Sure Glenn Kessler won’t like this kind of speculation much either:
Mitt Romney’s refusal to release tax returns in the critical years of his income accumulation has done little to dispel the legitimate concern that arises from hints buried in his scant disclosure to date: Did he augment his wealth through highly aggressive tax stratagems of questionable validity?
One relevant line of inquiry, largely ignored so far, is to examine what exists in the public record regarding his attitude toward tax compliance and tax avoidance. While this examination is hampered because his dealings through his private equity company, Bain Capital, are kept shrouded, there are other indicators.
A key troubling public manifestation of Romney’s apparent insensitivity to tax obligations is his role in Marriott International’s abusive tax shelter activity.
Romney has had a close, long-standing, personal and business connection with Marriott International and its founders. He served as a member of the Marriott board of directors for many years. From 1993 to 1998, Romney was the head of the audit committee of the Marriott board.
During that period, Marriott engaged in a series of complex and high-profile maneuvers, including “Son of Boss,” a notoriously abusive prepackaged tax shelter that investment banks and accounting firms marketed to corporations such as Marriott. In this respect, Marriott was in the vanguard of a then-emerging corporate tax shelter bubble that substantially undermined the entire corporate tax system.
(bold mine)
Update. I see Kay already wrote about this. I have to confess that on Safari, the formatting of her blockquote is too screwed up for me to read, so I missed it.
schrodinger's cat
You people don’t need to know nothing, who are you to question the Bishop anyway?
BTW if he is elected President is he going to baptize all of us so we all become Mormons whether we like it or not?
L. Ron Obama
You just stepped on Kay’s thread
Johnny Gentle (famous crooner)
Pants on fire. He might NOT have augmented his wealth through highly aggressive tax stratagems of questionable validity.
I am awesome at this fact-checking thing.
BGinCHI
Peak GOP tax avoidance.
They nominate the guy who basically perfected outsourcing, the destruction of manufacturing in the USA, and any fairness in the taxing of corporations (which is already low in this country relative to others).
They have this and they have social issues/racism. That’s it.
Fester Addams
Yep, Mitt lives in a world where any given tax return is just an opening offer in a lengthy negotiation involving high-priced lawyers. If his personal income tax returns reflect this, he’s not likely to ever release them. It’d be more than a campaign land-mine, it would be a betrayal of the entire owning class.
Legalize
Nice. The horserace narrative is winding down. So the bobble-heads have moved on to “Is Mitt a Crook”?
Over before the convention.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
I suspect this is what comes out of the Obama camp after the convention, when people really start paying attention. This, to me, is something that will make us forget all about Romney’s tax returns.
Bobby Thomson
Dude, same team. Kay just posted the exact same quote.
amk
Kinda stepped on Kay’s toes, doug.
Dr. Squid
The writer is awfully impressed with his own vocabulary. Most people reading this will be thinking, “What an asshole,” and will actually not be referring to Mittens.
Peckerhead lawyers.
shortstop
You couldn’t even get through the first line, which exactly matches the first line you quoted? Dude, the lengths you’ll go to not to simply say, “Oops, sorry.”
Turgidson
Since Romney hasn’t admitted he did any of this stuff, we have to take him at his word. I give this article eleventeen pinocchios, and preemptively give the Obama campaign eleventy-billion pinocchios for the ads they haven’t run yet on this issue.
can I haz fact-checker gig now?
edited to add: Harry Reid is a poopyhead.
Turgidson
@shortstop:
His post is about Kessler. He has to stay in character…or something.
Amir Khalid
@L. Ron Obama:
It’s a long-established custom here at Balloon Juice. DougJ is just following John Cole’s example.
LanceThruster
This is as serious a question I can muster in the silly season yet every single American is owed the answer.
Why is it that Elder Romney’s entire focus is what wonderful things their new and improved tax schemes would mean for everyone (or at least all those people that actually matter to them), but hide any said policy as it specifically apply to them. F#ck your generic blather…show just how boned you got through the years that you’re crying about, and crunch the numbers for the proposed give-aways for you. You were the squeaky clean elder telling people abouts the secrets of the universe which makes you a marvelous person (the LDS equiv of an honor student or eagle scout dispensing eternal truths) and now you’re like the infomercial tax guy (why couldn’t it be a truly friendly helpful exposition?). Show how horrible it was, and show how it will get better for Joe Root Beer as well as you captains of industry.
