2012 Presidential Election - The Ups and Downs

[JAD_333]

Obama aide hints at tax evasion in challenge to Romney to release records | World news | guardian.co.uk

Obama aide hints at tax evasion in challenge to Romney to release records

The Obama campaign has called on Mitt Romney to release years of tax returns to prove he did not break the law following claims that the Republican presidential candidate held secret accounts in foreign tax havens.

Robert Gibbs, the president's former spokesman and now a top campaign adviser, said on CNN that "nobody knows" whether Romney committed tax evasion after Vanity Fair reported that he kept parts of his multimillion dollar fortune in more than a dozen entities in Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and Switzerland.

Vanity Fair reported that among other things Romney parked some of his money in a Bermuda corporation entirely owned by him which he transferred to his wife's name the day before he became Massachusetts's governor and then failed to list it on financial disclosure forms.

It finally appeared on his 2010 tax return.

"Quite frankly he offshores most of his own personal investments, presumably to shield them from taxes," said Gibbs.

This is part of the Obama's campaign tactic to discredit Romney's business experience.

It there was anything illegal in Romney's returns, that's for the IRS to determine, not a bunch of campaign staffers pouring over returns looking for items they can use to create innuendos.

[dalem]

The nice thing about Obama is his predictability. He's a real idealogue so it doesn't matter what anyone says or writes - he will continue to be anti-business, anti-private sector, and anti-America all the live-long day.

-dale

[JAD_333]

The problem with Obama is that he thinks government alone made America strong and is behind all its greatest achievements. Had he been a military man, a teacher, a businessman, a doctor, a wage earner or just an ordinary fair-minded citizen, he would know different. It's what the government CANNOT do that makes America strong.

[JAD_333]

What's up with the timing of Krugman's latest op ed? It comes today, precisely the day after Obama's campaign launched it's latest innuendo that Romney is, well, not quite a tax cheat, but may be. Krugman joins a chorus of Obama's well coordinated surrogates who appeared in public yesterday and today in news shows and elsewhere expressing righteous indignation that Romney hasn't bared all the details of his business activities nor released his tax returns covering the last 12 years, except the most recent. One would expect Krugman to side with Obama on major economic issues, but the timing on this one suggests Krugman is a willing shill for Obama.

Op-Ed Columnist
Mitt’s Gray Areas
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: July 8, 2012 15 Comments

Once upon a time a rich man named Romney ran for president. He could claim, with considerable justice, that his wealth was well-earned, that he had in fact done a lot to create good jobs for American workers. Nonetheless, the public understandably wanted to know both how he had grown so rich and what he had done with his wealth; he obliged by releasing extensive information about his financial history.
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

But that was 44 years ago. And the contrast between George Romney and his son Mitt — a contrast both in their business careers and in their willingness to come clean about their financial affairs — dramatically illustrates how America has changed.

Right now there’s a lot of buzz about an investigative report in the magazine Vanity Fair highlighting the “gray areas” in the younger Romney’s finances. More about that in a minute. First, however, let’s talk about what it meant to get rich in George Romney’s America, and how it compares with the situation today.

What did George Romney do for a living? The answer was straightforward: he ran an auto company, American Motors. And he ran it very well indeed: at a time when the Big Three were still fixated on big cars and ignoring the rising tide of imports, Romney shifted to a highly successful focus on compacts that restored the company’s fortunes, not to mention that it saved the jobs of many American workers.

It also made him personally rich. We know this because during his run for president, he released not one, not two, but 12 years’ worth of tax returns, explaining that any one year might just be a fluke. From those returns we learn that in his best year, 1960, he made more than $660,000 — the equivalent, adjusted for inflation, of around $5 million today.

Those returns also reveal that he paid a lot of taxes — 36 percent of his income in 1960, 37 percent over the whole period. This was in part because, as one report at the time put it, he “seldom took advantage of loopholes to escape his tax obligations.” But it was also because taxes on the rich were much higher in the ’50s and ’60s than they are now. In fact, once you include the indirect effects of taxes on corporate profits, taxes on the very rich were about twice current levels.

