Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

~~~

Monday, July 16, 2012

GOP To Romney: SHOW US THE RETURNS!

The longer Mr. Romney stubbornly refuses to show the American people his tax returns, as did his own father [12 years' worth], and every presidential candidate, [Obama, like Romney's father, released 12 years of his tax returns]  the more suspicious the American people will be about his financial dealings.

As the report below states, Mr. Romney demanded of his primary opponents the very same thing the Obama campaign is demanding of him.  Mr. Romney apparently believes only HE does not have to submit to examination of his financial dealings and tax returns.  Afterall, he is part of the privileged 1%.

**********


"ABC News’ George Will slammed presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney for failing to fully release information on his tax returns and offshore accounts, saying Romney “must have calculated that there are higher costs in releasing them.” ABC News political analyst Matthew Dowd agreed, saying “there’s obviously something there” in Romney’s returns that he doesn’t want public.


“If something’s going to come out, get it out in a hurry,” Will said this morning on the “This Week” roundtable. “I do not know why, given that Mitt Romney knew the day that [John] McCain lost in 2008 that he was going to run for president again that he didn’t get all of this out and tidy up some of his offshore accounts and all the rest.”

Will said Romney is “losing [the argument] at this point in a big way” in the debate over his tax returns, which the Obama campaign has hammered on in the past week.


“The cost of not releasing the returns are clear,” Will said. “Therefore, he must have calculated that there are higher costs in releasing them.”

"With even prominent Republicans saying that his current stance is unsustainable, the obvious question to ask is: Why is the Mittster being so obstinate? He surely isn’t standing on principle, for what principle would that be? The notion that very rich men running for President shouldn’t have to disclose as much information about their personal finances as less wealthy candidates? The principal that if your father also ran for President, and released twelve years of tax returns, then you can release just two and claim the family average is a respectable seven years?

No. It’s only fair to assume that Mitt is doing what he always does: acting on the basis of a careful cost-benefit analysis. Will’s comments on this were spot on." --John Cassidy, The New Yorker

Romney released his 2010 tax returns earlier this year during the Republican primaries, and has said he plans to release his 2011 returns later this year, after filing for an extension.


But Romney has never publicly released past years of tax returns, either during his 2008 presidential run, while he was governor of Massachusetts, or during his 1994 Massachusetts Senate race. Romney did, however, reportedly provide 23 years of his tax returns to the McCain campaign when they considered him for vice president in 2008.

Political strategist and ABC News political analyst Matthew Dowd said “there’s obviously something there” in Romney’s tax returns that he doesn’t want to release publicly, adding that Romney’s refusal to produce his prior returns was a sign of “arrogance.”


“There’s obviously something there, because if there was nothing there, he would say, ‘Have at it,’” Dowd said. “So there’s obviously something there that compromises what he said in the past about something.”


“Many of these politicians think, ‘I can do this. I can get away with this. I don’t need to do this, because I’m going to say something and I don’t have to do this,’” Dowd added. “If he had 20 years of ‘great, clean, everything’s fine,’ it’d all be out there, but it’s arrogance.”

[skip]

Dowd said the Obama campaign’s attacks were “like karma” after Romney attacked the records of his Republican primary opponents.


“This is like karma to me. Mitt Romney did the same exact thing that Barack Obama is doing to him,” Dowd said. “He did it to Newt Gingrich… He did the same thing to Rick Santorum.”
“So now, all of a sudden… in a general election against a very professional group of people, against a very astute politician, against a Chicago machine who’s doing the same thing he did, and now he’s sitting there saying, ‘I can’t believe you’re doing this. I can’t believe you’re doing this,’” Dowd added.

SOURCE

Another big wig GOPer chimes in:

“He should release the tax returns tomorrow: it’s crazy,” [Bill] Kristol, the editor of the Weekly Standard, said on “Fox News Sunday.” “You gotta release six, eight, ten years of back tax returns. Take the hit for a day or two.”



BTW, Mr. Obama's "Chicago machine" is no different from Mr. Bush's "Texas machine" or any politician's savvy campaign team.  You play to win.  What President Obama's team is capitalizing on is Mr. Romney's secrecy and reluctance to show the American people the truth about his Bain Capital involvement and his finances. 

Mr. Romney has made the choice to hide that informatiion from the American people, and the American people can only guess why he has done so.

Bad move on Mr. Romney's part. Even people in his own party agree.




