Plan B Forum

I guess this was supposed to be this month's shiny object to divert attention from the rise in the unemployment rate:

Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) didn't back down Wednesday from his accusation, made in an interview with The Huffington Post, that he heard that Mitt Romney didn't pay taxes for a decade.

"I am not basing this on some figment of my imagination," he told Nevada reporters on a conference call, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. "I have had a number of people tell me that." He declined to name his source.

"I don't think the burden should be on me," he said. "The burden should be on him. He's the one I've alleged has not paid any taxes. Why didn't he release his tax returns?"[ Yeah, like when a person alleges that someone beats his wife without any proof, it's up to the accused to prove he didn't and if he doesn't, we should assume it's true... ]
Reid originally made the charge in an little noticed speech on the Senate floor in mid-July, but when he repeated it in a recent interview with HuffPost, it provoked a firestorm of controversy

He said a person who invested with Bain Capital called his office. "Harry, he didn't pay any taxes for 10 years," Reid said the unnamed investor told him.

"He didn't pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that's true? Well, I'm not certain," he said. "But obviously he can't release those tax returns. How would it look?"

"You guys have said his wealth is $250 million," he said. "Not a chance in the world. It's a lot more than that. I mean, you do pretty well if you don't pay taxes for 10 years when you're making millions and millions of dollars."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/0 ... 31371.html

Reid is an unprincipled slimebag and has been for years, so there's nothing particularly surprising about this. What does surprise me however is why Team Obama hasn't told him to knock it off....

I'm surprised they haven't told him to knock it off not because they have any moral compunction about slimebag behavior, (I once again just this morning saw former Obama press secretary and current senior campaign operative Robert Gibbs give the answer "we don't know" when CNN's Candy Crowley said, "You're not saying Governor Romney has done anything illegal, are you; there's no evidence of that" ) but because by now it should be obvious to them that this tact is blowing up in their faces and having the exact opposite effect of what was intended.

They had Romney on the defensive to a certain extent over the tax return release thing, but they've blown that with Reid coming out making, (and repeating) this unsubstantiated specific charge that "Romney paid no taxes for 10 years."....

This has been too much for even most of their sympathizers in the media to stomach. This tactic has shifted the focus from Romney to Reid, and achieved what one would have thought impossible; making Romney look like a victim on the tax release issue.

Anderson Cooper excoriated Reid and Team Obama over this repeatedly last week, making multiple Obama Spinmeisters look ridiculous trying to defend it. (He really made the usually relatively sane Demo operative Paul Begala squirm and look foolish) most of the other coverage from the generally pro-Obama mainstream media has similarly focused on Reid and the fact that his charge is completely unsubstantiated, rather than Romney's refusal to release more returns. (Except for the completely shameless syncophants on MSNBC of course)

I have long thought that the pressure might get substantial enough on Romney at some point that he would release more returns. I'm no longer so sure about that. Now, instead of having to act defensively about it, every time he get's a question on the subject he can turn it back on Reid to "put up or shut up."

Of course it could be that the Obama campaign figures that even having the press talking about Harry Reid's sleazy attacks is preferable to having them focusing on the latest economic news....

Thanks for the heads-up, my Lordship. Here I am a lifelong Democrat and Harry's gaff has probably sucked me in to the dark side. I don't want to do it but after careful deliberation I may very well vote for Romney next year.

Besides, I always enjoy it when Romney takes a vacation outside of the USA so he can visit all of his money. The architect for the ACA no doubt deserves a second look by me. What a guy.

The 'scum factor' is a lot higher for the person cheating on his taxes than it is for the person pointing it out.

Reid is probably right in general if wrong in detail. Mitty has definitely fudged the tax law to avoid paying income taxes on many millions of dollars and this is the reason he won't release his prior year's tax returns. He knows that what he did was wrong, big wrong, and even if it is allowed under the law, it is immoral and the average person will see it as cheating.

According to the WSJ and Reuters Mitt has a 401k with ca $100,000,000 in it. That kind of number is impossible to achieve if you are putting in the 401K employee limit of $16,500 /yr ($22,500/ yr for those over 50 years old) for 20 years.

Using a simple calculation of growth:

$16,500 yr and a 10% annual return every year = $1,056,041

$16,500 yr and a 20% annual return every year = $3,712,922 Even a gross over-estimation of return does not get us close to $100M

$22,500 yr and a 10% annual return every year = $1,440,056

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/ ... 4E20120124
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/2 ... -his-401-k
http://open.salon.com/blog/steve_klinga ... em_at_bain

There are various theories in the above articles about how this is possible within the law, several mentioned transferring assets which are arbitrarily undervalued into the fund so that you can realize the total as a tax-free asset. One method none of them mentioned (which surprises me) is that he can take up to 100% of his Bain partnership income as deferred income into a 401K-like instrument although the money remains an at-risk asset of the partnership which can be taken to pay partnership liabilities.


