Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Time for change

(13,714 posts)
Sun Aug 12, 2012, 10:07 PM Aug 2012

The Irony and Cynicism of Mitt Romney’s Secrecy Surrounding his Tax Returns

Despite repeated requests for transparency regarding his tax returns, Mitt Romney has thus far released for public view only his 2010 tax returns, with promises to later additionally release only his 2011 tax returns. This is despite his requesting that his potential running mates release “several” years of their tax to him (He won’t say how many years he requested, but obviously “several” means more than one or two years).

This secrecy is especially ironic given that it was Romney’s father, George, who engaged in path breaking transparency with regard to his finances in preparation for his run for the Republican Presidential nomination of 1968, when he turned over 12 years worth of tax returns to a journalist. Since that time, as noted by Edward Kleinbard:

presidential nominees have been transparent with voters about their personal finances. For this reason, we have not suffered a significant tax scandal involving a nominee or sitting president since President Richard Nixon's abuse of the tax code.

Now it appears that the son of the man who inaugurated the practice of transparency in personal finances for Presidential candidates will be the one to terminate that practice – at least temporarily.


Why is transparency of the personal finances of Presidential candidates important?

One of the major responsibilities of a U.S. President is handling the national economy. The personal finances of a Presidential candidate could provide clues as to how that responsibility would be handled once in office.

Release of Romney’s 2010 tax returns showed that he paid less than 14% federal tax on an income of $21 million. That’s about half the tax rate of an average middle class family with two working spouses. Could it be possible that Romney paid far less than 14% federal tax in previous years? Tax experts have stated that it is indeed possible that Romney didn’t pay any taxes at all in one or more previous years, on multi-million dollar incomes, and that he remained within the law in doing so. But wouldn’t it be of interest to the American public to know if Romney paid obscenely low rates in federal taxes on multi-million dollar salaries over the years? That could raise issues of fairness in taxes that the American public would do well to consider. It is especially important to consider since under the budget plan of Romney’s running mate, Romney would have paid less than 1% in federal taxes in 2011. Furthermore, under Paul Ryan’s "Path to Prosperity" plan, Romney might not pay any federal taxes at all for the next ten years.


Other questions raised by Romney’s secrecy over his financial transactions

Financial experts have raised several additional questions posed by Romney’s secrecy over his financial transactions:

It is known from the release of Romney’s 2010 tax returns that he had a great deal of money in a Swiss bank account, which seems to have closed in 2010. In 2009 the IRS announced a partial tax amnesty for unreported foreign bank accounts. Did Romney avail himself of that amnesty program? If he did, might that emphasize the issue of whether some of the millions of Americans who have lost their homes or are currently in danger of losing their homes, largely as the result of fraudulent bank practices, be offered amnesty that would help them retain or regain their homes. Might it raise the question of whether these millions of Americans are as deserving as Mitt Romney? It has also been pointed out the ownership of a Swiss bank account could raise question of compliance with federal tax law, which could be resolved by release of the tax returns covering that period.

Romney is known to have an IRA of $102 million, which he accumulated during his tenure at Bain Capital. Yet Romney was restricted to contribution to the IRA during that time of $32,000 per year. How did annual contributions of $32,000 grow into $100 million? One possibility that has been mentioned is that Romney used some fallacious excuse to put in far more money that he was allowed to put in, in an effort to avoid taxes.

Nicholas Shaxson poses several questions about seemingly strange aspects of Romney’s financial history: It is known that Romney has sheltered much of his wealth in foreign tax havens, but nobody knows much about them. Why is Romney still being paid by Bain Capital, and could those payments constitute a conflict of interest as President? Are Romney’s blind trusts really blind, and if he knows what’s in them, could that create a conflict of interest as President? Did Bain serve as a tax haven for foreign criminals? Shaxson points out:

Private equity is one channel for this secrecy-shrouded foreign money to enter the United States, and a filing for Mitt Romney’s first $37 million Bain Capital Fund, of 1984, provides a rare window into this…


The bottom line

As noted above, Mitt Romney would accrue huge financial benefits under the type of national budget that he and his running mate are proposing. A public viewing of Romney’s financial transactions over the past several years – the financial transactions that have helped to make him an incredibly wealthy man – could shine a light and put in perspective the economic plans being put forth by Romney and Ryan.

As an abstract concept, I have no problem with people accumulating tremendous wealth. But as a result of huge tax breaks for multimillionaires, Paul Ryan’s plan would strip millions of Americans of basic health insurance, make severe cuts in college grants, and greatly reduce much of the federal safety walls that currently provide some protection to the low income Americans. As described in "Paul Ryan's 'Path to Prosperity' Budget":

Ryan’s plan would begin by cutting way back on health insurance, leaving as many as 60 million more Americans without basic health protection. According to the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, over the next decade Ryan’s Medicaid plan would cut funding by one-third ($810 billion) compared to current law. Ryan’s budget plan calls for many other drastic cuts in domestic spending. All Americans would suffer, but millions living in poverty or close to it would face the most devastating cuts. Food Stamps, housing assistance, and college grants for needy students are among many programs that would be severely cut back. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities uses cautious estimates to conclude that at least 62% of the Ryan cuts would fall on low-income households…. And Ryan’s plan also attacks Medicare for the elderly. He would raise eligibility to age 67, and turn it into a voucher system. Seniors would be forced to shop for their own health insurance…

The release of Romney’s tax records could generate a lot of national attention for these issues. Aren’t these issues important for the American public (and voter) to consider? In considering Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” plan, the American voter might want to consider whose prosperity the plan refers to.
6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Irony and Cynicism of Mitt Romney’s Secrecy Surrounding his Tax Returns (Original Post) Time for change Aug 2012 OP
Willard -- the great American liar and fraud Angry Dragon Aug 2012 #1
Thank you -- They get away with their lies largely because our corporate owned media won't call them Time for change Aug 2012 #2
WiLLIARd malaise Aug 2012 #3
The media made a star out of Orly Taitz RandiFan1290 Aug 2012 #4
They will Time for change Aug 2012 #6
Recommend! Keep aksing these questions. morningfog Aug 2012 #5

Time for change

(13,714 posts)
2. Thank you -- They get away with their lies largely because our corporate owned media won't call them
Mon Aug 13, 2012, 07:51 AM
Aug 2012

on them. If our news media provided honest discussions of the ideas put forth by our politicians, the discourse and legislation in our country would move way to the left.

Time for change

(13,714 posts)
6. They will
Mon Aug 13, 2012, 10:56 AM
Aug 2012

Thank God for the Internet. It provides a means to combat the misinformation and non-information provided by our corporate news media.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Irony and Cynicism of...