Now fast-forward to Romney the Younger, who made even more money during his business career at Bain Capital. Unlike his father, however, Mr. Romney didn’t get rich by producing things people wanted to buy; he made his fortune through financial engineering that seems in many cases to have left workers worse off, and in some cases driven companies into bankruptcy.

And there’s another contrast: George Romney was open and forthcoming about what he did with his wealth, but Mitt Romney has largely kept his finances secret. He did, grudgingly, release one year’s tax return plus an estimate for the next year, showing that he paid a startlingly low tax rate. But as the Vanity Fair report points out, we’re still very much in the dark about his investments, some of which seem very mysterious.

Put it this way: Has there ever before been a major presidential candidate who had a multimillion-dollar Swiss bank account, plus tens of millions invested in the Cayman Islands, famed as a tax haven?

And then there’s his Individual Retirement Account. I.R.A.’s are supposed to be a tax-advantaged vehicle for middle-class savers, with annual contributions limited to a few thousand dollars a year. Yet somehow Mr. Romney ended up with an account worth between $20 million and $101 million.

There are legitimate ways that could have happened, just as there are potentially legitimate reasons for parking large sums of money in overseas tax havens. But we don’t know which if any of those legitimate reasons apply in Mr. Romney’s case — because he has refused to release any details about his finances. This refusal to come clean suggests that he and his advisers believe that voters would be less likely to support him if they knew the truth about his investments.

And that is precisely why voters have a right to know that truth. Elections are, after all, in part about the perceived character of the candidates — and what a man does with his money is surely a major clue to his character.

One more thing: To the extent that Mr. Romney has a coherent policy agenda, it involves cutting tax rates on the very rich — which are already, as I said, down by about half since his father’s time. Surely a man advocating such policies has a special obligation to level with voters about the extent to which he would personally benefit from the policies he advocates.

Yet obviously that’s something Mr. Romney doesn’t want to do. And unless he does reveal the truth about his investments, we can only assume that he’s hiding something seriously damaging.

[dalem]

What's up with the timing of Krugman's latest op ed? It comes today, precisely the day after Obama's campaign launched it's latest innuendo that Romney is, well, not quite a tax cheat, but may be. Krugman joins a chorus of Obama's well coordinated surrogates who appeared in public yesterday and today in news shows and elsewhere expressing righteous indignation that Romney hasn't bared all the details of his business activities nor released his tax returns covering the last 12 years, except the most recent. One would expect Krugman to side with Obama on major economic issues, but the timing on this one suggests Krugman is a willing shill for Obama.

And you needed an article to know that? :)

-dale

[USSWisconsin]

Feels like choosing between a 9mm and a .38 for which to get shot by... Golly gee what a choice...

[astralis]

JAD,

One would expect Krugman to side with Obama on major economic issues, but the timing on this one suggests Krugman is a willing shill for Obama.

considering all the ranting he's done about obama, i highly doubt he's a coordinated shill. his tone is rather more like USSWisconsin's above, only of course he thinks Romney is a .44 magnum to the gut to obama's .22 to the arm.

[JAD_333]

JAD,



considering all the ranting he's done about obama, i highly doubt he's a coordinated shill. his tone is rather more like USSWisconsin's above, only of course he thinks Romney is a .44 magnum to the gut to obama's .22 to the arm.

Asty:

One word: Appearances. July 7 and 8. White House Obama campaign via Gibbs builds on Vanity Fair article to suggest Romney may have not paid all his taxes and is hiding something in one of those sinister Swiss bank accounts. Debbie Whatshername Shultz, head of the DNC, takes to the airwaves and does a ditto. Next day Sunday AM "Face the Nation": Senator Dick Durbin manages to shoehorn a ditto in during a discussion with McCain on Syria; also on Sunday, Krugman's op ed with a ditto appears in The New York Times . Not coordinated? Ok. But it appears to be.

