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
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Dear Media: Mitt still hasn't delivered
Trust Mitt: Releasing his tax returns would be "damaging" and policy details would be "suicidal"
Romney advisers confirm it: We’re running a `just trust me’ campaign
By Greg Sargent
I noted here yesterday that Mitt Romney is running a “just trust me” campaign, in which his lack of specificity and transparency extends far beyond just his tax returns, to his bundlers and to large swaths of his policy proposals. Intriguingly enough, Romney advisers have now come right out and confirmed the thinking behind this strategy.
In a development that Dems are pouncing on right now, Romney advisers spelled it all out in interviews with Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei:
You don’t say! Let’s step back and survey the overall picture so far.
Romney has broken with recent precedent — his father included — in refusing to release his tax returns, but he says has paid 13 percent for 10 years. (Just trust me.) Romney has not released the names of his major bundlers, but he won’t be beholden to his donors, as Obama has been. (Just trust me.) Romney vows to eliminate the deficit, and promises that his tax plan will be revenue neutral, even though he won’t say which loopholes and deductions he’d eliminate to pay for deep tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the rich. (Just trust me.) Romney says he intends to eliminate whole agencies of government, but won’t say which ones, except in closed-door meetings with donors, and even then, details are scarce. (All together now: Just trust me.)
Both Romney and Ryan have already confirmed in interviews that they see no need to share details of how his tax cuts would be paid for until after the election, when it all can be worked out with Congress. And when it comes to Romney’s vow to eliminate whole agencies and programs, Romney has freely admitted that he won’t specify which ones for the explicit reason that so doing would be politically problematic for him.
- more -
link
By Greg Sargent
I noted here yesterday that Mitt Romney is running a “just trust me” campaign, in which his lack of specificity and transparency extends far beyond just his tax returns, to his bundlers and to large swaths of his policy proposals. Intriguingly enough, Romney advisers have now come right out and confirmed the thinking behind this strategy.
In a development that Dems are pouncing on right now, Romney advisers spelled it all out in interviews with Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei:
Advisers say the campaign has no plans to pivot from its previous view that diving into details during a general-election race would be suicidal.
The Romney strategy is simple: Hammer away at Obama for proposing cuts to Medicare and promise, in vague, aspirational ways, to protect the program for future retirees — but don’t get pulled into a public discussion of the most unpopular parts of the Ryan plan.
“The nature of running a presidential campaign is that you’re communicating direction to the American people,” a Romney adviser said. “Campaigns that are about specifics, particularly in today’s environment, get tripped up.”
You don’t say! Let’s step back and survey the overall picture so far.
Romney has broken with recent precedent — his father included — in refusing to release his tax returns, but he says has paid 13 percent for 10 years. (Just trust me.) Romney has not released the names of his major bundlers, but he won’t be beholden to his donors, as Obama has been. (Just trust me.) Romney vows to eliminate the deficit, and promises that his tax plan will be revenue neutral, even though he won’t say which loopholes and deductions he’d eliminate to pay for deep tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the rich. (Just trust me.) Romney says he intends to eliminate whole agencies of government, but won’t say which ones, except in closed-door meetings with donors, and even then, details are scarce. (All together now: Just trust me.)
Both Romney and Ryan have already confirmed in interviews that they see no need to share details of how his tax cuts would be paid for until after the election, when it all can be worked out with Congress. And when it comes to Romney’s vow to eliminate whole agencies and programs, Romney has freely admitted that he won’t specify which ones for the explicit reason that so doing would be politically problematic for him.
- more -
link
"Damaging":
Ann Romney: I have no idea what's in our finances, but I know it's legal, so shut up already
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021136700
"Small-minded" to demand Mitt's tax returns:
Hrrrmmmm
Josh Marshall
Rick Newman notes that when Romney released his preliminary 2011 tax return estimates in January he was reporting $20,901,075 in adjusted gross income. The final returns released today show $13,696,961 in adjusted gross income.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/09/hrrrmmmm_1.php
Josh Marshall
Rick Newman notes that when Romney released his preliminary 2011 tax return estimates in January he was reporting $20,901,075 in adjusted gross income. The final returns released today show $13,696,961 in adjusted gross income.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/09/hrrrmmmm_1.php
Rick Newman
The Mysteries in Mitt Romney's Tax Return
<...>
The most likely explanation is that Romney's accountants transferred income from Romney's personal return to one of the three trusts that also generate considerable income, almost all of it from investments. It will take a detailed examination of the 2010 and 2011 documents to figure out what changed, but here's a clue: Romney's campaign has begun to focus on the "personal" tax rate paid by Romney, rather than the tax rate that might be associated with the trusts and his total income from all sources.
This matters because Romney is subject to a very low tax rate as it is, since most of his earnings come from investments, which are taxed at a lower rate than wages. Romney hasn't released tax documents prior to 2010, but some tax experts think his overall tax rate could have been very close to zero during at least a couple of years, possibly because of capital losses suffered during the stock-market wipeout of 2008, which zeroed out earnings for many investors.
<...>
The Romney campaign now says that since 1990, "the lowest annual effective federal personal tax rate" Romney paid was 13.66 percent. In other words, the rate on what might be characterized as his personal income never fell below that threshold.
But that doesn't account for the three trusts, or other investment vehicles that may have existed prior to 2010. And it's unusual to limit the claim to "personal" taxes when Romney has acknowledged other types of income. So it's possible that the effective tax rate on the trusts was very low at some point—and maybe even zero, which would have indicated a net loss for the year.
- more -
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2012/09/21/the-mysteries-in-mitt-romneys-tax-return
The Mysteries in Mitt Romney's Tax Return
<...>
The most likely explanation is that Romney's accountants transferred income from Romney's personal return to one of the three trusts that also generate considerable income, almost all of it from investments. It will take a detailed examination of the 2010 and 2011 documents to figure out what changed, but here's a clue: Romney's campaign has begun to focus on the "personal" tax rate paid by Romney, rather than the tax rate that might be associated with the trusts and his total income from all sources.
This matters because Romney is subject to a very low tax rate as it is, since most of his earnings come from investments, which are taxed at a lower rate than wages. Romney hasn't released tax documents prior to 2010, but some tax experts think his overall tax rate could have been very close to zero during at least a couple of years, possibly because of capital losses suffered during the stock-market wipeout of 2008, which zeroed out earnings for many investors.
<...>
The Romney campaign now says that since 1990, "the lowest annual effective federal personal tax rate" Romney paid was 13.66 percent. In other words, the rate on what might be characterized as his personal income never fell below that threshold.
But that doesn't account for the three trusts, or other investment vehicles that may have existed prior to 2010. And it's unusual to limit the claim to "personal" taxes when Romney has acknowledged other types of income. So it's possible that the effective tax rate on the trusts was very low at some point—and maybe even zero, which would have indicated a net loss for the year.
- more -
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2012/09/21/the-mysteries-in-mitt-romneys-tax-return
What is Mitt hiding?
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
To reduce the deficit/debt, he'll cut PBS and kill Big Bird. Brilliant! 
