Romney a Deadbeat?

[Nbadan]

Why won't Romney show us the returns??

Reid doubles down on tax claims

We noted yesterday that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told the Huffington Post that what he claimed was a Bain Capital investor had called him to say Mitt Romney didn't pay taxes for ten years - without saying who told him this, or what basis there was for the claim.

Earlier today, he doubled down on the unsubstantiated claim with reporters in Nevada:

"I am not basing this on some figment of my imagination," Reid said in a telephone call with Nevada reporters. "I have had a number of people tell me that."

Asked to elaborate on his sources, Reid declined. "No, that's the best you're going to get from me."

"I don't think the burden should be on me," Reid said. "The burden should be on him. He's the one I've alleged has not paid any taxes. Why didn't he release his tax returns?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-...ms-130846.html

Couple that with Rachel Maddow's report on that subject tonight:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908...show/#48454163

and the heat rises on Romney because coupled with the tax policy Romney is promoting where he personally stands to make considerably more money with his "blind" Cayman Islands-Bermuda-Swiss trust, the concerns are justified.

[scott]

I'm amazed Romney has not taken the easy, obvious solution to this that even his supporters have suggested: release the returns even if (and maybe especially if) they are $0 taxes and use it as a catalyst for tax reform with a statement such as "it is true I paid no taxes these years, but I did not break the law. The fact I legally paid no taxes highlights the need for tax reform that ensures all Americans pay their fair share."

This is a fairly vague statement that is populist in nature, and even would let him support tax cuts for the rich later if he wanted without "technically lying". The only reason not to make it would be that he believes in a tax policy that legally allows millionaires to pay nothing. If that is the case, he should definitely keep that to himself, because he'll lose in a landslide based on that policy.

[scott]

Sorry for any typos, on an iPad.

[ElNono]

I'm amazed Romney has not taken the easy, obvious solution to this that even his supporters have suggested: release the returns even if (and maybe especially if) they are $0 taxes and use it as a catalyst for tax reform with a statement such as "it is true I paid no taxes these years, but I did not break the law. The fact I legally paid no taxes highlights the need for tax reform that ensures all Americans pay their fair share."

This is a fairly vague statement that is populist in nature, and even would let him support tax cuts for the rich later if he wanted without "technically lying". The only reason not to make it would be that he believes in a tax policy that legally allows millionaires to pay nothing. If that is the case, he should definitely keep that to himself, because he'll lose in a landslide based on that policy.

Well, see, that's the kind of vague talk that would perk the center's ear...

The problem is that certain catchphrases like "everybody pay their fair share", have been flipped to have some other ulterior meaning... "OMG, that's code-word for tax the rich! Why do they hate successful people?"...

I think Romney is aware he's not the kind of guy to really excites the party base, so he'll keep the rabid right narrative up until the convention to make sure he has as much base support until then. After that, I really do think he needs to start throwing some catchphrases like the above to start fishing the center/undecided.

[spursncowboys]

I'm amazed Romney has not taken the easy, obvious solution to this that even his supporters have suggested: release the returns even if (and maybe especially if) they are $0 taxes and use it as a catalyst for tax reform with a statement such as "it is true I paid no taxes these years, but I did not break the law. The fact I legally paid no taxes highlights the need for tax reform that ensures all Americans pay their fair share."

This is a fairly vague statement that is populist in nature, and even would let him support tax cuts for the rich later if he wanted without "technically lying". The only reason not to make it would be that he believes in a tax policy that legally allows millionaires to pay nothing. If that is the case, he should definitely keep that to himself, because he'll lose in a landslide based on that policy.

He made his decision not to. I think he would look weak if he did now. I also think that sooner or later, if not already, will start making Obama look bad for still focusing on the same minor issue. Especially if another bad economic report comes out.

[spursncowboys]

Well, see, that's the kind of vague talk that would perk the center's ear...

The problem is that certain catchphrases like "everybody pay their fair share", have been flipped to have some other ulterior meaning... "OMG, that's code-word for tax the rich! Why do they hate successful people?"...

I think Romney is aware he's not the kind of guy to really excites the party base, so he'll keep the rabid right narrative up until the convention to make sure he has as much base support until then. After that, I really do think he needs to start throwing some catchphrases like the above to start fishing the center/undecided.

I'm someone who hears that phrase and think that. If he could explain what exactly is the "rich" fair shair, but of course he wont. He's a politician. I would love to see him actually come up with some budget cuts (besides his favorite target-military) in the same breathe as tax raises. Then again Obamacare is the largest tax increase in American history.