And what amazing character trait did you bring forward from your youth, in conjunction with your current established mendacity, that makes you privileged without question to keep all your dealings in the shadows?
Show us how your church figures its 10% tithe. Can they reverse calculate how much you “make” and therefore pay taxes on? If that does not match their numbers, would they feel taken and require you to settle up, or would they take whatever hefty chunk you and whatever % off your partners in vulturing that are also linked by your church toss their way? If you are involved in shady or questionable things (or illegal) – could your fully tax free (to LDS) tithes come back to you to bankroll shadowy deals and pump up the #s for everyone?
Does a church even need to money launder? Are their receipts like Vegas in that theoretically, any number can be claimed and who’s to really know? They’re no angels also, too, because they illegally failed to declare their moneys shoveled into to CA’s prop 8. And what of the govt’s position? Why is it they they trust themselves with all this information that an elite is making fortunes on but it’s then not part of the public record in any meaningful details, but not even be sure themselves unless others pointed it out to them? And this at the time when the govt showed no interest or understanding what the robber barons were doing.
I want to know what everyone who tells us what we need to do with our money tell us what they’re doing with their money (and Pelosi and Feinstein and Reid et al can follow suit).
The power to tax is the power to destroy, but even though that is supposed to work both ways, seems only one part of the spectrum is being destroyed.
Linda Featheringill
@Amir Khalid:
LOL!
Linda Featheringill
Axelrod, of course, doesn’t confide in me and doesn’t ask me for advice. However, given the complexity of SOB and the Ryan budget, I’d rather see Team Obama tackle the granny-starver issue.
I think that so many Republicans at so many levels have signed on to Ryan’s plan and they may be vulnerable if that poison can be revealed for what it is.
The SOB attack would be aimed at basically one person, Mitt. The Granny-Starver issue would be aimed at many bad people, at many different levels of government.
ETA:
I think that Team Obama would be successful in fully explaining only one of those issues because of the complexities involved. They don’t have time to tackle both of them. So I would recommend the attack that damages as many Republicans as possible.
burnspbesq
You missed the real money quote.
Mitt signed off on the tax provision that went into financial statements that were materially misleading as to Marriott’s current and potential future tax liabilities. There’s a pattern here: a pattern of willful disregard for his obligations under the securities laws.
4tehlulz
I have a prediction! At the convention, Mitt will accuse Obama of doing 9/11.
Honestly, they are running out of things to go with.
burnspbesq
@Dr. Squid:
Wrong on more levels than anyone can count.
Violet
@Legalize:
That’s exactly what I’ve been saying was going to happen. The horse race narrative wasn’t working. It’s boring and it’s bringing no ratings. “Have the Republicans nominated a crook?” is a much more compelling story. One of the MSM figures will be the first to pick up on it. May not happen until after the convention (the “have nominated” part) or they may realize that Republican convention chaos will bring bigger ratings and decide they want to nudge that along. We’ll see.
Villago Delenda Est
Everyone screams about “welfare cheats”, but vermin like Rmoney are true parasites. They want all the benefits of civilization, but don’t want to pay for them. They want to suck off the rest of us.
There’s only one way to deal with these sorts of parasites.
Eradicate them.
...now I try to be amused
It’s looking like Mitt’s real claim to fame will be that he was on the cutting edge of devising ways to game the system. How convenient that the GOP will nominate the poster boy for the 0.1% and thus provide many teachable moments for the President.
Greg
@Linda Featheringill:
I agree with you, Linda, but I think the Obama campaign should wait for Romney’s VP pick and cross their fingers hoping that Ryan gets the nod (which would be a huge bonus in bringing up this issue) before they start their educating.
patrick II
Part of Mitt’s response is that he always paid the legally required amount of taxes. Maybe. But the question for someone running for president is not just whether he complied with current tax law, but what that law should be. If Mitt paid near zero income taxes in any year, is that the sort of tax law he supports? Is hiding millions in an IRA ok? Would he change anything to make sure multimillionaires pay reasonable income tax?
The answer for me is I think not. Mitt thinks that somehow making a few people rich is the key to an orderly world where the right people are in charge. Taxes are burdens that stop rich guys like him from whatever they want, which they assume is the way the world should work.
