Associated Press
While I think it was irresponsible of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to make unsubstantiated claims about Mitt Romney's tax returns, let's not go overboard in the condemnations.
For PolitiFact, the second-hand rumor Reid shared with reporters is a "pants on fire" lie, but I think that goes too far. For RCP's Tom Bevan, Reid's tactic was comparable to Rep. Michele Bachmann's (R-Minn.) anti-Muslim witch hunt, but I'm afraid that goes way too far.
Conservatives often complain of two sets of standards in politics: one for Democrats and another for Republicans. Sometime that double standard is imaginary. Often, it's quite real. Consider the events of the last three weeks: [...]
Bachmann's claims were based upon the thinnest possible evidence, and she was quickly denounced -- particularly by members of her own party -- for making such unsourced and scurrilous, claims. [...]
Last week Sen. Harry Reid claimed in an interview that a Bain Capital investor told him Mitt Romney hadn't paid taxes in 10 years. Reid passed along his similarly unfounded allegation with a striking admission: "Now, do I know that that's true? Well, I'm not certain," Reid said.... To this day, not a single prominent Democrat has denounced him for it.
At a superficial level, I kinda sorta see where Bevan is going with this. Both Bachmann and Reid made claims based on no evidence.
But that's about where the similarities end. Bachmann's witch hunt was based on an ugly, bigoted conspiracy theory, targeting American patriots because she doesn't like their religion. Her crusade was based on a McCarthy-style, guilt-by-association smear that decent people on both sides easily recognize as disgusting. There's real evidence that Bachmann's targets are 100% innocent of her allegations.
Reid heard a rumor about Romney's taxes, which may or may not be true. The shot was, at least to my mind, below the belt, but it wasn't bigoted; it's not based on a ridiculous conspiracy theory; and it's not demagoguery. There's evidence that can resolve the question, but it's been hidden.
The qualitative differences between the two controversies are overwhelming.
As Josh Marshall summarized, "[C]laiming someone legally paid little or no taxes -- but not revealing your source -- is not the same as accusing American citizens of treason or whipping up religious bigotry against members of a religious minority group."
Leave a Comment:
Yeah, and 99.9 time out of 100, it benefits the Republicans. Let's get real about this: If a Democrat had refused to release his/her returns, the GOP would have hounded that person out of the campaign weeks ago. If a Democrat had been lying his/her butt off about absolutely everything for months, Fox "News" would be screaming its head off. Now the tables are turning, and the Republicans are flipping out? Sorry, guys. Clean up your own house first, then maybe we'll talk about the unfairness of this double standard.
Every American is entitled to his/her opinion of Senator Harry Reid, but no matter the opinion, Mitt Romney is the focal point of a most salient issue:
What is the concept of patriotism for the super rich here in the good ol'USA?
I am not condemning Romney for doing anything wrong, but I do want to see the financial history of the man who claims to be qualified to make judgements and decisions on my behalf. Will I as a US citizen in good standing be thought of as a client by President Romney and reap the profits of his financial expertise? Or, will I as a US citizen and member of the working/middle class be merely thought of as overhead to be downsized and outsourced so Romney and his uber-rich crowd of fellow Americans can continue to live out their patriotic lives of tax loopholes and tax cuts?
Yes, say what you will about Harry, but until Mitt brings forth his tax data, his punching down will not bring him any positive results! -Kevo
Sorry, Steve. It's time to recognize what Reid did as a good thing.
Go Harry!!
Exactly. The Dems finally land a punch, and the concern trolls start mewling about "irresponsibility." I expect it of Drum and Marshall, both of whom supported the Iraq war until it could no longer be denied as a complete disaster, but Steve, I thought, was better than that. And they wonder why Dems are perceived as the weak ones. Sheesh! Learn to win, fer frak's sake. This election is important.
Yep, it's time for those who extend their pinkies when they drink to get out of the damned way.
Benen believes presenting facts and persuading people to see the truth are the same thing. He needs to start understanding the craft of getting into people's hearts, not just their minds.