[Clipper Nation]

You're really claiming that a President who has expanded drone use and continued to meddle in world affairs like Dubya did hates the military? Wow.....

[clambake]

they had to fill his empty head with something.

[DarrinS]

Guilty until proven innocent. I like it.

[boutons_deux]

Gecko ain't never gonna do anything but cut taxes on the rich more than the 99%. The House Repug plan raises taxes on the 99% while cutting on himself/1%.

Gecko's announced tax plan:



http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...n-policy-plan/

If Gecko wimps out now and releases 10 years of tax returns, then no matter what they contain (and he thinks that contents would be bad for him), then the empty-man, feckless, flopping, pandering wimp label becomes a lot stickier.

[spursncowboys]

You're really claiming that a President who has expanded drone use and continued to meddle in world affairs like Dubya did hates the military? Wow.....

I don't think he hates military. But we go on the chop block very often. Base closings; no pay raise since he's been in office; icreasing tricare by 300%; pushing military out of tricare prime; 10+ Brigade standdowns; cutting funding for c27's and MRAPs; etc.

With most military doing absentee balloting and AUSA (my lobbying group) seeming to be the worst lobbyists it's not hard to see why Dems target military, and why Repubs don't fight for us like both parties do for defense contractor companies.

[spursncowboys]

FTR there is a story about how obama didn't even know they put another round of BRAC and the cutting of c27's into his budget.

[spursncowboys]

The most liberal senator becomes president and takes a more neo-con approach to foreign affairs, when America has it's lowest view of wars of any kind(since Vietfuknnam) should tell you something about what kind of info he is getting that we aren't. It's not like he is going for the "war-monger" vote.

[jack sommerset]

I'm amazed Romney has not taken the easy, obvious solution to this that even his supporters have suggested.

That's what people said about Obama's birth certificate. God bless

[scott]

He made his decision not to. I think he would look weak if he did now. I also think that sooner or later, if not already, will start making Obama look bad for still focusing on the same minor issue. Especially if another bad economic report comes out.

I think that's a lot of wishful thinking on your behalf. The more stories like this that come out, and the longer Romney delays in releasing them, the worse it will be for him.

The point that I'd make (and has been made by a lot of people - including leading conservatives like Bill Kristol) is that the issue of the returns is not the question of whether or not Romney did anything illegal in his tax return. I'm going out on a limb and saying that most sane people probably believe he didn't pay a cent more than the tax code required. That isn't the issue here.

The issue is that in a time where tax policy is a central part of the national debate, especially the issue of taxes on the wealthiest individuals, we have a nominee who may or may not be paying less than the average citizen who makes far less. This isn't like whether or not Obama will release his college transcripts, because those aren't germane to a discussion on tax policy. The question is whether or not Romney thinks the current policy he (may have been) benefiting from is the right one for the United States.

If he came out and publicly supported the portions of the tax code that (possibly) allowed him to pay zero - he would lose in a landslide, because the vast majority of Americans disagree with this idea.

The longer he waits, the worse it will get. This is red meat for his opposition.

[elbamba]

I'm amazed Romney has not taken the easy, obvious solution to this that even his supporters have suggested: release the returns even if (and maybe especially if) they are $0 taxes and use it as a catalyst for tax reform with a statement such as "it is true I paid no taxes these years, but I did not break the law. The fact I legally paid no taxes highlights the need for tax reform that ensures all Americans pay their fair share."

This is a fairly vague statement that is populist in nature, and even would let him support tax cuts for the rich later if he wanted without "technically lying". The only reason not to make it would be that he believes in a tax policy that legally allows millionaires to pay nothing. If that is the case, he should definitely keep that to himself, because he'll lose in a landslide based on that policy.

I disagree. Romney has nothing to gain at this point by releasing more tax returns. Poor people file 50 page tax returns. Romney's are probably 600 pages each. Romney would be handing Obama and a media, that is already against him, nothing but ammunition to distract his message. His message might be simplistic but it is the most effective tool that he has and that is that the economy sucks and Obama's policies have failed. Most independent voters can get behind this over releasing a tax return. Maybe not all, especially independents that tend to lean left, but that is the calculated risk that Romney has to make.

When Obama released his returns, I spent all of five minutes looking at them and was bored. I can guarantee you I spent five more minutes than 99% of the voting population spent looking at those returns and the same percentages would hold true for people actually interested in seeing Romney's returns.

