technology (automation), cooperation from burdensome union costs (arguable, I know), trimming profit margins, perks, executive salaries and plain belt tightening.
Plenty of stuff is still made, and at a profit, in the USA, just watch some of the Modern Marvel TV shows. There is enough push-back because of dissatisfied customers to bring back some call centers from India.
However, a lot of the time, it has been impossible to maintain a USA base of manufacture or service, and that ain’t a crime, yet.
Some things like solar panels may be too late to be economically manufactured here with out government subsidies, some others perhaps can be salvaged, that takes good business men to differentiate and choose.
Certainly regulations and oversight organizations are necessary, cause business people have been known to cut corners. But heavy handed and Orwellian measures are to be avoided or you drive the golden geese to seek friendlier overseas perches.
Just sayin.
dd
Keep your moderate hat on. Those suggestions make a lot of sense to me, especially the perks and executive salaries. Unions have already bent to pressure and compromised with the auto companies years ago. There’s always more room for compromise, I’m sure.
Failing pension funds and vanishing retiree’s health care funds will make it harder, but good will and common sense should make it happen.
“Your examples of luxury items that are exactly what we could be producing here in the states”
Nope. I could go through the details, but it’s been done before.
@Polimom
While BC didn’t break into a company and steal pensions and such directly, BC didn’t improve production or modernize antiquated production methods, it flipped companies before their debt became unmanageable. Romney is no Ford, Edison or Gates.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-15/romney-s-bain-yielded-private-gains-socialized-losses.html
For all the bankruptcies tied to BC, the problem was huge debts which transferred funds to BC as creative transactions. After bankruptcy, the Federal Government became responsible for pensions, not BC or Romney.
“FDR, Teddy Kennedy and John Heinz come to mind when I summon up the short list of wealthy people who worked to close that gap. By no stretch of the imagination are Mitt and Anne Romney among those people and while they are not necessarily to be condemned for how they have chosen to live their lives, it is most salient.”
Thank-you Shaun for drawing this important (but neglected) distinction. It is indeed salient and goes to character. Is character important in our presidential candidates anymore? Or has partisanship and ideology pushed that into the attic as well?
That’s a good link rudi, thanks. Some of it squares with what I understand, some of it will send me into more research — at least partly because it is an opinion piece.
It does look like the piece glosses a couple of things. For instance: Ampad was a vehicle used to acquire other businesses (which is, I presume, the source of that particular debt). What happened to those, I wonder? CB’s failure (bankruptcy) rate was 11%, I’ve read, while this reads like nearly 100%.
I do see what you’re saying about the pensions from this piece. I also think there’s some confusion about who it is that reaped the financial benefits (it was the investors…).
rudi, good link. Even though it is an opinion piece and made no mention of any successful deals, it still put plenty of meat on the vulture image. Thanks
BTW: is a government printing money and selling bonds a sort of leverage? And if you do it too excessively, is that being a bad business person/fiduciary?