Journalists have to go where the voters are. Where they really are. How they really react about the issues influencing them. For them it is personal, not abstract. The truth is they are generally frustrated about the unfairness of the 1% getting away with murder. The truth is, the 1% are getting away with murder, and Klein can make devastating proofs of this. But this does not speak to the audience.
Benen wants to be in the club and links arms with Bob Schieffer proclaiming his faux outrage. He is like the pretentious court dramatists of Elizabethian England who wrote for the aristocracy not the rabble. The great ones- including Shakespeare, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides spoke to the rabble- they did not speak down to them, nor were they pandering to them. They spoke to them in language the rabble spoke in because they needed to be brought to the truth. Benen simply has no conception of this method. Types like him bluster- but it is theater Theater! Fiction!@! I, Steve Benen am better than that- I deal in truth.
Such simpletons have no intention of speaking to the people. They prefer to only speak to an America composed of purely rational, empirically trained critically thinking citizens. The Benen journalists live in fantasy land and have no intention of communicating truth. They prefer to enumerate facts, and stamp their feet or shrug and walk off when few are convinced.
Not their Job.
Well, it is Harry's job. And it is the job of some in Media who know what to do with this sort of soft news story. Has the well really run dry? Oh? Shucks? How does Fox work with the birther stories, and why do people not get tired of them. Have you at MSNBC truly run out of ideas on Tax return stories. Fine- fire some of the politicos and get some people who cover Hollywood he said she said stories who also know something about politics. How about doing a poll on how much people believe Romney paid in taxes for the last 10 years. How about slicing that up by party and income of the polled.
Sure, the public should be reminded at every step that Reid's claims are unsubstantiated, and until they are, the fair thing is not to give them any weight one way or the other. Romney may have paid more taxes, and what he wants to hide might be some other detail that is embarrassing. We don't know.
There is a truth story about unfairness in America that people will tune in to hear over and over again, as they mull over what it is that is eating at them, their 401K's, and the hopes for their children's prospects. This is mercurial elemental bedrock emotion about the American dream here. The variations are prismatic in scope. Not just polls, but man in the street interviews, interviewing tax specialists on the kind of nonsense the wealthy get away with. The Right feeds the emotion of hate. The Left must feed a positive emotion, and it is that of the Indignados, but they must not use information to delude or to break rules of critical thinking.
Indignation. Feed the indignation with facts. Then you have a passionate and informed electorate.
Benen, you have to get them to tune in, and it is puerile nonsense to believe you must stoop to P.T. Barnum tactics to do it. The great communicators speak to the hearts of the people, and bring them to the truth. It won't pollute you to do it.
Nicely done, John.
Literalists are blind to the truth. They don't care about the truth. They are no more cogent than the bit configuration that makes a software program instead of the function the program offers its users.
Steve and the rest of the squeamish Democrats go into literalist mode when they act like this. And its why Democrats repeatedly fail to engage and motivate the public that essentially accepts the Democratic message.
Democrats need to learn to engage the heart and the emotions at the same time they engage the mind. In fact, humans (and almost certainly the other animals) don't learn without the involvement of the emotions and it is necessary to engage them.
Anyway, it's possible that Reid knows (or at least thinks he knows) more than he's letting on. Something has put starch in his spine.
What did Politifact say about Bachmann's claims?
It appears Politifact stopped evaulating Bachmann's statements at the point where she 'suspended' her campaign. So she's free to spew whatever lunacy she wants now.
Josh Marshall and Kevin Drum are beginning to have second thoughts. A reader shared a plausible idea how Romney may not have paid income taxes which has given even those two pause. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/08/missing_the_key_issue.php?ref=fpblg
There's a followup from Reader MB, as well.
Okay, first, how is what Reid did any different from what every single reporter who writes a story citing to statements from an unnamed source who, we are assured, "is familiar with the Administration's thinking"? Do journalists have a monopoly on the right to pass on information with unnamed sources with only a vague assurance that they know what they're talking about combined with a "trust me?"
