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.
https:/twitter.com#!/PrestonCNN/status/236446948285116416
That was quick.
hilarious.
simply hilarious.
It’s an absolutely reasonable offer. Willard has been running for President since 2007….how come he can’t simply release the 2007-2012 returns?
because….
HE’S ON THAT AMNESTY LIST.
That’s why the 2010 return is INCOMPLETE..
The Wire creator/writer David Simon skewers Romney:
Read the rest here: Mitt Romney paid taxes at a rate of at least 13 percent. And he’s proud to say so.
Exactly. Thirteen percent… What the F**k?
Excellent. Offers common sense approach to keeping the Romney taxes at the forefront. After last night’s news of the Utah/Mass mixup where Mitt was forced to retroactively ‘fix’ his story by filing in Mass, erase any chance of Mitt’s ‘golden’ tax integrity being real.
Also enjoying the new question, is Romney covering up that he didn’t tithe the amount he claims?
It’s about time that the Right recognize that when a taxpayer pays his 29% when making $60,000 those taxes go towards defending this country and building our infrastructure. The difference Mitt doesn’t pay because of tax loopholes his lobbyists have created goes to the Caymans.
I found a poem in your second blockquote.
Small-Minded
By Mitt Romney
Every year I’ve paid,
At least,
Thirteen percent.
First, I want to commend you for saying “I think Romney is lying” as opposed to some people who were very quick to say “Reid is lying.”
My understanding is that under the tax code Reid could, in fact, see the returns in question. That would seem to tell me that Reid does know what is in those returns.
Oh, and isn’t it funny that after being tabbed for the VP spot, Ryan amended his financial disclosure forms to include significant income from some trust funds?
I think it’s funny. Saw in USA today “it’s not that uncommon to make a mistake” (my phrasing) – mistake of possible million??
Another example of why Republicans win and Democrats lose. The former fights to win. Democrats offer to play nice as soon as they have an advantage. Like offering to split the pot when the opposition is bust.
You draw a rejection, you get to talk about Romney not releasing his taxes all the way up to the election.
You get acceptance, you get five years of taxes to pick apart–and five years when he should have known he was under scrutiny.
Tell me exactly what “losing” looks like in this situation. Not continuing to talk about the key Romney character issue; he thinks he is beyond scrutiny, unlike ordinary people. And people have already picked up on that character issue because of it.
First it concedes that publicly releasing five years of tax returns is sufficient for a Presidential candidate. That means that going forward that becomes the new standard.
Second, the issue of Mitt’s tax return wasn’t going to disappear. He’s the one that has to go into his convention with this albatross around his neck — and many Republicans aren’t too happy about this situation either. Now they can boast that without doing anything the opposition has already caved on half of what they demanded and by mid-October that demand will be further reduced to two years and Mitt will release his 2011 filing. Tough to predict who will be able to boast about being the most reasonable at that point, but Republicans are more skilled at that than Democrats.
Third, negotiating with oneself isn’t smart.
I don’t understand how this could be viewed as caving, or even compromise. In my mind it’s an another stroke of political genius on the part of OFA. There is absolutely now way that Romney can respond to this invitation and win. Unless his tax returns are completely without blemish. And I think OFS feels like it’s a more than safe bet that this is not the case.
I think some folks believe that anything other than rude belligerence is caving.
Missed your comment(s) in the past few weeks that it was rudely belligerent to demand public release of Mitt’s tax returns for ten years.
When a debate is being won, why concede anything if it doesn’t score more points? If OFA thought they could get a point or two by trying to appear more reasonable, then merely pointing out that Obama had released his tax returns for seven years when he was running in 2008 would have done the job more effectively and not unilaterally have reduced the standard for GOP candidates to five.
There has long been zero risk to concluding that Mitt has something to hide in his 2009 tax return (otherwise with a posture of great magnanimity he would have released it months ago), but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t ugly or even worse stuff in one or more of his other tax returns.
I think you’re missing something. When you’re winning a debate, you also want to keep it going. Romney has to be hoping that if he just stonewalls on the tax returns, people will eventually stop talking them. Which they will unless there’s a new shiny object to refocus their attention.
By making such an extravagantly reasonable offer, I imagine the Obama team is hoping to put the focus back on Romney’s tax returns and make him look like even more of an asshole. It’s not like he was ever going to accept the offer anyway. (How could he? His party’s base woudl sooner make a deal with Josef Stalin than Barack Obama.)
