Skip to main content

Photo & Video Sharing by SmugMugThere are about 300 million people living in this country.

Even without doing the math, and all that pesky researchy stuff, it is apparent that many tens of millions are eligible to be President.

For the sake of all of us, it would be helpful were we to choose the most able to sit in that chair.

I accept, have always accepted that no one is perfect. Not me, not you, not President Obama and certainly not Mitt Romney.

For years I had a different pithy little saying that attached to the comments I leave in this place:

"When we deny our politicians their humanity, we force them to behave inhumanely".

Such is the constant scrutiny of our elected representatives, and so great is the polarisation of political thought, that the slightest character flaw, the tiniest deviation from one side's judgement of what is acceptable is magnified and examined in excruciating detail.

To what end?

Personally, I could care less if my representative is black, white, female or male, hetero or homosexual. I care only what they do. Honestly, I don't even much care what they say, or to whom, although some common decency is always nice.

When members of the same family rise, or even almost rise to the highest Office, then I begin to suspect that we might not be picking the best person for the job. That applies to the Kennedys just as much as it does to the Bush family. It is possible that two brothers could be simply that good, but it's not likely. I am open to the argument that we don't need the best, but we need "good enough", and that might let Bobby Kennedy, or Malia Obama in; it is no excuse for George Bush.

So the process is imperfect, yet we muddle through somehow because of a series of checks and balances. In reality I guess we are fishing in a pretty small pool. Not everyone is interested in politics, ruling out most people. The children and other family members of Senators, Governors and Presidents are both well-connected and likely to be interested ... and so we whittle down the potential incumbents to a much smaller subset, and hope we pick the best from there.

While it was always the case that wealthier people could indulge in politics, and afford to get elected, there was at least the semblance of a meritocracy. Candidates could start locally, with School Boards, City Councils, State Legislatures, etc. With millions of dollars now being dumped even in State Elections, that possibility has all but disappeared and the very wealthy are simply anointing their chosen candidate.

Even the Democrats are forced to play this "dance of the dollar", because advertising works and a candidate that can't get elected is about as useless as a very useless thing. Sure we want to change that, but we live in a reality based community, and change requires votes.

So what of the presumptive nominee appointee of the Republican Party?

My basic question is not about his politics. It should be clear that I disagree with those, fundamentally disagree, absolutely disagree. The Left has no right to be ... er ... right, we just think that we are, and we feel also that we have plenty of evidence suggesting the same.

My concern is the man. His basic character and the evidence we have for that. Is he a man who can be expected to lead the country towards a vision that he feels is right for Americans, or is he not? Even from the perspective of Republicans, that is a pertinent question. Would Willard Mitt Romney adopt policies that the bulk of his supporters feel are appropriate, or is it all about Willard Mitt Romney? If it is the latter then we could be in for a great deal of hurt should he prevail in November.

There are a number of indicators that are helpful in this regard. The Oligarchs who are bankrolling him initially presumed that his experience at Bain Capital was key to his election. America was in trouble. The economy had tanked and the way forward was a businessman who was demonstrably successful, at business .... well at making money anyhow, and the deficit being what it is, money-making is a winner.

What soon became clear was that Mitt Romney is very good at making money, for Mitt Romney. The underlying businesses (America?) were going broke at an alarming rate, so they stopped talking about Bain. Indeed, the candidate would now prefer that we do not ever mention Bain again. The trouble is that without Bain, all Mitt has is RomneyCare. That kinda sucks if you are being pressured from the Right.

If Bain Capital demonstrates one thing very clearly, it is simply that should they knock on the door of your business, then you probably should be slamming it firmly shut, and if that door is leading to the Oval Office, then we all should be slamming it shut.

Beyond the professional life of Romney lie the things that drive him personally. Not the ego that is required of anyone that seeks the Presidency, that is normal, more the actions he has taken that go to character. As described earlier, I don't care about his habits or indiscretions. His religion is of no interest beyond him keeping it to himself, and his wife's dressage horse is relevant only in the tax treatment.

For the motivations that make the man tick, we need to look to the Tax Returns.

Of particular concern is the constant mantra from Governor and Mrs Romney that they "paid everything they were legally obliged to pay". This is a disingenuous statement that is breathtaking in it's scope. I am not concerned here with the fact that he had an income last year of twenty million dollars. I am more bothered by the manner in which his Campaign is obfuscating, and how he is using that phrase "we paid what we were legally obliged to".

If you are a working stiff, like nearly all Americans, you minimise your Federal Tax obligation. That is what we all do, and it is right and proper that we should. The middle class lives on their income, and times are hard. We claim our deductions and we seek to maximise those. The tax code is designed that way. If you do not approach your 1040 with the ambition of reducing the net payment, then you are simply treating the IRS, and your fellow citizens, to a gift. This approach to taxes reaches quite high into the earnings brackets, as we all live on our incomes, even those whose income is quite high.

No one in their right mind blames any regular tax-payer for doing this, and the aforementioned phrase is something we all relate to. Romney is actually relying on this to make himself appear honest, a working stiff, an ordinary Joe (but no Plumber). Someone who is in touch with common practise and so can relate to you and me.

There comes a point though, when an individual reaches an income level that exceeds their need to support a lifestyle, even a lavish one. Mitt Romney reached that point a long time ago. In many decades he has not had to worry about a single dollar, or million dollars, that he spends. It is likely that he is so rich that none of his children, or indeed grandchildren, will ever have to concern themselves with money.