No one has bothered to read the returns Romney has released. Instead they focus on his rate and foreign bank accounts. As if Romney did anything wrong by taking advantage of the loop holes congress, but republican and democrats, have passed.

Making the populist stand sounds good. But if released his records as you suggest, there would be nothing but 4 months of Romney's tax rates, money overseas and other 30 second clips that really don't matter one bit.

Most undecided voters are undecided because they are capable of weighing evidence. It has been my experience that "unnamed sources" and my "friend" on the inside is not highly persuasive when trying to persuade an individual with a scintilla of intelligence. The only people who really care about this story are people who have already made up their mind who they are voting for.

Romney needs to stay focused on the economy, the unemployment rate, food stamps, the unpopularity of Obamacare and his success in business and the Olympics. If he wins, it will rest on this.

[scott]

Well, see, that's the kind of vague talk that would perk the center's ear...

The problem is that certain catchphrases like "everybody pay their fair share", have been flipped to have some other ulterior meaning... "OMG, that's code-word for tax the rich! Why do they hate successful people?"...

I think Romney is aware he's not the kind of guy to really excites the party base, so he'll keep the rabid right narrative up until the convention to make sure he has as much base support until then. After that, I really do think he needs to start throwing some catchphrases like the above to start fishing the center/undecided.

Well, that's why Romney presumably pays his staff. To take on a fire, extinguish it, and turn it around to his advantage.

He could easily say:

1) Here are my tax returns.
2) Yes, I paid zero. Legally.
3) I should be able to pay zero.
4) Here is my plan to make sure everyone pays into the system (which could even include a tax cut for the rich if he wanted - that would keep the base on board while simultaneously appealing to some moderates. He isn't going to get liberals either way, so why be afraid of pissing them off?)

[elbamba]

The longer he waits, the worse it will get. This is red meat for his opposition.

It will be red meat if he releases it. There will be months of advertising not based on BS speculation like Reid's but rather, twisted facts that people may think is accurate because the returns were released.

Look at what Obama has done with the two years Romeny has released. Its all about his rate and foreign investments. As if it is wrong to invest your personal money overseas or take advante of tax loopholes you did not pass.

[scott]

I disagree. Romney has nothing to gain at this point by releasing more tax returns. Poor people file 50 page tax returns. Romney's are probably 600 pages each. Romney would be handing Obama and a media, that is already against him, nothing but ammunition to distract his message. His message might be simplistic but it is the most effective tool that he has and that is that the economy sucks and Obama's policies have failed. Most independent voters can get behind this over releasing a tax return. Maybe not all, especially independents that tend to lean left, but that is the calculated risk that Romney has to make.

When Obama released his returns, I spent all of five minutes looking at them and was bored. I can guarantee you I spent five more minutes than 99% of the voting population spent looking at those returns and the same percentages would hold true for people actually interested in seeing Romney's returns.

No one has bothered to read the returns Romney has released. Instead they focus on his rate and foreign bank accounts. As if Romney did anything wrong by taking advantage of the loop holes congress, but republican and democrats, have passed.

Making the populist stand sounds good. But if released his records as you suggest, there would be nothing but 4 months of Romney's tax rates, money overseas and other 30 second clips that really don't matter one bit.

Most undecided voters are undecided because they are capable of weighing evidence. It has been my experience that "unnamed sources" and my "friend" on the inside is not highly persuasive when trying to persuade an individual with a scintilla of intelligence. The only people who really care about this story are people who have already made up their mind who they are voting for.

Romney needs to stay focused on the economy, the unemployment rate, food stamps, the unpopularity of Obamacare and his success in business and the Olympics. If he wins, it will rest on this.

You make some valid points, though I disagree on whether he has nothing to gain and everything to lose. The avoidance issue looks shady to people, and if Romney released more, the majority of people wouldn't even bother to look at it and move on.

The Obama campaign is going to run negative ads either way. If Romney did nothing wrong in his tax return (and I don't think he did) - then why wouldn't he want those things to be the center of negative ads against me? He can effectively control the meat of the attacks against him, thus creating greater flexibility in turning those attacks around to his advantage.

[scott]

It will be red meat if he releases it. There will be months of advertising not based on BS speculation like Reid's but rather, twisted facts that people may think is accurate because the returns were released.

Look at what Obama has done with the two years Romeny has released. Its all about his rate and foreign investments. As if it is wrong to invest your personal money overseas or take advante of tax loopholes you did not pass.