Romney's Double Standard

"If today's economy is the Obama economy, as Romney repeats ad nauseam, and if Obama must be held accountable for every job lost in his first year, even though no one can seriously blame Obama for forces that were far stronger than a new president in his first few months, then surely and obviously, Mitt Romney is responsible for the actions of a company he co-founded, managed with only a small leave from 1984 - 1999, was paid a salary of more than six figures from 1999 - 2002, and reaped all the benefits of the profits from 1999 - 2002.

Obama's first year, 2009, was shaped by his predecessor, and so can be legitimately argued as only partly his responsibility. Romney's predecessor at Bain from 1984 - 1999 was, however, Romney. It was a company he created, whose staff he hired, whose practices he honed, whose acquisitions' board meetings he continued to attend - and yet he wants to be excused from any responsibility for anything that happened from 1999 to 2002.

Sorry, Mitt. No deal. Own it all. Or are you actually ashamed of what your company did from 1999 - 2002?" --Andrew Sullivan

37 comments:

Shaw Kenawe said...

A TPM reader's comment on the subject. He/she gets it:

"I’m not a GOP operative (thank God), but I do work on Wall Street (the industry, not the geographic location) and I think it’s worth noting that Romney’s reaction to the Bain Storm is very much of a piece with the way assorted hedge fund managers, bankers and other Masters of the Universe have responded to even the slightest criticism from Obama — with as much shock as outrage.
Over the past 20-25 years these guys have gotten used to extreme deference from BOTH parties (think Cory Booker and Ed Rendell) and like to think of themselves as rational beings who are far, far above the partisan sandbox in Washington, up there in the financial heavens, doing the Lord’s Work — to quote Lloyd Blankfein.

I’ve had enough contact with the PE guys to know they particularly see themselves in a heroic light — as the saviors of capitalism from the quasi-socialist clutches of entrenched management, the unions, outside pressure groups, and the other “stakeholders” of the big public corporations (the PE guys really detest that concept).

What’s more, they’re usually insulated enough from normal human reality that they can assume all “reasonable” people see things the same way. And when you’ve got as much money to spend on campaign contributions, endowed chairs, wingnut welfare, etc. as they do, an awful lot of people are going to see things your way, or at least tell you that they do.

Point is, Mitt is not only congenitally blind to the optics of all this, he also appears — to quote Sonny from the Godfather — to be taking it very, very personally. That’s the only way I can explain his incredibly bizarre decision to spend the entire afternoon on TV talking about it, which is about the best way imaginable to keep the feeding frenzy going.

You’d think after a gubernatorial race and two runs for president, Romney would have adjusted his attitude, or at least figured out a strategy for dealing with it. But he apparently can’t — the sense of his own rectitude (upon which his sense of entitlement rests) just won’t allow it.

What’s odder is that the entire Romney campaign seems to have the same inability to engage on Bain on any other level than personal indignation. And indignation, as you correctly note, is for whimps.

My guess is that this reflects the same rigid, top-down, sycophantic management structure that Wall Street loves — which if it didn’t cause the 2008 financial crisis, a least contributed to it. The campaign can’t really be any cooler or capable than Mitt is himself — which, when it comes to dealing with criticism, clearly ain’t much.

I shudder to think what that would mean if Mitt ends up in charge of the U.S. government."

Les Carpenter said...

This is getting all so tiring, and boring.

Scratched record anyone?

Shaw Kenawe said...

RN, it's boring to you because apparently it's also irritating to you that Mr. Obama and his campaign are holding Mr. Romney's feet to the fire.

Romney demanded the exact same thing of his primary opponents as Obama's campaign is demanding of him.

Romney wants to be the president and show us what a great business man can do to put America back on track.

Let's see his tax returns and find out how good he was at doing that for himself and his company.

Every other candidate has done so.

Why should Mitt be the exception?

Even his own party has become quite suspicious about the reasons he is hiding his tax returns from the American people.

You call that boring? Yeah. Because the heat is on Romney.

Boston Blackie said...

Romney submitted 23 years of tax returns to the McCain camp when he was being considered as a vice presidential running mate?

But so far, has submitted only ONE year to the American people as a PRESIDENTIAL candidate?

He evidentally doesn't mind his GOP peers knowing about his financial secrets, but he sure as hell doesn't want the American people to know.

And after reviewing those 23 years of tax returns, John McCain chose Sarah Palin?

Mitt's tax returns must have scared the piss out of McCain for him to have chosen Palin over Romney.

And we all know what a game changer that was...