So my concern is this. At what point does should an individual be expected to stop maximising deductions. At what level of income, or wealth, is it appropriate that a citizen should quit seeking ever more creative ways to pay less tax. Does there come a level beyond which the pursuit of more wealth, for a smaller contribution to the general good indicates a serious character flaw. I wouldn't necessarily hold that against an individual, but I might question his qualification for President.

Is it, for example, fair and reasonable that a man with maybe several hundred million dollars stashed away is using a Swiss Bank Account, or any other tax shelter many of dubious legality, to pay not just less tax as a proportion of his income that regular taxpayers, but substantially less, massively less? So much less that were Romney and Ryan allowed to implement their plans, he would have paid less than one percent last year.

Is a man prepared to go to those lengths to avoid any meaningful contribution to the nation in any position to be telling the rest of us how much we should pay, or how much we might be entitled to?

Even if he has paid "everything we are legally obliged to pay".

Is that a sentiment that should garner respect for financial probity, or repulsion for what it says about his concern and care for the American people?

Quite frankly, if Mitt Romney were suited to the Office he is so desperately seeking, he would be demanding that capital gains be taxed at the individuals marginal rate.

Of course then he would be Warren Buffet!

 
The GOS Weekly Review:

The Application in the Apple Store

The Page at the Zuckenberg Empire

A much expanded version of the Diary was published in The GOS Weekly during August 2012. Get your copy, and enjoy all the pics, videos and helpful "linky" bits including Community response to the failure to produce

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (16+ / 0-)

    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

    by twigg on Tue Sep 18, 2012 at 05:39:39 PM PDT

  •  "a"? (6+ / 0-)

    How about several?

     But yes the felony is a big deal and would explain the tax panic they are having.

    Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance.

    by Horace Boothroyd III on Tue Sep 18, 2012 at 05:49:39 PM PDT

  •  I don't know if you saw this earlier, Twigg (4+ / 0-)

    ...when durrati posted it -- but speaking of humanity in a President:



    A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five. -- Groucho Marx

    by Pluto on Tue Sep 18, 2012 at 06:18:01 PM PDT

  •  That is a good point, but take it further (5+ / 0-)

    These people, these 0.01%, they live their lives so as to maximize their ability to accrue wealth above all else.  And the group that Romney is a case study example of has a skill set that is dominated by their experience at using leverage.  So what they focus on is looking at ways to exploit the landscape to their advantage.  

    So they make sure the tax code give them the ability to exempt their income from taxes.  

    And they find ways to funnel a large portion of the federal budget into their accounts.

    And they find ways to create new ways to empty the accounts of everyone else who are fooled into playing in the stock market.

    And so on.  

    The tax thing is just the tip.  They devote their lives to creating inequality and a system that creates inequality.  That is why this man MUST not become president.  Because he is about what is wrong with the country.

    Certainly from our standpoint, this gives us a sense of momentum -- when the United States has accolades tossed its way, rather than shoes. - PJ Crowley

    by nsfbr on Tue Sep 18, 2012 at 07:02:50 PM PDT

    •  Quite so. (4+ / 0-)

      I don't question them for doing that. It is up to Congress and the IRS to prevent it.

      My question is not whether a rich man should be seeking to maximise his wealth, but whether or not that single-minded pursuit of riches at the expense of everyone else disqualifies him from the Office of President.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      by twigg on Tue Sep 18, 2012 at 07:06:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But they distort our system (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        twigg, palantir, Susan from 29

        by leveraging their wealth in opposition to the very idea of democracy.  You are exactly correct that it is up to Congress, etc., to ensure the very system we rely upon to create wealth does not destroy the citizens who are the sovereign entity in this country.  

        The problem is that they have figured out how to use their wealth to buy Congress, buy presidencies, buy the Supreme Court.  So they aren't actually playing this game. They are buying the game, and then stapling the other players into their seats to make sure they can't leave the table.  

        Certainly from our standpoint, this gives us a sense of momentum -- when the United States has accolades tossed its way, rather than shoes. - PJ Crowley

        by nsfbr on Tue Sep 18, 2012 at 07:27:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  That is all very true and important. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nsfbr

      It has been brought up in some of the news analysis, I think either CC and O'Donnell went there some. This piece points to his personal practices being the same as what 99% of Americans do, not just 47%. It becomes too big for one diary to tackle all of it in depth.

      The concept of character does matter in a presidential election. Simplicity works for many voters. The ows protests have brought much of the corporate dirty and dangerous practices to light, building on Michael Moore and others. The meme of elections now being auctions has spread very nicely.

      OFA has done a remarkable job in using the wind generated by news cycles to trot out some of these attacks. As the campaign gets into the debate window, Obama will be able to generate some wind there and repeat whatever issue in even more detail afterwards.

      The whole corruption of Wall St, big banks, corporations and DC does need to be a key part of the campaign - at all levels. Which we are getting great FP diaries on the state races for.

      "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

      by Ginny in CO on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 12:32:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think I like your current sig line better :-) (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    twigg

    This is a very timely analysis of the character of a man who would be our President. Seeing the recently released video simply confirms the lack of a moral center or any desire to serve the country in which he has done so well.

     After all, the 47%, he claims, are not interested in his promises to cut taxes. Those who can afford the accountants and lawyers to make sure that they only pay what they were "legally obliged to pay," are the only ones who can truly appreciate his promise to cut those taxes even further.

    "I cannot live without books" -- Thomas Jefferson, 1815

    by Susan Grigsby on Tue Sep 18, 2012 at 10:09:33 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site