This is the second feature segment that Maddow has done on Romney’s history of “You’re going to just have to trust me on this” related to his taxes. It won’t surprise me if Romney’s taxes get a solid feature spot each week until he releases his returns. Remember that Romney claimed to live in his son’s unfinished basement and that sparked the voter fraud charge. Then there’s the company that Romney audited, yet they ended up on the wrong side of the IRS. Then there’s good old Romney Sr’s release of his tax documents… I’m sure they could come up with a weekly spot easily for the next couple months.
Of course, if Romney won’t release his tax returns, then who ever gets picked as VP will probably not release theirs… so, that will be a whole new bundle of joy to dive into.
You might not be aware that there are three (at least) separate Romney tax return controversies.
Maddow didn’t accuse Romney of lying about what’s in his recent tax returns. In fact, she made a fairly strong point about how thin Reid’s accusations were.
But she reported that Romney was caught lying about his claims that he filed his tax returns as a MA resident, during his 2002 campaign for governor of that state. She also reported that the Romney spokesman who last week claimed that Reid was behaving despicably, was the deputy campaign manager who in 2002 demanded to know what Romney’s opponent was hiding when she had released her returns, but her husband had not. All this while Romney did not release his returns.
And she reported that ~ten years before that, Romney had demanded that Ted Kennedy release his tax returns, while not releasing his own.
Color me unimpressed by your cite. Four “mostly false” statements? That’s it? That proves she lies more than most politicians? Puh-leeze! I’ll take Rachel’s word on anything over Mitt Romney’s. If Romney came up to me soaking we and told me it was raining, I’d look out the window before fetching my umbrella.
No, Reid can release the name of this alleged informant whenever he likes. If his supposed informant is embarrassed, so fucking what.
No, it is real, non-partisan logic, which is probably why you don’t get it. The person making the accusation bears the burden of proof. Reid is making an accusation. The burden of proof is on him, not Romney. IOW, Romney does not need to reveal his returns, but Reid does need to reveal the name of his supposed informant.
Your understanding is incomplete. Yes, contributions are limited to cash and cash-equivalents, but rollovers, transfers, and conversions between IRAs and other retirement arrangements can include any asset. More than likely, Romney was receiving regularly contributions to an SEP-IRA at Bain & Company, which invested in high-yield securities, and he rolled it over when he formed Bain Capital. Funding a retirement account for 25 years will yield a far higher balance than 15 years. It’s also not necessary to assume he quit funding it in 2002, as rolling it over into another account would allow him to do so. Even this scenario, however, requires an awesome rate of return.
So let’s assume that’s not all we’re looking at here. Romney’s SEP-IRA, like all IRAs, must be funded with cash and cash equivalents. Cash equivalents are assets that are readily convertible into cash and have insignificant risk of change in value. Some of the preferred stock acquired by Bain in its dealings may fit that definition.
So imagine Bain acquires a large company in a leveraged buyout. As part of the deal, the company issues preferred stock to Bain. The preferred stock has a redemption date of, say, a year from the deal, and thanks to the leverage, its book value is very low. Sightly less than a year later, its value is still low, and its value is now unlikely to change before redemption – it’s now equivalent to cash, and Bain contributes $30,000 worth at book value to Romney’s SEP-IRA account.
The stock reaches its redemption date, the acquired company retires its debt, and the preferred shares are converted to common shares, which proceed to climb through the roof. Rinse and repeat.
That step there might be illegal, because I don’t think convertible preferred stock is ever cash-equivalent. That’s the kind of thing that maybe people are wondering about.
And what would we then know about the actual candidate that we don’t know now? The source would be just one more person with some hearsay. And, it would continue and even amplify the story about Romney seeming to be hiding something disqualifying. No, you really don’t want that to happen.
No, it is real, non-partisan logic, which is probably why you don’t get it.
[/QUOTE]
It’s a political campaign, which is probably why YOU don’t get it.
Maybe in a court of law. But in the everyday world, the person running for President, and making tax policy the centerpiece of his campaign, bears a tiny bit of the burden, don’t you think?
And what do you think will happen if Reid refuses? Will the dustup over Mitt’s taxes go away? This one of those situations where Mitt would rather be right than be president.
We would know, or least we would have a better indication, whether or not Reid was lying. So we would know more about him than we do now. You can’t learn much about a candidate from the smears his opponents spread about him.
I understand perfectly - Reid is spreading a smear, in the belief that either [ul][li]Romney will release his tax returns, in which case Reid will continue on with some other smear without a backward glance, or [*]Romney will not release his tax returns, in which case Reid will continue to spread this smear.[/ul]It’s a win-win for Reid and Obama, if you consider this kind of sleaze to be worth a win.[/li]
No, I don’t agree - Reid can tell a thousand lies, and spending time rebutting him is time wasted. Which is no doubt part of the idea.
One more time: The question was about what we’d know about the candidate. What makes you think that’s Reid?
That Romney refuses to release his returns is a fact. The reasons are open to speculation, since he refuses to offer that, either.
Rebutting him would consist of being honest and open with the people he’s applying to for the job, and releasing the returns.
But you imagine that Reid is not only lying, something for which you have no factual basis for saying, but would simply make up something else, and that that is more important than whatever *the actual fucking candidate *says or does.
Your disingenuity in presenting this “case” is laughable. Of course, Reid will not invent “another” lie–he will (and all Democrats will) then discuss the particulars in Romney’s tax returns. This should give them enough legitimate ammunition to destroy Romney’s political career.
Or he can not release the returns, and so destroy his own political career.
Let me, as someone also interested in facts, suggest how to make your comment here comport even more with “facts”. Insert “some of” in between “release” and “his”.
No, no, don’t mention it. In this championing of factual statements we are compadres, brothers in arms.