Origuy
OT, but with all this talk about tax cheats, some laughs are called for: SarcasticRover on Twitter
MikeJ
@LanceThruster:
My guess is that God only gets his vig on earned income, not on cap gains.
MikeJ
@LanceThruster:
My guess is that God only gets his vig on earned income, not on cap gains.
Johnk
I use Mercury on my IPad and no loner use Safari.
TK-421
I want to know what Kevin Drum thinks. His expert opinion on taxes is super important to me.
Johnk
I use Mercury on my IPad and no loner use Safari.
Turgidson
@TK-421:
Why aren’t you at your post???
Amir Khalid
@Dr. Squid:
As a non-lawyer, I had no trouble whatsoever understanding the article. The writers got the main thing right: clearly explaining the Son of Boss tax dodge, Mitt’s prominent role in working that dodge as a Mariott board member, and what that says about Mitt and taxes. The prose does have a lawyerly tone to it, entirely appropriate because it was written by tax-law experts — and not, as you say, “peckerwood lawyers”.
Amir Khalid
@Dr. Squid:
As a non-lawyer, I had no trouble whatsoever understanding the article. The writers got the main thing right: clearly explaining the Son of Boss tax dodge, Mitt’s prominent role in working that dodge as a Mariott board member, and what that says about Mitt and taxes. The prose does have a lawyerly tone to it, entirely appropriate because it was written by tax-law experts — and not, as you say, “peckerwood lawyers”.
Amir Khalid
@Dr. Squid:
As a non-lawyer, I had no trouble whatsoever understanding the article. The writers got the main thing right: clearly explaining the Son of Boss tax dodge, Mitt’s prominent role in working that dodge as a Mariott board member, and what that says about Mitt and taxes. The prose does have a lawyerly tone to it, entirely appropriate because it was written by tax-law experts — and not, as you say, “peckerwood lawyers”.
Linda Featheringill
Only slightly OT:
I understand why the ad “Understands” is necessary.
From a commenter on dkos:
“Understands”, with its gut-wrenching poignancy, paves the way for discussion of the Ryan budget.
Dr. Squid
@burnspbesq: Too bad. Most people aren’t paid by the syllable to write. I got through, “Did he augment his wealth through highly aggressive tax stratagems of questionable validity?” and said “Fuck you, asshole,” and didn’t bother reading the rest while coming up with, “Did he cheat the tax system?”
Tell me how I’m wrong instead of snivelling that your profession got criticized.
Amir Khalid
Fuck you, Celcom Broadband, for causing that triple-post.
PZ
In news that will shock no one, Ed Kilgore is on Team Drum-
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_08/making_stuff_up039100.php
Beginning to think the only really good blogger to come out of the Monthly was Steve Benen…
Yuppers
Um, Safari renders it fine – at least for me on two different computers, an iPhone, and an iPad. Don’t make excuses!
Catsy
@Linda Featheringill:
No offense, but I’m glad in that case that they’re not asking for your advice, because the Obama campaign is fully capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.
The complexity of these issues (at least one of which can actually be summed up pretty easily) does not preclude their both being used effectively. Multiple lines of attack to undermine Mitt’s credibility reach different parts of the electorate, and over time have a synergistic effect: they contribute to the overall sense of Romney being untrustworthy even if someone isn’t paying close attention to all of the attacks.
Finally, while the Ryan plan is indeed toxic to any Republican who embraces it (or voted for it), anything that hurts Romney can still affect downticket races. If Romney himself becomes toxic, his “negative coattails” will drag down any Republican who doesn’t outright reject him.
Gypsy howell
One thing I just don’t understand about Romney. Clearly, making more money is the most important thing in his life. He has hundreds of millions already. Why is he putting himself through this just to be president? He could have lived out his days in extreme luxury, extracting ever more amounts of money from our corrupt system of crony capitalism, and no one would have given it any thought. He could have continued to do this under the radar, and ut of the public eye. Did he seriously believe that none of this would get out? I truly don’t understand his motivation for wanting to be president.
I’m actually glad he’s running, because at long last the real issues with our trickle-down economic system is starting to become part of the publics consciousness. Regular Americans are starting to find out just what it means to be fabulously wealthy, gaming the system and stealing from the middle class. This is an incredibly dangerous game for the super-elite to be playing, I just can’t believe they’re allowing it to happen. As long as the american public is completley snowed about how the system really works, they can continue to con us. Perhaps they are so secure in their wealth, that they do not fear rubbing all our noses in it.