Second, Reid says a source in a position to know says there were many years when Romney effectively paid no taxes. There are two implicit and one explicit assertions of fact in that statement: 1) Reid actually has a source, 2) the source knows what he's talking about and, 3) Romney paid little or no income tax for about a decade. We do not know of any of these things are true. We do know, however, that all three are at least plausible, notwithstanding what Kessler's "tax experts" say.
I highly recommend the following (also anonymous) exchanges by someone purporting to be in the PE world with Josh Marshall:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/08/missing_the_key_issue.php?ref=fpblg
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/08/tpm_reader_mb_returns.php?ref=fpblg
Go read them yourself. Essentially, Marshall's correspondent says that the management company that becomes the general partner of each of the successive limited partnerships that constitute's a PE firm's investment funds, which was 100% owned by Mitt, would have had minimal book value at a point when Mitt could have put it into his IRA. That management company, however, would also likely be the owner of the "Bain" trademarks and associated goodwill. After Mitt "retired," the firm would have to either buy the management company or at least licence the intellectual property, if they kept wanting to do business as "Bain Capital." That, in turn, means that the proceeds of the sale or the licensing fees would go straight into Mitt's IRA, where it would be tax free until he hits the mandatory withdrawal age. Mitt could have negotiated his severance package in such a way that most of it was characterized as a structured buyout of the management company or, alternately, i.p. licence fees. This could well have resulted in a near zero effective tax rate as well as explaining the otherwise inexplicable size of his IRA.
And the limited partners (i.e. the investors) of the various Bain funds would be privy to the terms of Mitt's severance agreement. They would also get the bejesus sued out of them for breach of confidentiality agreements if it became known they were talking out of school about it.
One last point. Mitt says "I paid lots of taxes. You just have to trust me because I'm keeping all information from which you could objectively judge my veracity secret." In Kessler's world, that's deemed true. Harry says "I have credible information that Mitt didn't pay taxes. You just have to trust me because I'm keeping all information from which you could objectively judge my veracity secret." That's deemed a "pants on fire lie" in Kesslerland. How is that, exactly? Is it because Mitt has shown himself to be such a trustworthy, truthful sort of fellow of these last six years he's been running for president that he automatically gets the benefit of the doubt?
"Conservatives often complain of two sets of standards in politics:..."
Yes and it's known as "do as we say, not as we do"! And the democrats fell into lockstep line and lost their spine along the way. Now did Reid (like the National Inquirer) say something without proof - yes; and was it a bit startling - yes. However, Mittens has only released 1 year of taxes and from those WE know that he's paid much less than working Americans; so is it possible that "legally" he found ways to avoid paying anything - yes! But this also points to how skewered with loopholes for the 1%, the tax code has become, and why many of these holes need to be closed! Frankly I've been horseback riding - not often because it's expensive and not lately because I'm trying to conserve, not only can I not claim a deduction for the "therapeutic" benefits - but if you can afford to buy/stable and maintain a horse then you should not be allowed to "claim a deduction" for it as though it were a child!
Whatever motivated Sen. Reid probably wasn't bigoted hate, but genuine questions that WE all need to know - and I for one am so NOT mad with him!
Wow, not to upbraid Steve in any way, but sure didn't take long for this to be turned into another Republican "win". I think Harry did just fine.
So let's see. There's all those get-out-of-jail-free cards for the right, and honor-laden unbreakable rules for the left. Thus our nation is being undermined and taken over by fanatical rightwingers and corporate steamrollers. Sound fair?
Or maybe, if something is worth enough, ya gotta get your hands dirty. Harry, standing alone apparently, did good in my opinion.
