If Sunday show watchers turned on their TVs yesterday, expecting to see Democrats on the offensive over Friday's jobs report, they may have been surprised. Prominent Democratic voices, displaying a level of message discipline that's highly unusual for their party, instead focused in on one lingering issue: what's with Mitt Romney's offshore finances?
Democrats were unrelenting on this issue. Of particular interest was this comment from Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, chairman of the Democratic Governors Association: "I've never known of a Swiss bank account to build an American bridge, a Swiss bank account to create American jobs, or Swiss bank accounts to rebuild the levies to protect the people of New Orleans. That's not an economic strategy for moving our country forward."
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) added, "When it comes down to his Swiss bank account, there's just no way to explain it."
That's true, and it's more than a throwaway line. On ABC's "This Week," host Terry Moran asked Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a leading Romney surrogate, three times to explain the Republican candidate's offshore investments. In each instance, Jindal changed the subject, unsure what to say.
For its part, the Romney campaign argued Friday that Democratic questions are "false and ridiculous." Yesterday, Team Romney added that the questions are "unseemly and disgusting."
What's fascinating, though, is that the adjectives didn't come with accompanying nouns. What is it, exactly, about the questions that are "false"? The Romney campaign won't say. Why are the questions "ridiculous"? The Romney campaign won't say. Why is the issue "disgusting"? The Romney campaign won't say.
Offshore financing may seem like a complex issue -- and complicated questions tend to get overlooked during a presidential campaign -- but there are some basic questions here that should be fairly easy for anyone to understand.
Let's make this really easy:
1. Why did Romney feel the need to create a shell corporation in Bermuda, then quickly move it into his wife's name the day before he was sworn in as governor?
2. Why did Romney feel the need to put millions of dollars in the Cayman Islands?
3. Why did Romney feel the need to keep a Swiss bank account?
4. Has there ever, in American history, been a major-party presidential candidate who didn't want to keep his money in American banks?
5. If Romney wasn't trying to avoid U.S. taxes, why won't he release his readily-available tax returns and clear the air?
The Obama campaign's Ben LaBolt put out a video statement yesterday, which was pretty brutal: "Mitt Romney is effectively saying he hasn't technically broken any laws by keeping his money in offshore tax havens. Here's the question: is not technically breaking the law a high enough standard for someone who wants to be president of the United States? Look, this is crazy -- it isn't too much to ask that a candidate for president explain why he chose to invest in other countries known as tax havens rather than in the United States."
In fairness, there may be a persuasive explanation for all of this. I don't know what it might be, but it certainly may exist. But therein lies the rub: the Romney campaign isn't even trying to answer the questions, which only makes the underlying issue more intriguing.
Disclosure and transparency can make these questions go away quite quickly, but Team Romney has so far refused requests for information. I wonder why that is.
Leave a Comment:
it was good to see them pounding on Willard's foreign bank accounts.
No problem, Romney will explain all, right after Obama reveals his transcripts.
Do you think Obama was studying tax avoidance, or are you just changing the subject?
The post is about how Presidential candidates shouldn't keep secrets right? You wouldn't be advocating a double standard would you?
@shooter242 learned the technique from team romney
So Romney has released as much as Obama has?
Pres. Obama graduated from his last college in 1991. Gov. Romeny has changed so much in the last 5-9 years we can't even look at his record in Massachusetts from 2007. You want to see transcripts from 20+ years ago, and you're talking about double standards? If Gov. Romney can change so much in 9 years and it's just fine, then what Pres. Obama did in 20 years ago does not matter at all.
All you need to do is ask Laurence Tribe about Obama's intellectual capacity: Most capable student he had met in all his years as a professor at Harvard Law.
Who needs transcripts after that.
But our little Walter Mitty, shooter, had to get him another FAIL by hoping somebody will equate a clearly capable intellectual man, Obama, not releasing transcripts is the same as hiding money in tax havens.
Hahahahahahahaha....
Good try, Mr. Mitty.
Is Mitt going to reveal HIS transcripts? Or even the amount of tax returns that he should? Or even all of his finances? You've got no room to demand exceptional measures from the president, Shooter, while your guy hasn't even met the basic standards for a candidate.
How about when Willard reveals twelve years of his tax returns, like his honorable father did when he ran for President? That's a pretty good precedent. Or maybe the 23 years he showed McCain (the fact McCain didn't choose him probably proved to him that doing that didn't work for him)
And while you're at it, Shooter, go beautify America by being Guest of Honor at a single car fatality, so you can at last become a "good" Republican.
It's that kind of eliminationist rhetoric that got Rep. Giffords shot. Can I presume I'll never see you whining about civility here?
henry-6224410
hey Jason how you doing signed up for SS today cross your fingers lol
Best of luck to you, SS taxes have helped many generations before today, and should be there for those tomorrow, after all they are paying for SS today.