Obama is using it, because the idea that these loopholes should be allowed in the future is a core part of the tax debate in this country.

Again, Romney would be wise to even make this statement about the returns he HAS released:

1) Yes, I took advantage of tax loopholes.
2) I didn't write these laws, I just followed them. Completely legal.

He has made these two responses, correctly, thus far. What he has left out is the policy debate part of it, where he should say:

3) I think we should close these loopholes.

That's how he wins, or at least gets ahead, of that issue.

If he he publicly includes these loopholes as part of his tax policy, he loses big time.

[scott]

That's what people said about Obama's birth certificate. God bless

So it's a "You did it first!" defense? Gotcha.

[scott]

I'm someone who hears that phrase and think that. If he could explain what exactly is the "rich" fair shair, but of course he wont. He's a politician. I would love to see him actually come up with some budget cuts (besides his favorite target-military) in the same breathe as tax raises. Then again Obamacare is the largest tax increase in American history.

I think Obama has pretty clearly explained the what he thinks the "fair share" is: 39.6% on marginal income over $250,000.

You can agree or disagree, but to say "he won't explain" says you aren't paying attention.

[elbamba]

Obama is using it, because the idea that these loopholes should be allowed in the future is a core part of the tax debate in this country.

Again, Romney would be wise to even make this statement about the returns he HAS released:

1) Yes, I took advantage of tax loopholes.
2) I didn't write these laws, I just followed them. Completely legal.

He has made these two responses, correctly, thus far. What he has left out is the policy debate part of it, where he should say:

3) I think we should close these loopholes.

That's how he wins, or at least gets ahead, of that issue.

If he he publicly includes these loopholes as part of his tax policy, he loses big time.

I get what you are saying and if we lived in a society where people really educated themselves instead of waiting for 30 second sound bites I would agree with everything you said. Sadly, people, or at least the media that most people inform themselves with, is more interested in taking clips like "you didn't built that" and "I like to fire people" and turing them into policy.

If I were Romney, and I know that I am not liked by many voters, including within my own party, I stay focused on pissing people off with the economy, en lements and unemployment. Anger inspires more than reason.

[elbamba]

I should say, anger seems to get more votes than reason.

[boutons_deux]

10 Theories About What Mitt Romney's Really Hiding in Those Tax Returns

Mitt Romney knows how to do a cost-benefit analysis, and he's determined that it's better to be dogged by reporters for failing to release his tax returns for the duration of the 2012 campaign than it is to make the do ents public. Never mind that a majority of Americans – and a third of Republicans – think he should come clean.

It's beyond obvious that whatever's in those returns must be enough to do serious damage to Romney, or even sink his candidacy completely.

What might it be, exactly? In the vaccuum Romney has created by not disclosing, any number of theories have been floated as to what his returns could reveal. For your convenience, we've collected 10 theories that are making the rounds in the political press.

1. Mormon hes

Mormons are expected to fork over 10 percent of their income to the Church of Latter Day Saints. And that fact leads us to two theories.

First, Rachel Zoll of the Associated Press speculated [3] that Romney doesn't want to remind evangelical Christians that he belongs to what many consider a non-Christian “cult.” “The Republican candidate's commitment to the church is a double-edged sword in the contest for the presidential nomination,” she wrote. “Many GOP voters are Christians who do not consider Mormons to be part of historic Christianity. Romney supporters worry that details of his church donations contained in the tax returns could fuel opposition to him based on his religion.”

But it may be the other way around – perhaps he doesn't want to piss off Mormons. After all, the right-wing Daily Caller reported that in 2010 and 2011, the two years for which Romney released partial returns, it looks like the former Mormon bishop under- hed the church, paying 7 percent of his income one year and 9.7 percent over the two-year period. As the Caller noted [4], “Romney recently told Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, 'I made a commitment to my church a long, long time ago that I would give 10 percent of my income to the church, and I’ve followed through on that commitment. So, if I had given less than 10 percent, then I think people would have to look at me and say, ‘Hey, what’s wrong with you fella — don’t you follow through on your promises?’”

Of course, if he were sheltering additional income in offshore accounts, then the degree to which the Caller says he shortchanged the Mormons might be even greater.

2. Things That Might Infuriate the Base

Mitt Romney, who just four years ago was dubbed the “conservative alternative” to John McCain is probably, as he claims, “severely conservative.” But when he wanted to become governor of Massachussetts, he played to that state's politics, swearing to protect a woman's right to choose, saying that climate change isn't a socialist plot and generally being reasonable. He passed the precursor to Obamacare, which he now condemns as a sign of looming tyranny.

