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 (http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-investigative-reports/the-mystery-of-barack-obama-continues/) 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?"