Willard and his wife have tried to float various reasons for his absolute refusal to release the tax returns, from privacy concerns to it's just none of the voters business. But as bad as those excuses were, he has now come up with one that is just downright pathetic. He now claims that releasing the returns would be a violation of his religious freedom. Here is what he told Parade magazine:
“Our church doesn’t publish how much people have given. This is done entirely privately. 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.”
There are a couple of reasons why this excuse is ludicrous. First, it is common knowledge what the mormon church requires of its members -- a 10% tithe. Second, George Romney (his father) and Jon Huntsman (who was one of Willard's primary opponents) didn't seem to think it violated any of their religious rights, since they provided the returns without complaint.
There have been many reasons speculated upon about what Willard is trying to hide by not releasing the returns -- from not paying taxes for several years to trying to hide his real wealth or his tax avoidance schemes with foreign accounts and investments. But this silly statement by Willard makes me think there might be another reason for his refusal -- one I hadn't considered before.
Willard is a high-ranking official in the mormon church, and as such is required to follow church policy. Is it possible that he has been short-changing the church? Has he been paying less (perhaps far less) than the required 10% tithe (while other mormons who make far less pay what is expected of them)? If so, it would put his high position in the church at risk, and embarrass Willard (who publicly claims to be paying the full tithe). I wouldn't doubt that. But whatever the reason, the question remains:
WHAT IS WILLARD MITT ROMNEY TRYING TO HIDE?
Have you been beating your wife Ted? I wonder, and I think it's pretty likely that you've been beating your wife, since you have offered no definitive proof that you have not been beating your wife. I'm not saying that you have been beating your wife, of course, perish the thought that I would make such an accusation without any evidence, but one has to wonder, when you have been so sparse with the proof that you have offered to the contrary.
ReplyDeleteI'm not defending Romney. I have said it before and will say it as often as needed; I would not vote for him if he was running against todaty's version of Adolph Hitler.
But neither will I profess to be part of a group that makes accusations in the form of questions or speculation which has no basis in evidence. If we engage in that kind of calumny then we are no better than our opponent and it no longer matters who wins the election, since our nation has utterly lost its way.
I am not running for president (or any elected office). But if I ever do, I would be happy to tell you whether I beat my wife or not. I feel you would have a right to know whether your possible elected official beats his wife. And the same goes for my tax returns.
ReplyDeleteMitt Romney knew the requirements for running for president would be intrusive, and if he did not want to make his finances open to the public, he should not have run. Releasing his tax returns is not that onerous a requirement, and even other Republicans do it. Why won't he?
You say my asking what he is hiding is an accusation. Maybe it is, but he could easily have avoided it by just doing as his father did and release some returns. By not doing so, he has brought the criticism upon himself. I feel no guilt about my questioning his action and motives. And I ask again, what is he trying to hide?
Well, then, the Republicans accusing John Kerry of not earning his Vietnem medals was also reasonable and fair. Campaiging by innuendo and unfounded accusation is fair game. If this country has descended to that level then we are simply not worth defending.
ReplyDeleteThis is how we prevent decent people from running for office. I lived in Georgia for many years and deeply admired Sam Nunn. He was a man of principle who legislated for the United States and not for the parochial benefit of his home state or to line his pocket. He is deeply involved now in the reduction of nuclear weapons. He left the Senate because he could no longer tolerate the dirty politics; because of this kind of campaigning; because politics had become a process of defending himself against innuendo and slander. We lost a decent and honest man, the kind of man we need in politics. Instead we have people in office who feel that unfounded accusation by suggestion and innuendo is legitimate campaign fodder. We have lost our way.
I can't believe you are comparing the war record of Kerry to Romney's tax returns. Kerry's service was a matter of record. he didn't try to hide anything about it. But Romney is hiding something by not releasing his returns. There is a big difference between unfounded attacks on a war record that is not hidden, and questions about finances when records are intentionally hidden.
ReplyDeleteIf Romney has nothing to hide, he should release his returns.
Romney is probably/possibly holding back on some of his tax returns for exactly the same reason that Obama is refusing to yield up a single piece of his college record.
ReplyDeletePot, kettle, black, comes to mind!
I am making no such comparison, Ted. Let me take one more stab at this.
ReplyDeletePeople accused John Kerry of not earning his war medals, which was an accusation not based on facts or evidence in hand, and for which they had no evidence. The accusation was made because those people were ideologically opposed to John Kerry. Mitt Romney is being accused of cheating on his taxes, of hiding wealth, of not paying taxes and other accusations based on income taxes. These accusations are not based on facts or evidence in hand, and the accusers have no evidence. The accusations are being made because people are ideologically opposed to Mitt Romney.
Spare me the “he must be hiding something or he would release his returns.” There are many reasons not to release returns, and there is nothing in election law or statute which requires him to. John McCain released only two years and his wife, who controls the vast majority of their wealth, released none at all, and no accusations were made about McCain cheating on taxes, hiding wealth, etc.
The left engages in “we get to make up stuff which discredits our opponent and he has to prove us wrong because we’re the good guys and he’s the one who’s a liar.” I can’t engage in that because I am unable to resolve the “we get to make up stuff which discredits” part with the “he’s the one who’s a liar” part.
You say that you value honesty over ideology, Ted, but you’re not walking the talk here. You acknowledge that you are making accusations of various things related to Mitt’s tax returns and, in saying that he can prove you wrong by releasing his returns, you acknowledge that your accusations are probably false. Whether or not he proves you wrong is irrelevant because the act of making a false accusation is, in and of itself, a dishonest act, and you are making those accusations because you are ideologically opposed to Mitt Romney. If that is not ideology over honesty, what is?
I think the vitriolic and visceral hatred which the Tea Party holds for Obama is damaging to this country and to proper governance. I think the visceral and vitriolic hatred which the left holds for Mitt Romney is equally damaging to a proper electoral process. It prevents us from having an election based on policy and on the future course of our nation and instead embroils us in controversy over a cult of personality.
David-
ReplyDeleteWhat is that "same reason"?
Has Romney released his college records?
Jayhawk-
ReplyDeleteRomney's war record was already public, so to say something was hidden was a lie. Romney's tax returns are being kept hidden. I have speculated about why they are being hidden, and offered some possibilities -- but mainly I have wondered what is being hidden. I think I have that right, and I will stop my speculating the day he releases them. And I have not admitted my speculations are false, as I am convinced that one (or more) are true.
I do not feel I am doing anything wrong, and I have not told any lies (like the teabaggers you compare me to). I'm sorry if you think that makes me dishonest.