[astralis]

it's not surprising that people who lean Dem will start talking about the new Dem talking points, but i doubt it's purposefully coordinated.

that's just too organized...especially given the messy and shambolic way the Dem party machine operates. look at the way obama has shifted his attacks on romney over the past few months.

although these days it seems the Republican machine, once so well-greased, is doing its best to catch up!

[dalem]

it's not surprising that people who lean Dem will start talking about the new Dem talking points, but i doubt it's purposefully coordinated.

that's just too organized...especially given the messy and shambolic way the Dem party machine operates. look at the way obama has shifted his attacks on romney over the past few months.

although these days it seems the Republican machine, once so well-greased, is doing its best to catch up!

Admitting that it certainly could be mere chance, or fast writing, why would anyone doubt it's coordinated given the existence of the journolist and other coordinated efforts and leaks from the Obama WH to favored sources?

-dale

[astralis]

dale,

why would anyone doubt it's coordinated given the existence of the journolist and other coordinated efforts and leaks from the Obama WH to favored sources?

in this case, unlikely, given the people talking about it. how many people-- what type of people-- read vanity fair and the NYT editorial column of a princeton econ professor whose blog is titled 'Conscience of a Liberal'?

admittedly Face the Nation may have a slightly larger and diverse viewing crowd, but not by much, i'd imagine.

[dalem]

dale,



in this case, unlikely, given the people talking about it. how many people-- what type of people-- read vanity fair and the NYT editorial column of a princeton econ professor whose blog is titled 'Conscience of a Liberal'?

admittedly Face the Nation may have a slightly larger and diverse viewing crowd, but not by much, i'd imagine.

So are you saying that Krugman, the darling economist of the left, doesn't pull the readership to matter so the likelihood of coordination with the WH is low? Or are you saying that only uberLefties read both Vanity Fair and the Krugster so the likelihood of coordination with the WH is low?

Gotta say, astralis, the last 8 or 9 months have got you sounding dumber and dumber.

-dale

[astralis]

dale,

So are you saying that Krugman, the darling economist of the left, doesn't pull the readership to matter so the likelihood of coordination with the WH is low? Or are you saying that only uberLefties read both Vanity Fair and the Krugster so the likelihood of coordination with the WH is low?

it's not hard to tell when there's a coordinated media effort; when obama came up with the buffett rule, almost every media outlet from the WSJ to NYT to on-air networks were talking about it, for days on end. not just the op-eds, but the front page.

this latest? not so much. the only people talking about it are people already leaning towards obama. so i highly doubt this was all coordinated. after all, even you can admit that there's a chance that this could be 'mere chance or fast writing'; i just believe in this case that chance is quite high.

Gotta say, astralis, the last 8 or 9 months have got you sounding dumber and dumber.

i figure you had a headstart on that before i got into the action... i kid, i kid.

[JAD_333]

And you needed an article to know that? :)

-dale

Well....not really. I don't believe Krugman actually got a call from the Obama campaign asking him to write the op ed piece. I lived and breathed campaigning at different periods of my life. The top columnists resent being used as campaign tools. You can give them dirt and hope for the best. Sometimes it just boils down to a campaign head getting tipped off about an upcoming op ed and gearing his public statements to coincide with it.

[JAD_333]

it's not surprising that people who lean Dem will start talking about the new Dem talking points, but i doubt it's purposefully coordinated.

I was surprised that Dick Durbin pushed them so hard. Partisan talk is fine; nonsense is nonsense.

that's just too organized...especially given the messy and shambolic way the Dem party machine operates. look at the way obama has shifted his attacks on romney over the past few months.

The DNC is a mess, not the well-oiled Obama campaign which operates separately and calls the shots on what the DNC says publicly.

although these days it seems the Republican machine, once so well-greased, is doing its best to catch up!

The RNC is no better, but the Romney campaign org is as tight as Obama's. Neither cares what people like Murdock think about how they run their campaigns. Both are poll driven right down the center. Romney has been on vacation and he needed it. By week's end, we'll see some fireworks.