How can you assert that the debate was over before OFA stepped in? Ann was out there repeating a version of “you people have seen all you’re going to get” and Mitt claiming only yesterday that “trust me, I paid 13%?” If Obama wanted to step in at this point while it was still hot, why not say, “Anyone can verify that I’ve paid 27% (or whatever it is) over the past X years.” No need to take anything away from Harry Reid’s claim wrt to Mitt’s taxes for the past ten years.
When will liberal ever get it that unilateral concessions with Republicans only emboldens them to take more? And that Americans give more points to those that hold firm than those that fold?
This is politics at its best. It is funny. Get a sense of humor.
It makes Romney look dishonest and a fool.
And…..the Romney campaign has already rejected the offer.
I’m not sure how to insert a video clip of Claude Raines saying “I’m shocked!” but that’s what belongs here.
Reminds one of Mark Penn, doesn’t it.
” 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?”
Although a lot of his income comes from long term capital gains, he also has a few million in dividends which are mostly taxed at the same favorable rate but can’t be offset by capital losses. So he most likely zeroed out his capital gains with losses for at least a year or two (since he had a large capital loss carryover coming into 2010) but he still would have had to pay taxes on his dividends and interest income, plus any speakers fees he had, net of his itemized deductions.
The bigger question, as many have noted, is why he feels like 13% is something to brag about.
Why does the NYT assume this:
He’s never actually said that.
I think someone in the Obama campaign has actually seen the tax returns and knows exactly what’s what, and I think there is one particular year, at least, that the Obama campaign wants all of us to see.
If I had to guess, I’d say it’s all related to Mitt’s off-shore accounts and either they want to show he got amnesty or that he’s paid more in taxes to other governments than the U.S. So maybe 2009?
So maybe they come back and say, okay, how about 3 years? Just go back one more year, Mitt, to 2009, and we’ll drop the whole thing. Then the game goes to “what’s in the 2009 taxes that Mitt won’t let us see?”, and more folks start digging and the whole thing comes out.
It would be irresponsible not to speculate.
I am hearing that he doesn’t want to release his returns, in part, because of the address he put on top of the return. That would certainly be a concern for the times he claimed to be living in his son’s unfinished basement in Massachusetts.
All the speculation about why he won’t release them is delightful.
Is there any suspicion by the Romney team that Reid or the Obama campaign may have access to the tax records and could at some point reveal them? I’ve wondered if Reid and Obama already know and have evidence (and many others suspect that’s the case, at least in the blogosphere). If that’s the case, wouldn’t R-team want to get out in front of that news? OR do they just don’t believe that’s possible?
My suspicion is that this is a big hint to Romney. The Hint is “Hi Mitt. I know EXACTLY whats in your returns. I KNOW the bad shit is in that 5 years. Or do I? You worried in case I leak them yet? Because if I do know whats in your tax returns, I have you by the balls and I can destroy you in a time of my choosing. Or maybe you are paranoid and I just HAPPENED to pick the right time period, hmm?”
Seriously, this is brilliant. Its keeping the pressure on while seeming totally reasonable.
Sorry but I think Romney is a crook – no deals for crooks – they go to jail. Romney has something to hide and is afraid of jail.
So now that the offer has been rejected, what’s the strategy going forward? Repeat the same offer all over the campaign trail (alá “Pass this jobs bill”), make a different offer, go back to the 10-years-no-taxes thing, or just pass it back to Harry Reid? because you know this has all been thoroughly gamed out in advance.
I’m also in the camp of others who notice how this offer strongly suggests that evidence of some sort is already in hand; and even if not, it still has a streak of psyops in it.
Slightly OT here, but does anyone else get the feeling that Ann Romney is going to be taking a quiet vacation by herself sometime soon? No snark, no sarcasm, dead serious, listening to her last round of “no tax returns for you!” she really comes across as someone in the early stages of some form of nervous exhaustion. I haven’t seen the video, but the audio clips of her speaking make her sound like something is more than a tiny bit off. Just curious if anyone else has noticed.
interesting. have not heard it, but will take a listen. she is definitely not First Lady material.
The next step is for Reid to release the name of the person who called his office – probably during the R convention, as was speculated before
correction – about releasing the name; someone here wrote that on a previous thread – Tarheel?
I’ve read somewhere that Anne is having a flareup of her multiple sclerosis brought on by the stress of the campaign. Could well be true; the disease does tend to flare up when the sufferer is under stress.
Maybe Mitt should consider his wife’s wellbeing and drop out of the race.
I was kinda wondering about the MS angle. I’ve heard it can accelerate under high stress, but have no idea what that might look like. At any rate, if I were Ann, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for Mitt to take my needs into account. He couldn’t even take an extra day or two to watch her horse dance at the Olympics.