Yesterday afternoon, kos posted a humorous recap of Mitt Romney's rough several weeks, condensed. (My one disappointed was that the whole #RomneyShambles fiasco where Romney made a trip overseas to shore up his foreign affairs credentials wasn't included.) The post ended by linking to a story about Gawker publishes trove of documents on Romney investments, many of them offshore and tied to Bain. The point of the post was no matter what topic takes up the news cycle, and lately the majority have been bad news for Romney, we always seem to return to talking about Bain Capital.
Talking about Bain Capital, also invariably brings back the subject of Mitt Romney refusing to release more of his income taxes. In Thursday night's closing segment, Rachel Maddow also discussed the Gawker document dump, and ended the segment by telling us about a new excuse that the Romneys are floating in this Sunday's issue of Parade Magazine, that insert that comes in the Sunday papers delivered to homes around the country.
We also learned today that as of this weekend, the Parade Magazine, which comes out on Sunday, the Romneys are going to unveil a new explanation as to why America does not need to see any more of their tax returns. Thank you very much. According to excerpts released by the magazine ahead of publication, Mr. Romney will explain that he does not want to release his tax returns because he does not want to talk about the money he gives to his church, quote One of the downsides of releasing one's financial information is that this is now all public, but we had never intended our contributions to be known. It's a very personal thing between ourselves and our commitment to our God and to our church [See PARADE Exclusive: A Conversation With the Romneys, Parade Magazine, August 26, 2012].
Rachel then pointed out what an odd excuse this is considering the fact that the Romneys have always bragged about the fact that they donate 10% of their income to charity (if you count as charity,
donations to your church), and played several clips of Mitt and Ann Romney each talking about how they donate 10% of their income.
Rachel concluded the segment pointing out the absurdity of this new argument being put forth by the Romneys.
They keep bringing up. Hey, I pay 10% of income to my church. But now, that specific information which the Romneys keep volunteering to the press; we're now supposed to think that that information is so private that it alone must preclude the release of their tax returns. Listen, it's either the thing you want us to know, or it's the thing you don't want us to know. You have to pick one. Maybe you'd prefer if we just go back to talking about abortion?
The video and transcript of the entire segment is below the fleur-de-orange.
I started transcribing a segment of Wednesday night's TRMS just about the time she appeared on Late Show with David Letterman, so I forgot to watch it. Fortunately, Catte Nappe posted a link to the show online, so I was able to see it. Rachel said something about Romney releasing his tax returns, that I never saw her say before on her own show about why she thinks he never will release more tax returns.
Dave Letterman: And now we go to, and he doesn't have to by law, he won't release his taxes, and I maintain it's because he never worked a day in his life. And, in fact, he's the kind of guy that if he feels if he's starting to perspire, he has to lie down in a dark room. But what about the taxes, anything?
Rachel Maddow: He ran against Ted Kennedy in 1994, and he demanded that Ted Kennedy release his tax returns, and Ted Kennedy said, no. And then when he ran for Governor eight years later in 2002, he said, "You know what, Ted Kennedy was right," and all the Democrats he was running against released their tax returns and he still wouldn't do it. And the reason that it was an issue in that race is because nobody was sure that he lived in Massachusetts. He'd been living in Utah, running the Olympics, and so does he meet the residency requirements? He said he wasn't going to release his tax returns but said, "Trust Me, what I said in my tax returns was that I filed as a Massachusetts resident." And he did not. He did not. So what he wanted us to trust him about was wrong then.
Dave Letterman: What he's released now, I'm told, is a summary of like two or three recent years in taxes. Not the tax returns, but a summary.
Rachel Maddow: He released one year of tax returns and one estimate of what he's going to pay this year. But I think he'll never release them. I think that when he had the experience in 2002, he said, "Trust Me" and he got caught lying about his tax returns. He thought, "you know what, they still elected me, I got away with it then. I'm going to get away with it now."
Dave Letterman: But to the constituents, to Mr. and Mrs. Front Porch, does it matter? It doesn't matter. Does it matter, really?
Rachel Maddow: Well, it matters if you think that his tax policies, something he wants to do to the country, is something that will help guys like him who pay very little tax on lots and lots and lots of income, and that will screw the middle class. If you want to compare what he wants to do for himself to what he wants to do to you, it would be nice to see.
I've seen Rachel do several segments on her own show about the income tax issue in 2002 (see this
diary and this
diary), and this is the first time I've seen Rachel say that she doesn't believe Romney will ever release his taxes before the election because he's calculated that he got away with it last time. I wonder if Romney factored into those calculations the fact that running in a state race and having a few media outlets asking to see your taxes in 2002, is a lot different then running in a national race to be the President of the United States in 2012 and having a nation of reporters talking about your income taxes, not to mention all the bloggers who are hot on the trail. Just take a look at
the document dump Gawker.com put out yesterday.
The Letterman interview was excellent and worth watching, especially if you think about it as something seen by a lot of voters who aren't paying attention to politics right now. Dave Letterman pointed out that strapping his dog to the roof of the car demonstrated poor judgment on Romney's part and that's not a quality one would want in a president. Rachel did a fantastic job explaining a lot of the issues, including global warming and the science denying stance of the Republican Party, the Republican Party's stance on the definition of rape and the whole Todd Akin controversy, as well as the Republican attempts at voter suppression going on around the country.
Be sure to check out the preview of that Parade Magazine interview. I suspect that if Rachel had more time, she would have dissected some of the Romneys answers to other questions submitted by their readers. This one gave me a chuckle:
Why do you think that in a recent poll, you lost out to the president in [voter] enthusiasm?
Mitt Romney: To most folks that don't pay a lot of attention to the Republican primary process, I am not so well known. As I get better known, people will have greater confidence that I'm the person who can get this country working again for the middle class. It's nice to be loved, but it's better to be respected.