Rick Newman at US News and World Report wonders [5] whether Romney really stopped supporting those causes when he claims to have converted himself into a far-right Republican. Could he have a bunch of itemized deductions to, say, Planned Parenthood listed on those returns? We'd be wrong not to speculate.

3. Harry Reid, Lazy Blogger

That's how Wonkette characterized [6] Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's unsourced, second-hand rumor that Mitt Romney paid no taxes at all over a 10-year period. (This is very unlikely, due to the Alternative Minimum Tax.)

But many, many people have speculated that the reason Mitt doesn't want to reveal his tax returns is that they will show that he paid a significantly lower rate than his campaign has claimed in the years prior to 2010.

4. It's the IRAs

Mitt Romney has an Individual Retirement Account, just like you probably do! But unlike you, Mitt has somewhere between $20 and $101 million in his account.

We know that the maximum amount one can contribute to an IRA account is $17,000 per year (employers can match that with up to $30,000). So that would be a pretty impressive performance – what an investor!

Or what a cheat. Michael Graetz, a professor of tax law at Columbia University and a former official in the senior Bush's Treasury Department, suggested [7] that to get such a fat IRA, “we have to presume that Mr. Romney valued the assets he put in his retirement account at far less than he would have sold them for.”

He continues:

The I.R.A. also allows Mr. Romney to diversify his large holdings tax-free, avoiding the 15 percent tax on capital gains that would otherwise apply. His financial disclosure further reveals that his I.R.A. freed him from paying currently the 35 percent income tax on hundreds of thousands of dollars of interest income each year.

5. The Mini-Mitts

Graetz has a second theory about what Mitt might be hiding, and it also has to do with dramatically under-valuing his assets in order to screw over Uncle Sam.

It has to do with a trust he set up for his five sons in 1995. Graetz explains that until this year, there was a $1 million life-time exemption on such gifts, and after that they should have been taxed at between 29-44 percent. So Mitt would have been on the hook for between $29 and $44 million in gift taxes.

“Based on his aggressive tax planning,” writes Graetz, “my bet is that — if Mr. Romney filed a gift tax return for these transfers at all — he put a low or even zero value on the gifts, certainly a small fraction of the price at which he would have sold the transferred assets to an unrelated party.”

Wouldn't he get busted with such a brazen strategy to avoid paying taxes? After all, that's some pretty serious tax fraud. Well, catching Mitt in this kind of scheme might be harder than one would think. Graetz explains that “every good tax professional knows that gift tax returns are rarely audited, except after the transferer’s death. And normally the I.R.S. cannot challenge such a return after three years from its filing.”

6. Is It All About 2009?

BusinessWeek's Joshua Green thinks Romney may not want to reveal his taxes for one year in particular – 2009. That's because Romney probably took some significant losses when the economy crashed in 2008. Green explains [8]:

It’s possible he suffered a large enough capital loss that, carried forward and coupled with his various offshore tax havens, he wound up paying no U.S. federal taxes at all in 2009. If true, this would be politically deadly for him...

The “zero tax in 2009” theory—again, this is sheer speculation—gains further sustenance when you consider it’s the only year for which nobody knows anything about Romney’s taxes. He’s revealed what’s in his 2010 and 2011 returns, and he reportedly submitted 20-some years’ worth of returns to the McCain campaign when he was being vetted for vice president in 2008. Steve Schmidt, McCain’s chief strategist in that campaign, said on MSNBC,,, that while he didn’t examine Romney’s returns himself, nothing that McCain’s vetters found in them disqualified Romney from consideration.

7. CEO, President and Chairman of Bain

You probably know that Mitt claims he retired – or perhaps retired “retroactively” – from Bain Capital in 1999. You probably also know that almost three years later, as the Huffington Post reported [9], “Romney was listed as the CEO, chairman and president of the company... in do ents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission; took a six-figure salary; signed corporate do ents related to major and minor deals and attended board meetings for at least two Bain-affiliated companies.”

It's possible that releasing his returns could clarify exactly what involvement he had with Bain after 1999. And that might reveal that Romney was, contrary to his claims [10], involved in Bain's decision to invest in Stericycle, a medical waste company that disposed of aborted fetuses. Ben LaBolt, an Obama campaign spokesman, told Fox News: "If he released more do ents, like further tax returns, we would know the extent of his involvement at Bain during this period.”

