President Obama’s campaign manager Jim Messina has a good solution for ending the endless squabbling about Mitt Romney’s tax returns. Since Romney has already released his 2010 tax return, if he will just release his tax returns for 2007-2009, in addition to his promised release of 2011, he will have covered the entire period that he has been running for president. The Obama administration promises that they will be satisfied with that amount of disclosure and, additionally, promises not to complain in any forum that Romney did not release more. Here’s the letter Messina sent to the Romney campaign:
Letter from Jim Messina to Matt Rhoades
August 17, 2012Matt Rhoades
585 Commercial Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02109Dear Matt:
I am writing to ask again that the Governor release multiple years of tax returns, but also to make an offer that should address his concerns about the additional disclosures. Governor Romney apparently fears that the more he offers, the more our campaign will demand that he provide. So I am prepared to provide assurances on just that point: if the Governor will release five years of returns, I commit in turn that we will not criticize him for not releasing more–neither in ads nor in other public communications or commentary for the rest of the campaign.
This request for the release of five years, covering the complete returns for 2007-2012, is surely not unreasonable. Other Presidential candidates have released more, including the Governor’s father who provided 12 years of returns. In the Governor’s case, a five year release would appropriately span all the years that he has been a candidate for President. It would also help answer outstanding questions raised by the one return he has released to date, such as the range in the effective rates paid, the foreign accounts maintained, the foreign investments made, and the types of tax shelters used.
To provide these five years, the Governor would have to release only three more sets of returns in addition to the 2010 return he has released and the 2011 return he has pledged to provide. And, I repeat, the Governor and his campaign can expect in return that we will refrain from questioning whether he has released enough or pressing for more.
I look forward to your reply.
Jim Messina
Obama for America Campaign Manager
This effectively takes away the “nothing is ever good enough” excuse. It’s also a direct challenge to Romney’s assertion yesterday that he went back and checked his taxes and that we should trust him that he paid at least a 13% effective tax rate every year for the last decade.
Calling the interest in his personal tax returns “small-minded” in light of the nation’s problems, Mr. Romney said that he had nonetheless examined the last 10 years of his personal tax returns after Democrats suggested that he might not have paid anything at all in some years.
“Every year, I’ve paid at least 13 percent,” he said, referring to his effective federal income tax rate, which is a higher effective rate than most people pay.
Mr. Romney’s decision to address the tax question on Thursday appeared to be an off-the-cuff attempt to put the nettlesome issue behind him once and for all. But at least initially, it had the opposite effect. Democrats seized on his comments to revive the issue and to once again demand proof of his claims by releasing multiple years of his tax returns.
“We would say: ‘Prove it, Governor Romney,’ ” said Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for President Obama.
Now, it should be remembered here that the stock market began to go wobbly in 2007 and completely collapsed in 2008 before beginning a gradual recovery in 2009. Someone with very little wage income who had a lot of investments could easily have had negative income in those years. And, it’s not hard to see that Romney might have paid effectively nothing in personal income taxes. But that’s the root of the allegation. And if there’s a good reason for that, it really shouldn’t be politically damaging. After all, if he lost money in those years, who expects him to pay taxes on negative income? On the other hand, he just said last night that the paid a 13% effective tax rate in those three years. To my small financial mind, that doesn’t make any sense. Why would he pay 13% in 2010, which was a good year on Wall Street and pay the same or more in 2007-2009 which were bad years on Wall Street?
I think Romney is lying. Obviously, the Obama administration thinks Romney is lying. Now he has a chance to prove he’s telling the truth and get a promise in return that no one from the Obama campaign will ask for any more tax returns. Seems like a good deal if he doesn’t have anything to hide.