Harry Reid's allegation against Romney will not get people fired up and ready to kill like the republican's designated phsyco Michelle Bachmann's does.What was her statement last year or the yr. before.?She want's Minnesotan's armed and dangerous.I would'nt doubt that her witch hunt talk had something to do with the skinhead's shooting of the Sikh's.And Why?Why wo'nt Romney show his tax return's for even 2008 and 2009?He has to be hiding some campaign damaging info.We know he has account's in Bermuda,The Cayman's and Switzerland.How many more has he hidden from the federal government that he want's to be in charge of?Did he take advantage of the amnesty program that forgave million's in taxe's for the very wealthy?I do'nt think it's out of line for wanting to know how this tax dodger skipped out on his country by not paying his fair share in tax's.His grandfather skipped out on the country because he did'nt like our law's, so Mitt probably feel's the same way.
If anybody starts comparing you to Bachmann about something, you should know that you've jumped the shark.
BTW this statement is not true:
"Reid heard a rumor about Romney's taxes, which may or may not be true."
Ried has a reputation for lying (though not in the same league as Romney) so there's no reason to believe that his "source" actually exists.
I'm not sure why it's so hard to believe Harry Reid could actually get this kind of information. Don't you think he might travel in some of the same circles as Romney, with all the Morman businessmen in the southwest and all? And, haven't you ever had a friend tell you something in confidence that would lead you to you protecting your source? Don't you think Harry Reid may be risking something himself because Morman's are a very tight bunch and he might very well be getting some flack from there right now?
Here's another way to look at it. Harry Reid is throwing himself under the bus because he really truly does believe it's true. Maybe he really understands how bad Romney would be for America and thinks that we deserve to know why he is so reluctant to show his taxes.
That would make Reid a hero, wouldn't it?
There, fixed it for ya.
yes we all agree that Romney lies, but only some of us think the way to combat that is for the other side to lie as well.
RM:
Again this information is not public knowledge on any level. Who in your own life knows what you have paid in taxes? Now blow that up to Romney's level where a tax retrun can literally run hundreds of pages long. No "investor" would be in a position to know. Only an accountant would. Now if you want to argue that Reid is lying in THAT direction, that it's really his accountant, then at least you have a plausible scenario.
" Who in your own life knows what you have paid in taxes?"
My accountant.
Since there is no yelling on the Vine, please consider the below statement to be in all caps, just for bannedagain...
The entire team that vetted Romney for McCain knows!
day:
exactly
need:
Don't be surprised if that's not true. Romney was never seriously considered by McCain and so I doubt he gave them all his tax info. However you have a point there. The only problem is that it's not Reid's point, He said "a Bain investor".
Do you verify anything before you post?
Then what is holding Romney back Now from releasing his tax returns? Something after the tax returns he gave to McCain? Things aren't adding up.
Bachmann rumor - there are Muslims in the White House Fact: no proof whatsoever and none asked for
Right wing rumor - Obama was born in Kenya Fact: disproved by Hawaiian birth certificate
Harry Reid rumor - Mitt Romney didn't pay any taxes Fact: it CAN be proved if Mitt just shows his taxes
Not even close.
Every time I read a story about Bachmann, I think of the old Patsy Cline song "CRAZY".
Harry Reid's claim is entirely believable. He is a very powerful man with a lot of connections in Washington.
How secure are Romney's returns anyway? The IRS is an agency of the Treasury Dept. which is headed by Tim Geithner. If Geithner or any of the hundreds of people who have either processed Romney's returns or have the proper clearance to see them leaked that information to Reid who would know? Just because Harry said that a Bain employee told him about the returns doesn't mean that a few other unnamed sources didn't also spill the goods about Romney's returns.
I was wondering how secure any of our returns are. One of the main weapons Nixon's dirty tricks team used to "get" an enemy was to have him or her audited every year.
What is the penalty for leaking someone's return, whether it is by an accountant who prepared it or an IRS agent who made illegal copies? Surely the penalty isn't anything like treason or something that would carry jail time.