Some background info.

http://www.tuc.org.uk/extras/peguide.pdf


Mitty's father released something like 10 years worth of tax returns? His father was not a liar or a tax cheat.

yrs,
rubato

Well Ray, the fact is that from the campaigns' standpoint, the election isn't about you.....

And it isn't about me....

It's about that 6-8 per cent of the electorate that haven't made a firm decision, and could be persuaded to vote either way....As evenly as the country is split, it is those voters who are going to decide this race, and both sides know it....

The Romney strategy for appealing to this vote is pretty simple; hammer away ceaselessly at the condition of the economy and try to get as high a percentage of that vote as possible to conclude that Obama isn't succeeding, and that Romney should be given a chance....

The Obama strategy for appealing to this vote is more complicated, because they don't have a single over-arching issue (like the lousy state of the economy) to use as an appeal....

Team Obama has to try and chip off bits of this vote to their side by throwing a whole bunch of stuff against the wall and hoping that enough different things will stick with enough different folks to cobble together a majority of this vote to decide that they dislike Romney so much that they will over-look the state of the economy and vote to give Obama another chance. (Romney, on the other hand, doesn't really need to get the undecided voters to decide they "dislike" Obama; he just needs them to decide that he hasn't succeeded.)

So, given this strategy, it is extremely unhelpful when one of the key elements that you're throwing against the wall (ie , "Romney must be up to something or he'd release more tax returns") gets diffused by someone in your camp doing what Reid has pulled.

The 'scum factor' is a lot higher for the person cheating on his taxes than it is for the person pointing it out.

Actually, the "scum factor" is highest for those like Reid and yourself who would accuse someone of cheating on their taxes with absolutely no proof.

The average person will have no problem understanding that.

BTW, this claim that the Obama smearsters have been making about how "nobody knows" if Romney has been cheating on his taxes is pure bullshit. People who make the kind of money Romney does are audited every single year as a matter of SOP, and apparently the IRS is perfectly well satisfied with whatever he has been paying in taxes.

And Mitt Romney could wipe Harry Reid off the plate by simply releasing his tax returns.

George Romney released 12 years of tax returns when he ran for President. And Mitt Romney challenged Ted Kennedy back in 1994 to release his tax returns to show he had nothing to hide. He did the same thing again in 2002 when campaigning against Shannon O'Brien.

$100,000,000 in a 401k is 'absolutely no proof'?

You didn't read anything did you?

yrs,
rubato

Lord Jim wrote: Actually, the "scum factor" is highest for those like Reid and yourself who would accuse someone of cheating on their taxes with absolutely no proof.

I haven't followed this much because it seems just like a bunch of politics as usual - but I didn't see anywhere where Reid accused Romney of cheating on his taxes. He only claims that he was told that Mister Mittster did not pay taxes for ten years.

... that 6% to 8%.

Lord Jim wrote:Well Ray, the fact is that from the campaigns' standpoint, the election isn't about you..... And it isn't about me....
It's about that 6-8 per cent of the electorate that haven't made a firm decision, and could be persuaded to vote either way....As evenly as the country is split, it is those voters who are going to decide this race, and both sides know it....

At this point anyone who doesn't know how they are voting in November is either brain dead, or just plain dead... period. I'm guessing a good bit of that 6-8% of the electorate that you allude to are made up of the former, very few of the latter. They are convinced that "Moderate Mitt" is a godless Mormon, and just as convinced that Obama is a godless Muslim. "Mormon, Muslim; Muslim, Mormon, let's call the whole (election) thing off." The one thing both sides do know is that no matter what, there's no appeasing this "God, guns, and glory" crowd so they know enough not to waste too many resources on them.

Don't be surprised if Ron Paul decides to thumb his nose at the Repug party and run as an Independent for no other reason than being a spoiler. He's just the right megalomaniac for the job and history shows us he's good at it. If that happens you can say goodbye to that 6-8% who would do everything short of squandering their vote. This election, in fact, hinges on all those who already know what lever they're pulling so it all comes down to getting as much of the smart vote out and to the polls. The campaign trail is for the benefit of the press, not for the candidates.

Truth be told, even the most stalwart, and most staunchest of Republicans is saying to themselves, "anything but Romney... the architect of ObamaCare."

Romney/Toomey... 2016

I haven't followed this much because it seems just like a bunch of politics as usual - but I didn't see anywhere where Reid accused Romney of cheating on his taxes.

You're right Joe...

