The Goat Pen

I thought we already knew Romney was filthy rich. What is releasing tax forms going to show us?

Personally, based on his obvious reluctance to issue prior years' returns, I think it could possibly be about 2 things:

1. That some years he paid virtually no taxes on large amounts income, via shelters and loopholes (not a good narrative)

2. That he did not start claiming his foreign accounts until 2010, when the Treasury instituted FBAR (Goggle it) and was prosecuting individuals who had Swiss accounts but did not claim on their taxes (you may or may not remember the big hub bub a couple years ago when the Feds went after UBS to disclose the US citizens with Swiss deposits...it almost resulted in UBS having to pull all US operations if they did not comply)

If either of those are things that turn out to be true (#2 being the worst case scenario, as far as likely outcomes), Romney will have a shitload of stories dogging him through the election.

Besides that, I don't know why he didn't release the returns when Gingrich was screaming about them 6 months ago. If it's just about the 10s of millions of dollars he made in the aughts, then he could have been past that narrative by Spring. That's why I'm not so sure it's not something. It may not be illegal, but it may look like gaming the system. I don't know, but now I'm fascinated.

Also, this will give the DEMs ammo to go after all the hedge fund money pouring into the Romney coffers and into the SuperPACs. They can create the narrative that Romney is raising a lot of money, but it's largely from Wall St. fat cats who want to preserve their 15% tax rates and write offs on their private jets. It will be a story of Romney being put into office by the Plutocracy, to do the bidding of the Plutocracy.

Or maybe he's afraid the Mormon church will see he wasn't tithing...

Heh, nah...far from that. His charitable contributions (which is largely via contributions to the LDS and its affiliates) will whip the ass of just about all public servants (dollar amount and percentage). One thing about Mormons, they fundamentally believe in charity, harmony and collective works. It's why a symbol of the church is the beehive.

I guess for me the question would be - are there any republicans that are going to change their vote to Obama if they find out Romney has an offshore tax haven in the Cayman Islands?

Is there a democrat that is going to switch to Romney if he sees that Romney has paid millions in taxes in the past decade?

I think the answer to both is no. The only issue that will be derived will be media driven and give them talking points for the next few weeks. I feel the same way about college transcripts/birth certficate of Obama. Both are hot button issues to the people who support one candidate but a revelation on either side won't change voting stances now.

I personally think Romney's best approach is to use the same tactic that Obama used against McCain - and that is to have his opponent run against the George Bush legacy. Obama simply hasn't done enough to fix the problems he inherited from Bush and as president, they are his problems now.

The issue for presidency in 2012 is - do you believe Romney can? and that is also influenced by how passionate a person is about whether you believe healthcare is a mandate or not.

I personally don't see it that way - my version is you have two moderate liberal choices and no conservative ones, both that will result in continued large government spending in defense and social programs. Simply voting for Romney and your justification is that you are slowing down the country's fall off the cliff is just foolish posturing. Romney will not do away with Obamacare and Obama will not be able to implement significant tax/revenue increases. We have 68 trillion in obligations coming down the pike and no candidate with a plan to address how that is going to be paid.

The bottom line is it doesn't matter whether you vote for Romney or Obama - what they do or don't do in the next 4 years short of starting a world war is a drop in the bucket compared to what we have to face in the coming decade.

The reasons why you have people supporting a candidate doesn't even make sense to me. Senior Citizens showing up in droves to bash existing politicians who have done everything short of sell government buildings to keep funding for social security and medicaid, Military people coming out against Obama when he has been the most lethal and aggressive commander in chief we've had in my lifetime. I mean jesus, using drones to take out terrorist in countries we haven't declared war against? Sending in seal teams to raid compounds in countries we consider neutral? That is serious big stick policy. Then you have liberals supporting Obama when he fucked them on health care, when he failed to get revenue increases, when he has let republicans block him on initiatives and has essentially been an extension of George Bush on foreign policy - Gitmo, Patriot Act, Transparency,etc.,

I'm just ranting at this point but I'm just fed up with people that think that voting for either candidate is an endorsement of their ideology or political stance. If I had to sum it up, I'd say electing Romney gets you the 2007 version of America, electing Obama gets you 2010. Neither are particularly appealing to me.

I guess for me the question would be - are there any republicans that are going to change their vote to Obama if they find out Romney has an offshore tax haven in the Cayman Islands?

