When the American people ask Mitt Romney for something, they shall receive! Sort of. After being pressed for quite some time to release his tax returns, and yesterday afternoon -- ironically at a time when most people are shutting down their computers and taking their eyes off of news tickers for the weekend -- the Republican candidate's campaign offered up his personal 2011 tax return, along with a brief "summary" of what he's paid over the last 20 years.
All in all, what Romney revealed is no big surprise. He paid an effective federal income tax rate of 14.1 percent on nearly $13.7 million in income last year, but he could have taken a lower rate -- about 12 percent, according to one estimate. And he decided not to take all of the charitable deductions he could have, taking credit for $2.25 million instead of the full $4 million for which he was eligible. So, bravo for that. But major questions still remain ...
Mostly because no one really cares about Romney's 2011 return! The guy knew he was running for president that year, so obviously he was more conscious of handling his taxes in a way that would appear acceptable if they went public. He picked his own tax rate in 2011, purposely paying more than he owed, intentionally taking fewer deductions than he earned in 2011. So, in essence, it's not a true reflection of what his finances are. What we really want to see are the tax returns for previous years -- dating back to 2009 and beyond.
Instead of releasing those actual returns, the GOP candidate had his accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers offer a generalized report that states Romney had an average federal income tax rate of 20.2 percent between 1990 and 2009 and that his rate never fell below 13.7 percent. That's all well and good, but again, why can't we see the actual returns?
Quite simply, this glaring lack of information doesn't make Romney appear particularly forthcoming or trustworthy. Being that there is a standing tradition of presidential candidates releasing at least 5-7 years worth, how can we help but wonder what he's hiding? When he ran for president in 1968, Romney's own father, George Romney, released 12 years of returns. By 2004, George W. Bush had released 13 years' worth. And yet, voters are supposed to blindly accept the two most recent tax returns and a "summary" from Romney? Guess we'll see on Election Day if the American people are really as a-okay with that as the Romney campaign seems to think.
Check out voters sounding off on what they make of the new details from Camp Romney ...
What do you think about the info Romney's already released? Do you think he needs to release more returns?
Image via Tony Alter/Flickr
Kim and Kanye's Baby Name Predictions!
Moms Love Birthday Parties, Too!
Father Knows Best - Happy Father's Day!
Are Cheaters Entitled to Privacy? - A...
Comments 53
Yes, PollyCSchafer, he released about six years worth of returns.
May I suggest you go back and review the actual video or transcript, and find out what Romney actually, in reality DID say, as opposed to what the likes of Lawrence O'Donnell and other lying propagandists of his ilk claimed about what Romney said...
"money in offshore account and not in the US - because it is a way to shelter his money from taxes."
I would like to correct a lie commonly bleated by the mindless sheep of the left.
In order to use an off shore account to evade taxes, the off shore account is opened in a country such a Switzerland where it (used to be) not reported back to the IRS. Income is deposited to that account and the tax evader does not mention it on their tax return, as required, and is therefore able to hide that income to avoid being taxed on it.
The fact that knowledge of the existence of these accounts comes from Romney's tax returns, proves they were in fact reported and taxed in accordance with the law. Nothing either illegal nor improper there.
Can any one of the lefty posters tell me why I should be more concerned with how Mitt Romney spends his money than I should be about how Obama spends mine?
The POINT is that almost half of the population pays no tax, receives public money, yet still get to vote for how much those who do pay have to pay, and how much is spent, and what it is spent on.
Second, since I directed you to the transcript, do you really think that I did not read it?
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not, what it looks like. I mean, when you ask those people…we do all these polls—I find it amazing—we poll all these people, see where you stand on the polls, but 45 percent of the people will go with a Republican, and 48 or 4…
[Recording stops.] (How conveeeenient)
Given your insistence on... let's call it "distortion" and name calling, I am guessing not...
Do you think it is a good or bad strategy for Romney to focus his campaign efforts on those people; as opposed to expending resources on those who's minds are already made up, or who are immune to appeals of reason?