According to Wikipedia, the release of Presidential tax returns began with Richard Nixon's returns for 1970 and 1971. They were leaked by reporter Jack White of the Providence Journal. Nixon, with a salary of $200,000 paid $792.81 in tax in 1970 and $818.03 in 1971, with deductions of $571,000 for donating "vice-presidential papers". This was one of the reasons for his famous statement: "Well, I am not a crook. I've earned everything I've got". When will we get to hear Romney repeat those famous words?
The valuation of those 'vice presidential papers' sounds similar to the $100 million in Romneys IRA.
I believe I will start saving locks of my hair, so when I become famous, they will be worth millions!
Oh, heck, why wait until I become famous? I'll set a value on them, and donate them to the "Museum of the Ordinary Folks Who May Become Famous Someday ", and take a big tax deduction this year!
There are two equally likely scenarios with regard to Romney's taxes. One is that from 2008-2010 he took significant short-term capital losses in the Crash, wrote off all his taxable income, and indeed paid no taxes whatever. The other is that Bain's business rose dramatically during the Crash and Romney made stupendous profits - on which he paid his tiny legal proportion of the Bush capital gains tax.
In the first case, he'll be seen as legally shirking during his country's time of need. In the second he'll be seen as the devouring capitalist.
It was NOT "irresponsible" of Reid to give Romney that sucker punch to the gut. Unless you're some "good government" cucumber sandwich eater.
Can politicians request a section 8? I mean just why would any person lower themselves to such a "depraved" level unless they were after something? I was on the way to giving these nuts a little credit by suggesting that they are merely trying to cause such an emotional upheaval in their party that their base would lose the ability to reason things through or to even attempt to stop and think, but sadly I am coming to the conclusion that it must be a contagious mental disorder. I know of no such disease but then we do have psych-ops programs hidden behind door number two.
Making questionable statements about someone tax returns which offer no harm to the person those statements are aimed at is not the same as making spurious statements about a person that gets that person death threats. There is no equivalency whatsoever.
Were it not so annoying, I would be amused at the faux naievete that the media (even Steve!) have to bring to the table to discuss whether Reid's statement on the Romney no-tax rumor was "fair" or, in the case of PolitiFact, "true."
What Reid did was not a statement, it was a tactic. It is simply silly to judge its content as true or false, fair or foul, because the content was never meant to be relevant -- and it was painfully obvious it was never meant to be relevant. What Reid did was try to bait Romney into having to turn over his returns or, alternatively, remind the public that Romney wouldn't do so. Period. It was 100% tactical. But to reach the question they want to reach, the media has to act like they are taking Reid's comment seriously, as a contribution to some factual debate. Frankly, they all know better. It was a brilliant use of a "when did you stop beating your wife" question. THat may be, in Steve's terms, "below the belt" -- but not because it was untrue or unsourced. The whole point was to get Romeny to show the source, or pay a price for not doing so. It simply raised the stakes for Romney engaging in a decidedly bad-government approach to transparency.
Reid gets an A for effort and a B- for results from me on this one. What he wont get from me is a scolding that I am shocked, shocked! about such gambling in the political cafe.
Indeed, 100% political tactic. I agree with your grades too, but the results may change.
In categorizing Harry Reid's statements as "rumors," Steve Benen and others (most dismayingly, Jon Stewart) are--disingenuously, it seems to me--equating them with spreading water-cooler gossip of unknown origins. Reid has stated emphatically that he has spoken with a Bain insider and, considering Reid's history, it's unlikely he would have gone public with it if he weren't close to 100% certain of his source. And consider that, while no one on McCain's former staff has leaked the goods, apparently none of them, including McCain, has volunteered that he or she knows for a fact that Reid is mistaken.
Considering Romney's penchant for self-aggrandizing, if he did manage to finagle his taxes down to zero, he could not have resisted boasting about it to his inner circle.
Hey all! I really need more of my friends to start following my blog. It is a video blog called "Rational Politics" and its goal is to inform with facts and studies and bring rationality and respect back to the political debate. Please check it out, follow it, and get your friends to follow it too. http://www.normanlafave.com/rationalpolitics