That's the wrong question. Politics is a contact sport and what this narrative is designed to do is get some fence-sitting voters, in about six different states (yours being one), to think they can't trust W. Mitt Romney. The presidency will turn on about 200,000 up for grabs votes, largely because these two dudes are so close to each other (in domestic policy). As a result, these stories on the margins of most people's cares could play large on the voters that really matter.

So, if it was found that Romney was getting shady on his taxes (at worst) or taking advantage of all the benefits the tax code gives to the uber wealthy to make his tax liability virtually zero (at best), then that could be one of the stories that makes the difference on whether Democrats choose the next 2 to 3 open seats on the Supreme Court or Republicans.

I don't think there are that many fence sitters.

There may be many apathetic voters who don't show up but Romney clearly wants to make this a two issue campaign and Obama is happy to oblige. From that I don't think there are very many people who are really having trouble deciding who they will vote for.

Its boils down to ....

1. Who they think can create jobs
2. Do you want government mandated healthcare?

and in that sense it really is driven b how you define yourself. GOP are going to vote believing that the invisible hand of the free market will drive the economy (when in reality Romney and Obama are just as handcuffed in government stimulus), Democrats are going to vote believing the government has a significant role in the recovery. GOP are going to to vote that they want a repealed Obamacare (when in reality the best they can hope for is a gutted program that has no funding) while the Democrats will vote to have it funded.

I don't think either Obama or Romney is doing a very good job appealing to the other opponents base or even the moderates. They are just playing to their own.

I guess, from what I see, it looks like the Obama team is just trying to make people scared of Mitt Romney, whether calling him "weird," out of touch with common people, a man with no moral core or a tax cheating, non-caring, plutocrat. Obama isn't spending a lot of time talking about the issues of the economy, at this point.

I don't think these narratives Team Obama are creating will mean anything to their base. I don't see it as speaking to their own. Getting people to distrust Mitt Romney is about those who are in the center and are most likely to choose the devil they know, if they think the alternative may wind up being worse.

Romney has not been able to counter this narrative yet because he spent so much money taking out Gingrich and Santorum. All the cash he's banking now can be spent after the convention, then you will really see the what Romney is fighting back with.

PIVOTING A BIT

An interesting "by person" look at income brackets...

http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-iss ... table=true

I don't think the off-shoring is the reason for not showing his tax returns. Starting in 2011 you have to report your offshore accounts on the new form 8865. He has already posted a draft of his 2011 return showing the 8865 forms with no numbers (because not all information is in to report), but the drafts have the name of the accounts already on them. I see one is in Bermuda so I don't think he is hiding his offshoring. It's already documented.

His income is basically coming from trusts that are invested in a bunch of Wall Street hedge funds, a good chunk of which are Goldman Sachs products. You can probably figure his 2009 and 2008 income by seeing how those particular funds did those years and prorate based on 2010 and 2011. Probably not many in the media have the energy to go through that process because there are about 30 different funds to analyze.

My theory is that he doesn't want to show 2008 and 2009 because he may have done very well those years and you don't want to be seen as thriving in 2008 and 2009 along with teh bailed out Wall Streeters while the rest of the nation was suffering. There are no capital loss carryovers coming over from his 2009 to his 2010 returns. That tells me he faired better than most since most of my high net worth clients had capital loss caryforwards into 2010.

You may be right on the trust and carryforward issues, however, like all new regulation, the FBAR was discussed, signed and understood well before its implementation. So, by 2010 most individuals with substantial offshore holdings were calling them back, or restructuring them because the benefits of secrecy exploitation were going away.

I'm not saying Romney was a participant in that type of tax gaming, but I know many were, so it would not surprise me if he had significant offshore accounts domeciled in municipalities with favorable bank secrecy laws that he called back after FBAR announced to go into effect the following year.

I can't remember anymore, but I think my FBAR work was done in Summer of 2010, and that was months after the regulation was put into place for reporting in subsequent years (I think 2011 was the first mandatory year, but everyone knew it was coming by late 2009).

So, I have no idea what the earlier tax forms of WMR will show.

Bklyn wrote:I guess, from what I see, it looks like the Obama team is just trying to make people scared of Mitt Romney, whether calling him "weird," out of touch with common people, a man with no moral core or a tax cheating, non-caring, plutocrat. Obama isn't spending a lot of time talking about the issues of the economy, at this point.

