It's clear the prize is "10 full years of Mitt Romney's tax filings." It is equally clear, no way no how: Mitt Romney will not release them. He says now it's a matter of principle, but all parties know it's a matter of absolute political wipeout. So we are pressuring Romney to do something that he has staunchly stated he refuses to do.
So now what?
Harry Reid suggested something yesterday that I think is a smarter way forward. Something for the Obama campaign, Reid and other Democratic leaders, pro-Obama PACs and many of us can focus on: what Mitt Romney did say he would do, regarding the tax filings controversy.
A few days ago, ABC's David Muir asked Romney whether he's ever paid a lower effective tax rate than 13.9 percent he paid on his 2010 returns. Romney replied, in the interview:
I haven't calculated that. I'm happy to go back and look but my view is I've paid all the taxes required by law.
Harry Reid revisited this, just yesterday, and I think he is on to something.
Reid said:
Last weekend, Governor Romney promised that he would check his tax returns and let the American people know whether he ever paid a rate lower than 13.9 percent. One day later, his campaign raced to say he had no intention of putting out any further information.
I think this is a way forward. Hammering Romney on his secrecy and his flipflopping cowardice. Pressing him to "happily go back and look" and let the American people know. Calling him a coward for turning skittish on that offer. Going there, saying it directly:
COWARD.
This works in a way that the "10 years of full filings" pressure does not. Romney never agreed, not even momentarily, to release 10 years of filings. He can stand on principle and be seen as "sure of his convictions" on this matter. He can even try to spin this as a testament to his character. But he cannot do that with the momentary offer he made in the interview with Muir above. Nope. Mitt offered to go back and look. Said he'd do so happily. Then clammed up with a snap, an about-face refusal, immediately afterward. Fear. Cowardice.
A charge of cowardice, once it sticks, has staying power. It hurts a candidate more than obscure "Bain exit date" or "job creation record as governor" argument points will do. Is it fair to call Romney a coward on this issue? Absolutely. The slur is not only fair game in this context, but it brings back the "Wimp Factor" that Newsweek chose to put on its cover recently.
Mitt Romney should be pressed, and pressed hard, to keep his word to the American people, even if it was a momentary promise. He should be asked to "go back and look" and let us know if there is an effective tax rate (payment to the IRS, divided by initial gross income, expressed as a %) he has paid that is actually lower than 13.9%.
Even if he just admits Yes, and only that, it's damaging. Because it showcases his refusal to release more info. Because it again slaps the rest of us in the face, those of us who are not extremely wealthy and dutifully pay the United States of America our fair share of taxes. And because it opens up further questions for Romney. So? What was that lower rate you paid? Why? Was that the lowest? Did you ever pay in the single digits, or even zero taxes? Mind if we invite the United States Treasury to corroborate your answer? Oh and how much of your gross income gets offshored, hidden from America's taxation system?
Questions he won't answer. Coward.
It all points to a saying I've enjoyed seeing here on DailyKos: "They only call it 'class warfare' when we fight back." This class war in America (and its attendant raping and pillaging of a mostly passive populace) has been going on in stealth, with only one side conducting it, for quite some time now. It's beyond shameful, what it is doing to the prosperity of the average American and to future American generations. Now we have a presidential candidate who is emblematic of this stealth class war. We have here such a dual opportunity: not only to reelect President Obama, but to use the odious Mitt Romney to shine a stagelight more brightly than usual on what is meant by the "1%" and how the system is so obscenely stacked in their favor.
To say more about the rich: I don't loathe most of them. I have worked in arts-based philanthropy in the past and have known of some truly kind, wonderful, generous benefactors to society. Donors of $5 million, $10 million, $25 million. But is the system still unfair? Hell yes. And all the easier to turn abstraction (a tricky opponent) into specificity (an easier opponent) when you have a truly nasty person like Mitt Romney to exemplify what is wrong.
So, sure, we all want Mitt Romney to roll over tomorrow and release 10 years of tax filings. Won't happen. Again, he never offered to, and now he's wrapping himself in a mantle of principled conviction on the subject. But Romney can be pressed much harder on the fleeting promise he did make, to happily "go back and look" and let us all know if he ever paid a lower effective rate than the 13.9%. Enquiring minds, and more specifically we taxpaying American workers, want to know. Why is he so afraid to level with the American people on his real tax rate? Why is Mitt Romney such a coward?