Obama has released his tax returns. Shouldn't Romney be doing the same? I wonder why he hasn't done that yet? I guess he thinks that the public is too dumb to understand them. :)
Where is the ole "if you have nothing to hide" bit on Romney?
What's 'unseemly and disgusting' is actually QUESTIONING Romney. Go read TPM today about the MegaRich and how the 'common people' just don't 'get it'...amazing.
i can't get past the arrogance of this man --- he is the definition of 'entitled' -- start by listening to his tone when (last thursday or friday) someone on a rope line asked him the tax/penalty question ... it is like hearing from your 8th grade english teacher
not releasing this information is absolutely consistent with his view of the citizenry he claims to want to lead -- they are too stupid to understand the complicated tax structure a superman is required to build to protect his g-dgiven right to do whatever he damn well pleases with his vast resources that he sat on his ass to earn
actually. miss ann explained it all a few weeks ago when she told the obamas to step aside, "it is our turn"
no
This should be an Achilles heal however, when a fraud as moneyed as Mitt R-money is what you're "banking on" to get that black guy out of the White House and get the bull@!$%# policy factory back on-line even Swiss and Cayman Islands bank accounts (usually equated with tax sheltering and/or criminal holdings) are just pas say in the eyes of non-scrutinous Amercians.
see your following post on "focus group's incredulity..."
Team Romney is not worried. They'll wait till late in the campaign then come up with some stupid excuse to satisfy the wingnut hordes and then claim Democrats were making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Fine. Let him satisfy the wingnuts. And let him get 27% on 11/7.
Repub "friends" aren't happy to talk about this so I suspect it's got value as the campaign progresses. I hope Dems keep bringing it up.
One thing I've learned as a litigator is that when you hit the point in a deposition that you want to make a rich guy, especially a CEO, go on tilt, you ask the questions about his money. Wealthy CEO's seem to invariably think their time is far too valuable to waste preparing for the deposition and that they can outsmart any mere tradesman like a lawyer. And all of them believe that they have a sacred, inalienable, God-given, inviolable right to keep the details of their personal finances wrapped in the deepest secrecy.
So when you ask the questions, their brains go into rage lockup and they demand that their own lawyers stop this insignificant peasant from asking them these impertinent questions. Sometimes their lawyers do the smart thing and tell them they have to answer. Sometimes they put on the "this deposition is over!" show, knowing full well that they'll be back, and probably paying your costs, answering the questions after the hearing on the motion to compel they know they can't win.
And it's odd in that it's not a reflex you usually see from people who inherited their money or even from the ones who acknowledge that they just got lucky being in the right place at the right time, or even the ones who accumulated a decent bit of money slowly by having a good paying job and living way below their means for twenty or thirty years. It's always the CEO's who, history shows, are as interchangeable as car parts and yet paid as if they were utterly unique and completely irreplaceable who get all outraged and brain locked.
Which is all a long-winded way of saying that it's going to be really, really hard for Romney's people to convince him to put this thing to bed by picking a Friday afternoon in the summer when the news eye is elsewhere and dump a decade's worth of tax returns, taking his beating and exhausting the story. Romney can't see a reason to do that because the hoi polloi have no business rummaging around in his personal business and none of the people in his inner circle are likely to say otherwise because they all feel the same way. Instead, he and they are just going to keep sputtering indignantly because it really does make them indignant.
And, of course, adding to the indignation is going to be their certain, if subconscious, knowledge that there will be things in those returns that the little people simply aren't equipped to properly understand and that will cause them to become foolishly angry with their betters.
OK, so, I wonder if it would be REALLY smart for Obama to being this up [when appropriate] during a live debate. Hit him with an attack on that Swiss bank account and point out that ducking a reply means that something criminal is going on here. Lt him answer or play the "this deposition is over" card
But, then do it again in every debate that follows.
BTW I have had some success with this argument. At Bane Capital they targeted and bought a few companies that had control over fat retirement plan accounts that were held in trust for the workers. They then borrowed against the assets in the trust funds, used the money to give themselves $100M bonuses for "looting" the retirement plans, selling the company or letting it go bankrupt [with the retirement plans taken over by the US gov. (taxpayers) at 50 cents on the dollar or less], and walked away with the $100M.
I go on to say stealing is still stealing even when it is legal. And he wants to be rewarded for this by being elevated to the Presidency?
With a yearly limit of $6,000 contribution to an IRA, I would like answered the question of how Mittens IRA 'grew' to be worth $100 Million.
Perhaps Shooter has a prepared RMoney campaign answer?
Actually, I have their official response right here:
*sputter*"Distraction! Distraction!"*sputter*"He did it by shut up, that's how! Peasant!"
There are no limits in the "off shore" accounts.
The IRA isn't an "off shore" account. Can't have an off-shore IRA.
There seems to be a lot of speculation that he ballooned his IRA beyond anything contemplated by the drafters of the law by putting a vastly, and arbitrarily, undervalued off-shore corporation into it, using the secrecy laws of the off shore entity's country to hide the fact that the asset was being undervalued. There also seems to be a lot of assuming that this was perfectly legal.