I do wonder if he will make it through the convention. Is it even possible that the delegates (or really, the powers that be in the republican party) would end up selecting someone else? My greatest fear is that out of nowhere, JEB! (with Liz Cheney as his VP?) will be the nominee. I hope the Obama team is ready for any eventuality.
Or am I nuts for even thinking this could happen?
Arclite
Serves you right for using Apple stuff!
Calouste
@Violet:
Joe Kline yesterday said:
It’s slowly taking hold.
Catsy
@PZ: Argh. FSM save the Democratic party from “centrists”.
There are three possibilities in the whole Reid dustup: 1) Reid is lying, 2) Reid is telling the truth but Reid’s source is lying to him, or 3) Reid’s source is telling the truth.
The first of those three is the only one in which the question of whether it’s okay to make shit up even applies to Reid at all. And on that point, assuming arguendo that Reid is bullshitting, I have yet to see anyone tackle the most critical difference between Reid’s lie and the relentless dishonesty of wingnuts: the objective of doing so. What are they trying to make happen?
When wingnuts lie, they are trying to make voters believe something that is not true. They are spreading deliberate misinformation intended to deceive. Whether or not it can be disproved is beside the point, because they don’t care what the truth really is–they just want people to believe the lie. The lie itself, and making the public believe that lie, is the entire point.
What Reid would be doing is different in a very important way. The lie isn’t the point–it’s a rhetorical tactic being used as leverage to force Romney to tell the truth. Romney refuses to release his tax returns, so the gambit here is to make a statement that Romney can only disprove by doing so. Far from being indifferent to the truth or wanting the public to be misinformed, the entire goal is to put pressure on Romney to tell the country the truth. If Romney releases evidence that disproves the lie, that isn’t an annoyance to be ignored–it’s the whole purpose of the exercise.
These are very, very different things with very different ethical weights. Equating them is just lazy faux-centrism.
Turgidson
@Calouste:
Thank fucking god for that. I don’t expect the media to give Mitt nearly the amount of shit he deserves for his pathological dishonesty, but the fact that conventional wisdom dipshits like Joke Line are catching on is a welcome relief.
Mittens could have probably largely avoided this if he’d just released his taxes way back in the early stage of the primaries and put up a tire swing for the media to enjoy. Then they’d give him all the room he needs to run an anti-truth campaign without consequence. Oh well, sucks for him.
rachel
Romney really is the perfect candidate for the Taxed Enough Already party if he will only make the direct appeal to them.
Romney: Behold my returns! Look and admire them, for I paid bubkes for support of moochers and looters and our money-wasting government.
TEAbaggers: Teach us, oh master!
(Of course, the rest of the country, 1% aside, will say “Fuck you, you fucking fuck!”, so he can’t admit to this achievement.)
Calouste
@Gypsy howell:
Along the lines of your post, I am absolutely convinced that Romney is never going to release his tax returns. The way the superrich can legally game the system would be all out there in broad daylight, and people like Adelson and the Koch Brothers would risk losing Billions if that would lead to tax reform. I’m also fairly sure that if the tax returns would become public from another source, Romney would be made to drop out of the race the same day, on something unrelated to his tax rate (Planned Parenthood donations, investments in Iran, LDS tithing etc), just to move the attention from the tax rate.
scav
@Dr. Squid: Given that so many others can apparently not only read and understand it, but are not threatened by it, perhaps your natural linguistic peers are standing around with Moran signs.
japa21
@Gypsy howell: A couple reasons jump to mind:
1. Power. It is part of his ego and maybe the only thing that he hasn’t achieved that he wants to achieve.
2. Create ways to make even more money. After all, he isn’t in the Koh Brothers category yet.
3. To show his old man up.
burnspbesq
@Dr. Squid:
Outsourced to Malaysia. Amir got it exactly right.
Violet
@Calouste: Interesting. Thanks for the link. I think it’s a bit like a big ship. It’s turning, but it’ll take time. Articles like this by a Villager with Status are signs that the turn is happening.
I don’t think Villagers can comprehend that the Republicans won’t/can’t nominate Romney or that even if they do, he’ll be asked to step aside. I just don’t think they believe it’s possible. So they’ll start with the “he’s the worst candidate ever” lines of thought and eventually move to “Can the Republicans afford to keep Romney?”