I don't think these narratives Team Obama are creating will mean anything to their base. I don't see it as speaking to their own. Getting people to distrust Mitt Romney is about those who are in the center and are most likely to choose the devil they know, if they think the alternative may wind up being worse.

Romney has not been able to counter this narrative yet because he spent so much money taking out Gingrich and Santorum. All the cash he's banking now can be spent after the convention, then you will really see the what Romney is fighting back with.

PIVOTING A BIT

An interesting "by person" look at income brackets...

http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-iss ... table=true

that was a good read. I've actually done some of that self justifying the author talks about after meeting the wealthy family of my brother-n-law. I was telling my wife how if we made $200K more a year we'd have the same concerns because we wouldn't continue to live like we do now. That money would go to more expensive cars, a more expensive house, schools - everything would take a step up but I'd still have just as much pressure to maintain as I do now. Of course the reality is I'd jump on $200K more a year and then not be satisfied with that once I had it. I think that is a big part of making capitalism work, why do people wait in line for a loaf of bread in communism? because there is no motivation to meet the demand for bread, the reward is the same as either way.

The real difference kicks in when you don't have to have income from a job - the guy laughing about the woman being wealthy by noting that she still has to go into work everyday to earn her 2.5 million. I would suspect his worries change dramatically from the mundane of maintaining to the challenge of influencing and protecting. But that is so foreign to me I really have no idea.

The weathiest guy seemed more out of touch than anyone to me - continuing to blame the problems of our revenue dispersion on welfare recipients and people with little work ethic. The $200 busboy is a victim of the American dream. The first step to achieving it is to be an American, otherwise you are exploited by the system.

but I do agree with the Amazon.com guy in regards to job creators.

The wealthiest people in the country aren't job creators and its insulting to Americans to define them as such just for the sole purpose of protecting their income.

I don't agree with the idea of additional taxation as a way to support our spending or our obligations but I do agree the wealthiest % in this country have bought their way into paying less taxes and have used the fear to convince the middle class to support it.

George Carlin had a great line about the rich needing the poor around to keep the middle class scared shitless.

Thank you Ed Rollins, Michelle Bachmann's former campaign chief:

I have been a practitioner of tough politics for many decades. There is little that amazes me and even less that shocks me. I have to say that Congresswoman Michele Bachmann's outrageous and false charges against a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin reaches that threshold.
Her unsubstantiated charge against Abedin, a widely respected top aide to Secretary Hillary Clinton, accusing her of some sort of far-fetched connection to the Muslim brotherhood, is extreme and dishonest.

Having worked for Congressman Bachman's campaign for president, I am fully aware that she sometimes has difficulty with her facts, but this is downright vicious and reaches the late Senator Joe McCarthy level.

[...]

Shame on you, Michele! You should stand on the floor of the House and apologize to Huma Abedin and to Secretary Clinton and to the millions of hard working, loyal, Muslim Americans for your wild and unsubstantiated charges. As a devoted Christian, you need to ask forgiveness for this grievous lack of judgment and reckless behavior.

I pretty much agree with both of your posts...

I heard Rubio on NPR this morning distancing himself from Bachmann.

I'm not a fan of John McCain but I'll give the man credit - he will squelch anyone that is out of line, and he does it without considering the political fallout.

and now for something completely different

female Israeli soldier at the beach

Ol' alligator arms ain't got to worry about political fallout. Hell, he's already a 4 term senator with a wife worth $250 million, he don't have to worry about fallout of any kind. But I will say, if anybody deserves the good life, it's that guy...

She got so much hotter with the weapon. Mazel Tov!

http://www.rollcall.com/news/nancy_pelo ... ml?pos=hln

Bklyn,

Nancy says the matter with Romney's tax returns are trivial and that you are spending too much time on it...

eCat wrote:I thought we already knew Romney was filthy rich. What is releasing tax forms going to show us?

Nothing.

If you weren't going to vote for Romney because he's worth a quarter-of-a-Billion dollars, then you weren't going to vote for him. Simple as that. Everyone knows Romney paid a fuckload in taxes, but those who think that fuckload wasn't enough, are voting against him. Those who think people like Romney are how they get jobs, will be voting for him. Releasing those tax records (that I'm sure the IRS audits every year, every penny that Willard Mitt pays) will tell us nothing.