Boston Blackie said...

RN thinks this is boring subject. Don't look for a job as a newspaper or enews editor, since every major outlet is reporting this as a lead story.

This isn't going away because it bores you.

Paul said...

There are a thousand reasons why government cannot be run like a business, and why a businessman would not make a good president.
Judgment for making decisions, is one reason. Romney's decisions on his tax returns goes against tradition of disclosure for politicians. The mistake of not releasing his tax returns, is a businessman's decision, not a politicians decision.
The lame decision about his excuses of being, or not being CEO of Bain for 3 years, is again a businessman's decision, not a politicians decision.
His approach on both these decisions shows his lack of political talent and a businessman's reluctance to be up front with the public.
A businessman feels these kind of things are not the public's business. Like Cheney meeting secretly with energy producers, and refusing to tell the public what had transpired in the meeting, which effected Americans.
Secrecy is a normal MO for a businessman, but not an American politician/president.
Americans do and should expect an American politician to be open and honest with them. that goes against the instinct of a businessman.
The only business thinking Americans should use judging Romney, is this is the wrong man for this job.

skudrunner said...

"Americans do and should expect an American politician to be open and honest with them. that goes against the instinct of a businessman."

That is truly an absurd statement that shows complete lack of knowledge of the business world. Yes there are some business people who are dishonest, just as in any profession, but the vast majority are above board.

Romney, because he is rich and a republican, is held to a different standard. Obama can condone running guns across the boarder, can give Brazil billions for oil exploration, can appoint the head of a major company as an adviser while that company moves thousands of jobs off shore and can invest the taxpayers money in a car company that is sold to a foreign buyer.

All of those things are OK because Obama is a liberal and the media loves him. He ran as someone who can reunite the American people and has turned out to be the big divider. He stands on transparency yet hides everything. The leftist dismiss that most of the things in his book are fiction because he is a liberal.

He has to run on attacks because he has no accomplishments to run on, unless you count Obamacare or the Great Middle Class Tax Plan .

Shaw Kenawe said...

"It's not just [Romney's] arguments that are weak. For the past year, we have watched him be pushed around by the radical GOP fringe. He's been forced to abjure his most important achievement as governor, his healthcare plan. In December, he was compelled to sign onto the Ryan budget plan after months of squirming to avoid it. Last fall he released an elaborate economic plan. On the eve of the Michigan primary, he ripped it up and instead accepted a huge new tax cut - to a top rate of 28% - that has never been costed (and that he now tries to avoid mentioning whenever he can). Romney has acknowledged in interviews that he understands that big rapid cuts in government spending could push the US economy back into recession. Yet he campaigns anyway on the Tea Party's false promise that it's the deficit that causes the depression, rather than (as he well knows) the other way around,"

--David Frum, Conservative Journalist and Political Analyst, and former speech writer for George W. Bush

Les Carpenter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Les Carpenter said...

@ Shaw, you said... "RN, it's boring to you because apparently it's also irritating to you that Mr. Obama and his campaign are holding Mr. Romney's feet to the fire."

No Shaw you are wrong. I am not irritated, I do think there is some hypocrisy going on but irritated? Not one bit.

I remind you my horse in the race is Gary Johnson, the only candidate close to a true liberty candidate at this point. A successful two term Governor (boat loads more experience than the O man had he was elected), as well as being a ethical and successful businessman who created private sector jobs.

At any rate I find it boring and tiring because it is boring and tiring. Neither of the two clowns really interest me.

PS: But one has to post some front page news. BUT NOT TODAY.

Anonymous said...

Mittens wants us to trust him because he is entitled to the presidency. Or so he thinks.

Infidel753 said...

Skudrunner: Romney, because he is rich and a republican, is held to a different standard.

Exactly wrong. Romney is being held to exactly the same standard -- release as many years of tax returns as other Presidential candidates have been expected to do, and have in fact done. That's the same standard. Only Romney seems to think he's above the standard others are held to.

The rest of your comment is the usual right-wing tactic of changing the subject because you can't address the topic the post is actually about.

If anything, it's Obama who's been held to an unusual standard. No white major-party candidate for President has ever been subject to such obsessive and unfounded suspicion and demands for evidence concerning his American birth and citizenship status.

Frankly I object to calling Romney and people like him "businessmen". A businessman is someone like Bill Gates, who achieved great rewards for producing products of great value to the world. People like Romney and the "PE guys" described in the TPM comment Shaw cites are the economic equivalent of tapeworms or leeches, and puffed up with unspeakable arrogance at that. They're tapeworms who expect their host organisms to treat them as gods.

