Friday, August 3, 2012

Romney vs Obama: Do 10 years of tax returns equal a lifetime of secrecy?

I have a conundrum. When I offer criticism to someone and that person in turn criticizes me, I usually say "what does that have to do with what I just said?" I generally hate the deflection technique but think in the following instance it may be justified. The left has been clamoring for 10 years of Mitt Romney's tax returns. Harry Reid says a birdie told him that Romney is hiding the fact than in several years, he paid no federal income tax. Romney's response has basically been to ignore it all. Yet one wonders if he should not fight fire with fire. He could say that Reid and the left have not criticized the 49 percent of wage earners who pay no federal taxes - probably unwise due to the disparity in income. But Romney could cite all the evidence of rich democratic politicians who shelter income. He also could issue a challenge to the president and say "show me yours and I'll show you mine." This is because of the well documented stuff hidden by Obama. Not only the birth certificate, but the records from Occidental College and from Columbia and Harvard graduate schools. The missing thesis, the missing Illinois legislative records, even his high school transcript, his selective service record, the multiple social security cards, the lack of signed articles when he edited the Harvard Law Review,passport records and even more. Steve Baldwin reports ( that Team Obama has spent over $1.4 million to hide these and other documents. Then, of course, there is the use of executive privilege to deny access to the records on Fast and Furious. Indeed, there is a commercial out now asking for signatures on a petition to invalidate Obama as a candidate because of the missing documents. Romney should say "What are you hiding?"


Repack Rider said...

I don't see anyone calling for Romney's birth certificate or college grades. Mr. Obama was graduated magna cum laude from Harvard and if that ever happened to a dumb guy, let me know.

Ever since Mitt's father established the tradition of releasing 12 years of returns, it has been a rite of passage for every candidate.

The stated purpose of this tradition is to show how honest and patriotic the candidate is, and whom he takes money from.

It's not required, but a guy breaking a 40 year old tradition started by his own father has to know that attention falls on the one guy who is out of step with everyone else.

Romney doesn't prepare his own returns, he has an army of accountants and lawyers for that, and many of them would know where the bodies are buried. All it takes is one of them going off the reservation, and that appears to be what has happened.

Despite the absence of a credible source, this is not a spontaneous, off the cuff accusation. Reid has the cards and he knows Mitt is bluffing. Now Reid will just keep pushing chips out on the table and raising the stakes.

H.A. Black said...

No argument from me on any of this. However, I still say that Romney should say the release depends on lifting the veil of secrecy surrounding Obama. I never called Obama dumb - only ignorant. By the way, I can find no physical evidence that Obama was magna cum laude. The Harvard records have never been released. But keep those comments coming.