In a way it is great, as this categorical claim is falsifiable-that is if he releases his taxes. It was interesting to see that interview with the author of "The Real Romney" today. It was actually taped back in January, at the height of the GOP primary when his refusal to release his tax returns had become a problem for him then.
Michael Kranish's words could not have been more prophetic. At the time he seemed to be presuming that at some point he would release them. Little did he know!
Romney by insisting on such falsifiable claims as this just makes things worse for himself. It's our chance to catch him in yet another lie
"Mitt Romney said Sunday that he gained no tax benefits by investing part of his fortune in funds based in the Cayman Islands and other overseas jurisdictions, or using a Swiss bank account, saying President Obama’s campaign was unfairly accusing him of “some kind of unsavory action.”
"There was no reduction -- not one dollar reduction in taxes -- by virtue of having an account in Switzerland or a Cayman Islands investment,” the Republican presidential candidate told Chris Wallace in a recorded interview broadcast on “Fox News Sunday.” “The dollars of taxes remained exactly the same. There was no tax savings at all.”
Not one dollar reduction in taxes. Folks mark these words. This is what it sounds like for a man who wants to be President to lie through his teeth to the American people.
"It is impossible to tell from documents disclosed to the public how much of Romney's financial holdings, which his campaign estimates at between $190 million and $250 million and are managed in several blind trusts, are based in offshore funds and investments."
"The 2010 federal tax return filed by Romney and his wife, Ann – the only complete tax return he has released -- includes 32 pages of detail on 17 separate "passive foreign" investments."
Even this isn't true-he did not release a full tax return, there was an omitted form that those with foreign investments are supposed to file.
"But in the TV interview, Romney shot down the notion that he gained any tax advantage whatsoever.
“The conduct of the trustee in making investments was entirely consistent with U.S. law and all the taxes paid were those legally owed and there was no tax savings by virtue of those entities,” he said.
"Wallace pressed Romney on why he didn’t ask the trustee to close his overseas investments before he made his first presidential bid in 2008, just so he could avoid the kinds of questions that have dogged him in this campaign."
“I could have said, ‘Don't make any investments in any foreign companies, in any foreign bonds, in any foreign currency, only U.S. entities. And by the way, don't buy any foreign products, don't have any Japanese TVs, or foreign cars.’ I could have done that,” Romney acknowledged
Romney's silly answer shows that he still doesn't get it. I don't buy that there was no tax advantage for one second. What we defintely learned from Gawker's "Bain dump" is that Bain investments-that Romney still has-used very aggressive maneuvers to avoid tax-the famous blocker accounts.
Then Romney tries the ultimate bluff. He says 'I would never do A" when A is exactly what he does, what he is, what his whole career has been about-pandering. Yet Romney wants you to know that he doesn't pander!
“But you know, I did live my life and I expect that by virtue of disclosing all of these things, people can take a look at it and see whether that’s something they’re comfortable with or not. I’m not going to try to hide who I am and try and manipulate my life to try and avoid the truth.”
This is such a precise description of what he in fact does do that it's almost too perfect. Surely you didn't think I would do A!
I'm not some soulless political prostitute who would say anything to get elected-I hate those guys!
"Brad Malt, the trustee who manages Romney’s finances, said in January that he set up the Swiss bank account in 2003 in a trust in Ann Romney's name "for diversification." He said the account at UBS, which is headquartered in Zurich and Basel, contained $3 million before he closed it as Romney was launching his presidential campaign in 2010 and that Romney paid U.S. taxes on the $1,700 he received in interest that year."
"The GOP candidate failed to include the Swiss bank account on the personal financial disclosure forms that he filed in 2011 with a federal ethics office. Romney’s campaign amended his disclosure forms and added details about the Swiss account after the discrepancy was reported by the Los Angeles Times/Tribune Washington Bureau."
Look far from me to make "wild" accusations-what David Brooks' media insists on calling Harry Reid's quite rational hypothesis that he may not have paid taxes for 10 years-but what makes you think that this
"oversight" is just the tip of the iceberg?
"oversight" is just the tip of the iceberg?
But that thing about him not being a dimestore phony is the limit! I got to quote him again, cause I don't even believe it!
"But you know, I did live my life and I expect that by virtue of disclosing all of these things, people can take a look at it and see whether that’s something they’re comfortable with or not. I’m not going to try to hide who I am and try and manipulate my life to try and avoid the truth.”
Governor Romney you have the gall to claim that you don't hide the truth, that you don't hide who you are, that your whole life is not manipulated into the world's tightest pretzel to deny who you are? I got to quote the Economist again-when the conservative Republican candidate for President gets beaten up like this by the Economist it's a bad sign:
"WHEN Mitt Romney was governor of liberal Massachusetts, he supported abortion, gun control, tackling climate change and a requirement that everyone should buy health insurance, backed up with generous subsidies for those who could not afford it. Now, as he prepares to fly to Tampa to accept the Republican Party’s nomination for president on August 30th, he opposes all those things. A year ago he favoured keeping income taxes at their current levels; now he wants to slash them for everybody, with the rate falling from 35% to 28% for the richest Americans."
"But competence is worthless without direction and, frankly, character. Would that Candidate Romney had indeed presented himself as a solid chief executive who got things done. Instead he has appeared as a fawning PR man, apparently willing to do or say just about anything to get elected. In some areas, notably social policy and foreign affairs, the result is that he is now committed to needlessly extreme or dangerous courses that he may not actually believe in but will find hard to drop; in others, especially to do with the economy, the lack of details means that some attractive-sounding headline policies prove meaningless (and possibly dangerous) on closer inspection. Behind all this sits the worrying idea of a man who does not really know his own mind. America won’t vote for that man; nor would this newspaper. The convention offers Mr Romney his best chance to say what he really believes."
""Mr Romney may calculate that it is best to keep quiet: the faltering economy will drive voters towards him. It is more likely, however, that his evasiveness will erode his main competitive advantage. A businessman without a credible plan to fix a problem stops being a credible businessman. So does a businessman who tells you one thing at breakfast and the opposite at supper. Indeed, all this underlines the main doubt: nobody knows who this strange man really is. It is half a decade since he ran something. Why won’t he talk about his business career openly? Why has he been so reluctant to disclose his tax returns? How can a leader change tack so often? Where does he really want to take the world’s most powerful country?"
To quote the late, great Archie Bunker: "Gee, I couldn't have said it better myself."
When you're the Republican candidate for President and the Economist of all people says this of you-a they of all people always have a very open mind to the latest Republican big idea-it's no liberal smear-you aren't connecting.
I particularly love that saw about 'the American people won't vote for this man and neither for that matter would this newspaper...'
You got to love the way with words the wordsmiths over at the Economist have.