skudrunner said...

753

One of the reasons Obama has been questioned about so many issues is because he has such a hidden past from friends of a domestic terrorist to a hate filled pastor to college transcripts that are secret.

As to the businessman comment because they don't produce anything means they are "quivalent of tapeworms or leeches". I assume you are not a business man.
Guess you have the same high regard for lawyers and bankers because they don't produce anything and have been referred to a leeches.

skudrunner said...

infidel


Your views of business people is the same as your leader. Most successful small business owners had a plan, work very hard and took considerable risk. Obama believes that a small business is successful because the government made them so.

He has the same disdain as you do for entrepreneurs and small business owners. Most small business owners are middle class and are the target of Obama's tax the middle class with Obamacare and tax anyone earning over 250K even if their actual income is half that.

I am sure one of his handlers will backpedal on his "I hate small businesses" speech but most of us believe in equal opportunity for all Americans but not equal results.

Shaw Kenawe said...

to skudrunner:

"Small Business Jobs Act of 2010



On Sept. 27, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Small Business Jobs Act, the most significant piece of small business legislation in over a decade. The new law is providing critical resources to help small businesses continue to drive economic recovery and create jobs. The new law extended the successful SBA enhanced loan provisions while offering billions more in lending support, tax cuts, and other opportunities for entrepreneurs and small business owners.

New Law Puts More Capital in the Hands of Entrepreneurs and Small Business Owners"


HERE IS A LIST OF ALL THE BENEFITS OF MR. OBAMA'S [you know, the guy you call a small business "hater"] SMALL BUSINESS JOBS ACT


Republicans block small-business tax break on procedural vote

July 12, 2012|By Lisa Mascaro


WASHINGTON -- One of the top items on President Obama’s to do list -- a 10% tax break for small businesses that make new hires -- got tangled in an election-year tax debate as Republicans led a filibuster to block the measure.

The legislation would have provided the tax credit to companies that hire new employees or otherwise expand their payrolls this year, a typically popular approach among the GOP.


And this:

Wednesday, 2 May 2012

President Obama’s Support of Start-Ups and Small Business
Grant Thornton Applauds President Obama’s Support of Start-Ups and Small Business

Formation Act of 2011 would amend the Securities Act of 1933 to authorize the SEC to raise the Regulation A offering limit from $5million to $50 million, providing a less costly and more effective alternative for small companies to access the capital markets. The bills also will improve investor protections and confidence by requiring the issuer to file audited financial statements with the SEC on an annual basis."


skudrunner, this is evidence that refutes your foolish claim that:

"He has the same disdain as you do for entrepreneurs and small business owners."

Les Carpenter said...

@ skudrunner... Very well stated and accurate are your comments above.

Jerry Critter said...

Skud,
How does Obama "...tax anyone earning over 250K even if their actual income is half that."?

Infidel753 said...

Skudrunner: Read what I actually said. I was not criticizing businessmen. I was saying Romney and parasites like him do not qualify as businessmen.

Idiot.

skudrunner said...

Shaw,
The vast majority of the bill Obama signed was the government backed loans. Again goes back to his theme of business people didn't build their business, the government did. Added regulations, added taxes with Obamacare and increasing taxes on the middle class small business will do much to destroy the middle class.

JC
Income from a small business is a pass through to the owner. Lets say a business has a liberals dirty word "profit" of $300,000. That passes through to the owner. The owner pays 40% of that to taxes booth State and FIT or $120,000. In order to keep the business running the owner must keep a certain amount in the business to pay the bills so they keep $150,000 in the business or 60 days cash flow. The owner paid $120,000 taxes on income of $150,000 because, remember, they had to keep $150,000 back so that is money they do not have for personal income.

The only way a small business can truly have that $300,000 in income they pay taxes on is to sell or liquidate.

As a plumber you keep your income minus you taxes. As s small business it is not that simple but Obama wants to punish the small business by increasing their taxes.

Jerry Critter said...

That $150,000 are deductible expenses so he is making $450,000 gross with $150,000 in deductible expenses.

skudrunner said...

Jerry,

That was such a profound response that I have no come back.

Do a little research to see if cash is considered an asset or an expense.

Jerry Critter said...

