Originally Posted by spence
I'm not sure Harry Reid has that significant of a fortune so to speak. Pelosi is certainly loaded by comparison, although still nothing close to Romney.
Harry Reid has far more than most of us and his position in Congress has helped him acquire it. Pelosi's husband heads Financial Leasing Services, Inc., a venture capital and real estate firm. Seeing as how venture capitalists are painted as highly secretive, tax scheming, financial vampires, shouldn't we get detailed tax returns included in her financial disclosures? And it is Congress that legislates tax policies, so congressional disclosures should be as detailed as presidential disclosures. Congress has more control of tax policies than the President, and can gain as much, or more, from their legislation than the President.
The congressional disclosure might not be as clear as a tax return, but it does give a pretty good picture of where interests may lie. By contrast Romney is pretty much tight lipped saying his hundreds of millions are all in blind trusts. Go away, nothing to see here...
Craig Holman, a gvt. affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen, a non-partisan watch dog group said "Senior public officials, especially members of Congress and presidential candidates, should be required to disclose their tax returns so that the public can monitor conflicts of interest." Congress has the power to legislate against "secret" tax shelters, and had it completely during Obama's first two years, but did no such thing. And it controls what members must financially disclose, but when it comes to tax returns, Congress is "tight lipped." Could it be that disclosures and restrictions would impede the personal gains of its members, who control tax policies? Yes.
Tax returns reveal assets and investments in a way congressional financial disclosures don't. Those disclosures offer no direct information on tax liabilities and no requirement for reporting spousal income other than the source, but not the amount of any income over $1,000. When it comes to valuation of investments or reporting income on the annual disclosure forms, only broad numbers such as between $250,000 and $500,000, or $1 million and $5 million, which makes it difficult to know how much a lawmaker will benefit from competing tax plans. Darrel West, a vice president of left leaning Brooking Institution, said that congressional financial disclosures don't provide the same level of detail as a tax return--which makes it difficult to determine how politicians will benefit from tax policies.
In a McClatchy investigation, only 17 of Congress's members gave their tax returns. The reporters requested returns, anonymously, to examine in detail how members would personally be affected by changes in tax laws, including income tax rates as well as capital gains and dividends and deductions for expenses. Most, including Pelosi, Reid, and Wasserman, the loudest callers for Romney's returns, chose to keep their tax liabilities a secret. Of the meager 17 who disclosed, most got large deductions for interest on personal and investment real estate.
It's interesting as well he says he's said in the past that disclosing his returns isn't fair as it would show his tithing which is intended to be private, but yet he has disclosed some. So why not the others?
Romney already has disclosed more tax returns than members of Congress who never had to disclose ANY, certainly not 10 years worth, when they ran for office, and only disclose annual disclosures which don't offer the detail necessary for voters to know how tax policies affect them. Detailed spousal incomes are not reported, and some have investments offshore, including Bermuda in which a Romney investment has been criticized.
This really has nothing to do with privacy and everything to do with politics. Romney has largely built his fortune using tax schemes that even if legal are a prime example of the elite playing by a different set of rules than everybody else. Taxes are a big issue this election and under the GOP plan Romney would likely end up paying even LESS in a disproportionately dramatic manner.
Exactly. Privacy is OK for some, but not others. It has everything to do with politics. Somehow, we are to believe that how Romney made his fortune will color how he operates as President. But that does not apply to members of Congress. They will, somehow, legislate for our benefit, whatever they define that to be, but Romney will line his pockets. Pelosi, Reid, Wasserman, et. al., will maintain their privacy and try to deny Romney's so that it will not be shown that they are "guilty" of some of the same things with which they wish to hammer him. I will give the congress persons the benefit of the doubt and assume that none of them has done anything illegal, but merely taken advantage of rules they created. Those are the same rules Romney followed.
The Founders were wealthy, and to a great extent on the basis of not being burdened with taxes. Yet we consider Washington to be our greatest President. How would he fair in today's political climate? Comparatively speaking, he was far wealthier than Romney. Did his wealth or tax evasion cause him to be a bad/unworthy/evil destroyer of the middle class for his own gain? Haven't most Presidents been wealthy? Do we assume that they sought the office to secure even more wealth? Didn't we once assume that wealthy candidates would be more trustworthy than poor ones, since they didn't need the money?
Romney made his under rules that he didn't create, and rules that Congress legislated, much to their own benefit. Are Congressional members in it for the money? Should we know all the details of their finances? Do you really believe that Romney cares that much about more wealth that he will risk his presidency by s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g more wealth from the middle class? Could it be that if indeed, Ryan's plan will allow him to pay even less taxes (Reid Claims he doesn't pay any now, how much less can you get) it would allow the economy to grow so that all will benefit?
If voters are going to make a decision based largely on trust, I'd like to see pretty much everything on the table.
-spence
|