8. Is Mitt a Felon?

Relatedly, in 2011, Mitt Romney signed a financial disclosure form and sent it to the Federal Election Commission. In it, he stated emphatically that he had no active role in the company after February 1999. That claim appears to be contradicted by a number of other do ents.

It's a felony to lie on an FEC financial disclosure form [11]. Some forms of tax evasion are also felonies. Mitt's tax returns might offer proof that he committed a crime.

9. Are There Other Non-Disclosures?

There's lying on a disclosure form, and then there's not filing required forms. The LA Times reports [12] that “at least 23 funds and partnerships listed in [Mitt's] 2010 tax returns did not show up or were not listed in the same fashion on Romney’s most recent financial disclosure, including 11 based in low-tax foreign countries such as Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg.”

More tax returns might reveal other investments that Romney has failed to disclose, as he is required to do by law.

10. There's Nothing – It's Just His Sense of En lement

Esquire's James Wolcott doesn't think there's any there there [13]. Sure, Romney's tax returns would provide an object lesson in how the ultra-rich avoid paying their fair share of taxes, but everyone already knows that those at the top of the pile game the system. For Wolcott, the issue comes down to Romney refusing to bow to the little people on principle.

It is helpful always to remind yourself that, in the mind of Willard Romney, there are only two kinds of people — himself and his family, and the Help. Throughout his career, and especially throughout his brief political career, Romney has treated the Help with a kind of lordly disdain...

The Help has no right to go pawing through the family books, giggling at the obvious loopholes and tax dodges, running amok through all the tax shelters, and probably getting their chocolate-y fingerprints all over the pages of the Romney family ledger. And, certainly, those members of the Help in the employ of the president of the United States, who is also part of the Help, have no right to use the nearly comically ostentatious wealth of the Romney as some sort of scrimey political weapon. He does not have to answer to the Help. I mean, jeepers, he's running for office.

This isn't stubbornness. That's often an acquired trait. What this is, fundamentally, is contempt. Contempt for the process, and contempt for the people who make their living in that process, and contempt for the people whose lives depend on that process. There are rules for the Help with which Willard Romney never has had to abide, and he has no intention of starting now. My dear young fellow, this simply is not done.

The Most Likely Explanation

Given Romney's refusal to release his returns, this kind of speculation is entirely predictable. But the most likely reason Romney doesn't want to release his returns is that they'll cast a bright light on the aggressive tax avoidance strategies the super-rich use every day – strategies David Cay Johnston outlined so well in his excellent book, Perfectly Legal [14]. The Romney campaign keeps assuring us that he paid all taxes required by law, and that very well might be the problem.

A Vanity Fair investigation [15] into the trickle of tax do ents that Romney has disclosed – under intense pressure – found that they “provided a lavish smorgasbord for Romney’s critics. Particularly jarring were the Romneys’ many offshore accounts.”

To give but one example, there is a Bermuda-based en y called Sankaty High Yield Asset Investors Ltd., which has been described in securities filings as “a Bermuda corporation wholly owned by W. Mitt Romney.” It could be that Sankaty is an old vehicle with little importance, but Romney appears to have treated it rather carefully. He set it up in 1997, then transferred it to his wife’s newly created blind trust on January 1, 2003, the day before he was inaugurated as Massachusetts’s governor. The director and president of this en y is R. Bradford Malt, the trustee of the blind trust and Romney’s personal lawyer. Romney failed to list this en y on several financial disclosures, even though such a closely held en y would not qualify as an “excepted investment fund” that would not need to be on his disclosure forms. He finally included it on his 2010 tax return. Even after examining that return, we have no idea what is in this company, but it could be valuable, meaning that it is possible Romney’s wealth is even greater than previous estimates. While the Romneys’ spokespeople insist that the couple has paid all the taxes required by law, investments in tax havens such as Bermuda raise many questions, because they are in “jurisdictions where there is virtually no tax and virtually no compliance,” as one Miami-based offshore lawyer put it.

While James Wolcott thinks that it's “hardly a secret anymore” that “our tax code — and, indeed, our entire economic system — has been gamed to benefit the folks in Romney's economic stratum,” most people probably don't have a firm grasp on precisely how the vaunted “job creators” avoid paying their fair share, and the release of Romney's returns would offer a teachable moment.

As real estate billionaire Leona Helmsley once said, “Only the little people pay taxes.” That's not the message Mitt Romney wants to convey during a campaign that has a lot to do with tax cuts for the wealthiest.


http://www.alternet.org/print/electi...se-tax-returns