OK, Skud. Let me work it out for you. Each month he has a gross income of $37,500. Out of that he spends $12,500 of that on expenses. Therefore at the end of the year he has a total gross income of $450,000 and deductible expenses of $150,000 for a net (taxable) income of $300,000. He pays taxes on $300,000 and he has use of $300,000.

skudrunner said...

JC

I need to call my accountant and tell him we need to consider cash as an expense. Thanks for that information because I didn't have any idea it could be applied that way.

BTW you pay income tax on the NET not the GROSS. If you have $150,000 in expenses that comes off the Gross which equals the net therefore Obama would raise taxes on the $300,000 even the $150,000 in reserve.

If in your example "he uses the $300,000 what does he have in reserve? Have never seen a business close with a positive cash flow but have seen a lot who have no reserve.

Jerry Critter said...

Skud,
I think you need your accountant to explain the example to you.

skudrunner said...

JC

Can we use you as a reference when we take the 150K in operating capital as an expense. That would be a great trick but I think the IRS would have a different view.

Jerry Critter said...

Nobody is taking $150,000 of operating capital as an expense. $150,000 of expenses paid for by operating capital are being deducted as expenses. Read the example again...and again.

skudrunner said...

JC

No, out of the 450k gross he pays expenses of 150k leaving a net of 300k. You pay taxes on the 300K, are we in agreement so far?

In order to pay bills going forward you have to have working capital. A good rule would be 60-90 days. That working capital comes from somewhere and that somewhere is the net profit you have paid taxes on.
You pay taxes on 300K, keep 200K and reinvest it into the business so you have paid $120,000 in taxes for income of 200K or you paid 60% in taxes on money you get to keep. Now under the Obama plan, the small business owner should pay 65% instead of 60 because they just don't pay their fair share.

Jerry Critter said...

Skud,
I agree with your first paragraph.

He paid this $150,000 of expenses with his current income of $450,000. He did not touch his existing working capital and hence there is no need to replenish it.

Let me repeat. He paid his current expenses with his current business income and had a net of $300,000 left over. His working capital at the beginning of the year was the same amount as his working capital at the end of the year.

He pays taxes on $300,000. Obama wants him to,pay an additional 3% on income over $250,000, or an additional $1500, hardly enough to break the bank.

If he chose to take some of that $300,000 and reinvest it in his company instead of say buying stock or bonds, chances are the reinvestment will also be tax deductible either in the year in which it is spent or depreciated over a number of years, again a deduction against earnings.

skudrunner said...

JC

Guess I had to expect this response. You can enroll in an online course for accounting 101 because you are have no understanding.

Jerry Critter said...

What about my response is in error?

skudrunner said...

If you had 450,000 and 150,000 in expense then you only had a net of 300,000. The 150,000 you had as an expense is not operating capital, operating capital would have to come from the 300,000 or from the net.

Jerry Critter said...

That's right. You did not spend any operating capital so you do not need to replace it. If you did spend operating capital, what did you spend it on that you cannot either deduct as an expense or depreciate?

skudrunner said...

Jerry,

The operating capital you had is treated as an asset and part of that net of 300K so although you have to pay taxes on the 300k you do not have it to spend so you are paying for money you don't have.

Jerry Critter said...

No, it is not part of the net $300,000, at least in my example.

Let me explain it this way.

At the beginning of the year he has the following:
$150,000 working capital
$0 cash from operations

Let's say he spends his working capital on expenses of $150,000 during the year.

At the end of the year he has:
$0 working capital (spent on expenses)
$450,000 cash from operations.

Now he does his taxes.
$450,000 gross income
Less $150,000 deductible expenses
Leaving $300,000 taxable income.

He still has $450,000 cash from operations. He takes $150,000 and sets it aside as working capital for the following year leaving him with $300,000 for himself - exactly the amount that he paid taxes on.

skudrunner said...

JC

I forgot you look at things with Obamanomics as your guide. I will have to assume that in you way of thinking $250,000 is the new Rich therefore 450,000 in gross minus 150,000 in expenses means you made 450,000.. Obamanomics

Jerry Critter said...

Skud,
What is my example implies either that I think $250,000 is the new rich or that 450,000 gross minus 150,000 in expenses means you made 450,000. Nor have I said anything about Obamanomics, whatever that is.

I guess you are trying to insult me.

skudrunner said...

JC

I would never insult you and if you interpreted that as an insult than I apologize.

I just assumed since you are in lock step behind his greatness, AKA BHO, that you shared his view that anyone making 250k per year is RICH and should be penalized.