So yesterday the Obama Campaign offered a pledge to accept just five more years of taxes from the presumptive Republican nominee as sufficient. The Romney campaign balked, as expected. It is becoming increasingly unlikely that the Romneys will release any taxes beyond what they've promised (but more on that later). This brings to mind memories of my childhood...
When it came to the attention of the American public in 1973 that there were taped recordings of conversations that took place within the Oval Office, it was apparent that the key to the extent of the president's knowledge of the crimes surrounding the Watergate affair would lie in those tapes. It was also apparent that the Nixon Administration would not readily surrender them. They might even "doctor" them or destroy them. Missing 18 minutes anyone?
A Supreme Court decision ultimately led to the disclosure of the tapes. I always wondered why Nixon didn't try to stonewall that, too. The famous quote of his, "when the President does it, that means that it's not illegal", would seem to imply that he could defy even the Judiciary if he wanted to. Yes, I know, Constitutional Crisis and all that, yada yada. It seemed at the time that he didn't care. He was going to hold on to power at any cost, even if he took down the whole Republican Party with him. He seemed to be as intransigent as Romney and his taxes.
But he did finally release the tapes. And whether he yielded to public opinion, saw what it was doing to his party, or just finally got that he had no other choice, it ultimately doesn't matter what his motivation was. The principle that a president is not beyond the law ultimately triumphed.
Now let's look at Mittens from this perspective. Let's say that Romney is actually elected. A few years into his presidency a scandal erupts, as so often seems to happen in Republican administrations. Let's say he's suspected of trading arms illegally, or outing a CIA agent for political gain. How will he react?
If 63% of the American public believe that he should release his taxes, if the senior members of his party disagree with his stance, and he still refuses to release them, then this brings up an interesting question for the independent American voter.
If this is how he reacts to a potentially damaging release of information while he's just running for President, how will he react when he is the President? Can we trust him to release the tapes (or the emails or the hard drives)? When he left office as governor of Massachusetts, he and his staff destroyed any digital trace of his actions, and that's without us suspecting that there was something to hide.
One other point about the tax release. So they've released (most of) their return for 2010 and have not released 2011. And the criticism they received, Heavens! They simply cannot provide more fodder for the opposition like that!
So does that mean that they will not release any more taxes period? Will they not release the FBAR to complete 2010? Will they not release 2011? And if the real reason they won't release any more years is the criticism they received, then why would they release what they've promised? If they really felt that they were giving "ammunition" to the Dems, then they should just stop there. But if they don't release the rest of the expected taxes, aren't they breaking a promise to the American people?
Whatever he is hiding - and let's face it, he must be hiding something - is actually secondary to his refusal to release. His withholding is not technically illegal. But Obama needs to find a way to hit this hard because of what it says about his character.
Romney said the tax issue was one for "small-minded" people. I disagree. The way he conducts himself on this issue goes to the heart of what kind of president he will be. Will he faithfully execute the law and uphold the Constitution? Or will he put his own interests ahead of all others? Will his administration follow the principle of transparency in good government, or will it be characterized by secrecy and paranoia? Nixon released the tapes even though he had to know it would bring down his presidency. If as a candidate his refusal to release does not even hold up to the "Nixon standard", what does that tell us about a Romney presidency?