Ah, so this is why Romney's campaign was planning to use the the etch-a-sketch. "Most folks that don't pay a lot of attention to the Republican primary," so they won't know what he said back then. Oops! But this isn't fifty years ago, when instant sharing and video replays weren't available. I guess Romney didn't factor in the fact that everything he said was being recorded, and would actually be played back for those
not interested in the Republican primary folks during the general election.
How how nice it must be for him to live in his own little Romney world where he can think what he wants about how he is perceived. Too bad for Mitt Romney that he places his need for secrecy over the voters' need to know who he is. The Obama campaign was happy to help the American people learn who Mitt Romney is. Oh, it doesn't hurt that President Bill Clinton (who has a higher popularity rating than Mitt Romney) has something to say about it too in this new t.v. ad released yesterday:
President Bill Clinton: "This election to me is about which candidate is more likely to return us to full employment."
"This is a clear choice. The Republican plan is to cut more taxes on upper income people and go back to deregulation. That's what got us in trouble in the first place."
"President Obama has a plan to rebuild America from the ground up, investing in innovation, education, and job training. It only works if there is a strong middle class."
"That's what happened when I was President. We need to keep going with his plan."
One bright side for the Romney-Ryan campaign, all the talk this week about legitimate rape and forced childbirth and how much Paul Ryan is like Todd Akin; one bright side of Todd Akin providing a window into the soul of Republican rape and abortion politics this week is that it pushed out of the news cycle the story of Mitt Romney's tax returns.
Want to know what came up again in today's news cycle? Mitt Romney's tax returns. Gawker.com published 950 pages of documents they say are associated with Mr. Romney's investments. We have not verified that these documents are what they purport to be, but they purport to be internal audits, financial statements, and private investor letters for some of Mitt Romney's investment vehicles. They include eight entities Mr. Romney apparently invested in that are based in the Cayman Islands [See Inside Mitt Romney's Tax-Dodging Cayman Schemes, Gawker.com, August 23, 2012].
Now why base things in the Cayman Islands? These documents spell it out in pretty clear terms. They describe how Cayman Islands entities are typically set up to avoid U.S. Federal taxes and they say that under current Cayman Islands laws, the entity doesn't have to pay taxes in the Cayman Islands either. We should note, this is an entirely legal arrangement, but it does tell you exactly why somebody would put their money in the Cayman Islands. And it would also tell you why that person might not want to answer questions about putting money in the Cayman Islands if they were, say, running for president of the United States. And not running for president of the Cayman Islands.
We have known this for a long time. From the one year of tax returns Mr. Romney did release, we know that some of his investments were off-shore. And we know that off-shoring stuff in the Caymans is one of the things you do to avoid paying taxes [See Where the Money Lives, Vanity Fair, August 2012].
But now we've got this trove of documents at Gawker, putting in black and white the tax avoidance benefit of what purports to be Mr. Romney's money being in the Caymans. And, yeah you know, this is the story that the campaign has been hoping to push out of the news cycle all summer long. They probably thought they finally did it with their announcement of Paul Ryan as the vice presidential nominee two weekends ago. But, honestly, that only worked for about a day as a distraction, before everybody went back to asking about the tax returns.
Then this week there was some respite. The news cycle did move on to Congressman Todd Akin and to Republican policy on abortion and pregnancy and pregnancy's connection, or lack thereof, to rape. But now, now, if we are moving to anything else in the news cycle, it seems that we are moving back to Mitt Romney's taxes. There's no proof here published in these documents today about what total amount Mr. Romney paid in taxes. There's no smoking gun about anything that appears to be illegal. The documents aren't even proven to be from Mitt Romney's investments, but he does have Cayman Islands investments and this explains why a person would want those, and the reason why is tax avoidance.
We also learned today that as of this weekend, the Parade Magazine, which comes out on Sunday, the Romneys are going to unveil a new explanation as to why America does not need to see any more of their tax returns. Thank you very much. According to excerpts released by the magazine ahead of publication, Mr. Romney will explain that he does not want to release his tax returns because he does not want to talk about the money he gives to his church, quote One of the downsides of releasing one's financial information is that this is now all public, but we had never intended our contributions to be known. It's a very personal thing between ourselves and our commitment to our God and to our church [See PARADE Exclusive: A Conversation With the Romneys, Parade Magazine, August 26, 2012].
You know, this particular thing, used to be the thing Mitt Romney most wanted to talk about with regard to his taxes. He didn't want to tell you how much he made or how much he reported or how much he paid in taxes or how he avoided paying what normal people pay in taxes. The only thing he wanted you to know about his taxes was that he gives 10% of his money to his church.
Video Clip of Mitt Romney: The Bible speaks about providing tithes and offerings. I made a commitment to my church a long, long time ago that I would give 10% of my income to the church and I've followed through on that commitment.
Video Clip of Ann Romney: Mitt is honest. His integrity is just golden. We pay our taxes. We are absolutely ... beyond paying our taxes; we also give 10% of our income to charity.
Video Clip of Mitt Romney: Over the past ten years, I never paid less than 13% (cut in tape), and if you add in addition, the amount that goes to charity, why the number gets well over 20%.
Video Clip of Romneys, voice of Ann Romney: He's a very generous person. WE give 10% of our income to our church every year.
They keep bringing up. Hey, I pay 10% of income to my church. But now, that specific information which the Romneys keep volunteering to the press; we're now supposed to think that that information is so private that it alone must preclude the release of their tax returns. Listen, it's either the thing you want us to know, or it's the thing you don't want us to know. You have to pick one. Maybe you'd prefer if we just go back to talking about abortion?