Popcorn!
Amir Khalid
@Gypsy howell:
There are three theories, if I recall:
— Mitt has daddy issues, i.e. he means to make up for George’s failure in 1968 (and maybe one-up the old man);
— Mitt has the Oval Office on his bucket list;
and
— Mitt figures he’s the Mormon president foretold in the White Horse prophecy. Mitt claims not to take the prophecy seriously, but who knows if that’s true.
Also, if the party had to boot Mitt off the ticket, it would almost certainly be in severe disarray — from the abject failure of its primary process that forced such a decision, and probably from open conflict between moneybaggers and Teabaggers as well. It would be in no state to contest the November elections for the House and Senate, either. Whoever then accepts the nomination will be volunteering to fall on a grenade: certain defeat to Obama, and political oblivion thereafter.
rikyrah
I used to not believe that he was on the 2009 amnesty list.
now, I believe he is, and it’s because of Marriot.
I love how they phrase things when it comes to rich people….the IRS found the Marriot shelters ’ unacceptable’.
UNACCEPTABLE?
G-T-F-O-H
they found them ILLEGAL.
ILLEGAL
ILLEGAL
so, if Willard would have no problem with ILLEGALITY with regards to Marriot….
why is it a big leap to believe that he’d have ILLEGALITY with regards to his OWN MONEY.
also, the IRS itself said that the only people with money in the Caymans are:
1. tax cheats
2. criminals
3. terrorists
you remember the phrase your parent’s told you:
you are the company you keep.
Willard’s money is the company it keeps.
Remember his answer about the foreign accounts and why he still had them – it was, well, that’s how foreigners invest in America and avoid paying taxes to America. I thought that was very revealing indeed.
there’s gold in those tax returns.
Turgidson
@Amir Khalid:
Maybe they can offer it to Ron Paul in that case. Satiate the Paultards, who probably think ol Ron will sail to a win because the whole country secretly agrees with him about everything but doesn’t realize it because he’s been so unfairly ignored. Then when he gets his ass kicked, the world can go back to ignoring the humbled Paultards for another generation or two. Which is how the establishment of the GOP prefers it, even if they do need to cater to those elements now and again.
bemused
Was Mitt able to get in on the tax amnesty thing? There has been so much to read about Mitt’s tax evasion, I can’t keep up.
Dr. Squid
@scav: I can understand it just fine, dipshit. Somehow it’s just too politically incorrect to say that I’m put off by that writing style. I suppose they got their point across (that’s right, it took two lawyers to create that bit of bad writing) if their point was, “I’m a lawyer and you’re not.” If it were, “Mitt Romney may have cheated on his taxes,” they failed. Yet you all change the subject to lawyers’ tender feefees.
If there was anything I learned at Purdue, it’s not to write self-congratulating wankery like that.
les
Well, the Mittster is on the horns of a dilemma here–if he paid no taxes, or close to it, is he a) a MOTU to be praised for cleverly and courageously stiffing the jack booted IRS, or b) one of the umpty-umpty percent of the looters and moochers who don’t pay any income tax!! Can’t be mixing up the 1% with the lower orders.
Dr. Squid
@burnspbesq: Right. Not just a lawyer, but a lazy lawyer with sensitive feefees, who can’t be bothered to defend obvious wanking.
iLarynx
@Yuppers:
Safari renders it fine
Same here on a Mac running OSX 10.6.8, as well as on an iPad running IOS 5.1.1, in addition to an old (c. ~2008) iPod Touch running IOS 4.2.1.
Would appear to be less of a Safari issue than a bifocals issue.
Kay
@Dr. Squid:
I liked it because I think we need both things. I think we need Harry Reid acting a little maniacal and out of control (he’s practically cackling and rubbing his hands together, which, I confess, I enjoy) and then we need lawyerly finger-wagging on ethics.
One backs up the other. Take your pick.
Catsy
@Dr. Squid:
You’re not “wrong”, you’re just indulging in the kind of anti-intellectual idiocy so beloved on the right, idiocy in which having and using a big vocabulary is something of which one ought to be ashamed.
Unless you’re still in high school,when you’re reduced to whining that someone is using too many big words you’re pretty much conceding the argument in a way that says a lot more about you than it does them.Friendly pro tip: stop digging.