But the thing is, to a tax lawyer, "legal" means "I've got a sufficiently credible belief that this might be legal that I can shield myself and my client from civil or criminal penalties when the IRS gets around to disagreeing," not "I believe it is more likely than not that the IRS will agree this shelter is legal."
Back before we were an oligarchy, the IRS tended to view tax planning that involved combining foreign bank and corporation secrecy laws with tax advantaged accounts that resulted in it not being able to tax a large amount of money as an illegal tax shelter. Which is, of course, why the GOP spent a decade and a half demonizing the IRS and slashing its budget and mandating that it spend a lot of time and money investigating "fraud" in claiming the EIA.
Aw come on now he is just doing what those great capitalists that caused the crash did-move their ill got gains offshore.
The right would remind you that according to their statistics half of you don't pay taxes. They however do not want to awaken to the fact that half of them also do not pay taxes for the same reason---poverty level wages.
After all, keeping up with all those off shore accounts is hard labor. (snark)
Statistics from FOX states people at poverty level have the same amenities as the rich; a car from this century, a flat screen TV, a refrigerator, a washer and dryer, some even have a dishwasher. Stop complaining, many people in India do not possess a broom.
Well now the people of India DO have jobs we used to have. They also are able to sell their daughters and buy a broom to ride.
But you must be right, after all with 1.21 billion people and an average income of well here is an excerpt from http://www.averagesalarysurvey.com/article/average-salary-in-india/28162105.aspx
Average Salary and Economy
Average annual income in India is around 411,200 INR (8,000 USD), according to 2011/2012 salary survey.
Annual average income for software engineer/developer in India is around 650,000 INR per year and average income for more experienced senior software developer is around 900,000 INR or more. Data from the end of year 2011.
Average Salaries in India Are Considerably Increasing Last Years
According to data from Manpower, the average earning differences in India, in comparison with US, were significantly declined to year 2012. While the gap is dropped considerably the India still remain as low cost competitor.
The first in a series of quarterly surveys, Mercer covered 93 companies, one-fourth of them from the IT & telecom sectors, 16% from the pharma industry and 14% from the consumer segment.
Employees in the automobile, pharma and consumer products sectors can expect pay hikes of 12% while those in IT & telecom and financial services are likely to see their salaries rise by an average 10-11% in 2012.
Education In India
India has the third largest education system in the world, after China, and United States. About 80 per cent of schools are from government. Poor quality public education is the reason that 27 per cent of scholars are privately educated.
Well now the people of India DO have jobs we used to have. They also are able to sell their daughters and buy a broom to ride.
But you must be right, after all with 1.21 billion people and an average income of well here is an excerpt from http://www.averagesalarysurvey.com/article/average-salary-in-india/28162105.aspx
Average Salary and Economy
Average annual income in India is around 411,200 INR (8,000 USD), according to 2011/2012 salary survey.
Annual average income for software engineer/developer in India is around 650,000 INR per year and average income for more experienced senior software developer is around 900,000 INR or more. Data from the end of year 2011.
Average Salaries in India Are Considerably Increasing Last Years
According to data from Manpower, the average earning differences in India, in comparison with US, were significantly declined to year 2012. While the gap is dropped considerably the India still remain as low cost competitor.
The first in a series of quarterly surveys, Mercer covered 93 companies, one-fourth of them from the IT & telecom sectors, 16% from the pharma industry and 14% from the consumer segment.
Employees in the automobile, pharma and consumer products sectors can expect pay hikes of 12% while those in IT & telecom and financial services are likely to see their salaries rise by an average 10-11% in 2012.
Education In India
India has the third largest education system in the world, after China, and United States. About 80 per cent of schools are from government. Poor quality public education is the reason that 27 per cent of scholars are privately educated.
Mitt had inside information that his banker friends were buying and selling worthless paper and raping the economy, so he put his money where it was safe from conservative business practices.
For its part, the Romney campaign argued Friday that Democratic questions are "false and ridiculous." Yesterday, Team Romney added that the questions are "unseemly and disgusting."
Proof that the target was hit dead-center.
Team Romney says his religion, family, Bain Capital, wealth and now his offshore investments are not proper subjects for the campaign. Romney has amnesia about his governorship. So what is left other than the Olympics which was subsidized through the taxpayers?
The 2002 Olympics aren't exactly great for him, either. The vaunted "turnaround" came about because Mitt lobbied for billions in earmarks from the federal gubmint. But, then, he'll probably say that he borrowed money from his family to jumpstart the games.
This is the first time I've seen a political campaign try to knock down a criticism by calling it unseemly. Why, it's as if those Dems were eating their dessert with a salad fork. Horrors!
Romney was born on third base and thinks he was robbed of a home run by excessive regulation of the base paths.