I made the mistake of accepting rube's characterization; something one should never do because, (as in this case) 99 times out of 100 it will be wrong....

Rube is the only one scummy enough to have accused Romney of actually cheating on his taxes; not even scummy Reid went that far....(though a number of Obama flacks like Gibbs and Axlerod have clearly attempted to deliberately plant the idea that Romney may have cheated on his taxes with their "we don't know" answer whenever the question is asked...when they know damn well that Romney has filed and paid his taxes every year to the satisfaction of the IRS)

And Mitt Romney could wipe Harry Reid off the plate by simply releasing his tax returns.

Grim, if Mitch McConnell went on the Senate floor and said, "I have heard from a reliable source that President Obama is a meth addict" would you suggest that Obama "wipe Mitch McConnell off the plate by simply taking a drug test and releasing the results"?

Maybe you would, but I suspect that more likely you would say that it was up to McConnell to prove his accusation or STFU....(That's certainly what I would say.)

I used to think that Romney should release more returns, but given the blatantly sleazy tactics that Team Obama has resorted to in order to try to force him to do this, I'm beginning to think that he could look better and score more political points by standing up to them than by caving.

Accusing President Obama of doing drugs would be a completely off the wall claim, especially since President Obama doesn't have a past history of hiding drug tests while demanding that his opponents show theirs.

But you are right, Mr. Reid has overstepped things a bit and now Mr. Romney can act more defensively. But he could still end things decisively by releasing his tax returns.


And speaking of sleazy tactics, Mitt Romney accused President Obama of using a lawsuit to block military voters. Except the lawsuit would have absolutely zero impact on military voters and would in fact increase the amount of time all Ohioans have to vote.

I am certainly never going to try and claim that Romney hasn't used cynical and/or duplicitous tactics himself over the years...I've made no secret of the fact that the guy has never been at or near the top my list of most desirable Presidential candidates....(As I've mentioned before, he has the distinction of being the only major GOP Presidential candidate in the 2008 election race that I didn't seriously consider supporting at one time or another...)

In fact one of my frustrations about this race is the fact that given the objective realities about the runaway number one issue in the race, the economy, (where unemployment is over 8% and and going higher) that even a slightly less flawed and more appealing candidate than Romney would be up by a fairly comfortable margin in the polls, rather than locked in a dead heat.

Given the state of the economy after four years of his Presidency, the GOP should be looking at winning this election by a margin similar to Obama's in 2008, but there's no way Romney, even if he manages to win, will achieve anything like that.

Don't be surprised if Ron Paul decides to thumb his nose at the Repug party and run as an Independent for no other reason than being a spoiler. He's just the right megalomaniac for the job and history shows us he's good at it.

That's really a practical impossibility at this point because too many deadlines have passed for getting on state ballots. Between Paul not jumping in when he could, no independent or third party effort by a "name" lefty, and the collapse of Americans Elect, just about the one thing we can be sure of this election cycle is that there will be no significant third party vote influencing the outcome.

I'm guessing a good bit of that 6-8% of the electorate that you allude to are made up of the former, very few of the latter. They are convinced that "Moderate Mitt" is a godless Mormon, and just as convinced that Obama is a godless Muslim.

The largest portion of this vote is made up of moderates and independents who largely voted for Obama the last time around because they weren't happy with Bush, but who have now been disappointed by the economy not turning around under Obama. (This group is to be distinguished from liberals who have been disappointed in Obama for not, in their view, being "liberal enough" but who would never consider voting for Romney)

These are people who like Obama personally, but have no great loyalty to him and no huge beef with Romney...they remain undecided because neither has closed the deal with them....they're not for the most part ideological; they're trying to sort out who they think will bring the best results.

These are the folks that this ad from the RNC (which I think may be the most cleverly constructed ad I've seen by anyone this election cycle) is designed to laser in on:

In the interest of being fair and balanced, here's a really well done ad from the Obama camp designed to appeal to that same group, (much better than that silly ad with Romney singing that they've been running into the ground.)

My downstairs neighbor, a nursing supervisor, is a registered Independent. For that very reason she apparently gets polled more than this moderate Democrat. She has told me that whenever she is asked how she is leaning she claims she's undecided and never quite sure how she's going to vote until just days before the election. However, she told me last month that she is voting for Obama again, not wanting to "change horses in mid stream."

I'm betting that she is a prime example as to how educated, independent voters will approach this election. Not divulging their party of choice is almost a game that Independent voters play during the final months leading up to the elections.

Obama will, in fact, eke out a win over Romney. I'm sure it will be close but not Supreme Court close. I guarantee it. So, write on and on, LJ, your long thought out reasoning and rationalization, backed up by all the "cut and pastes" of every blogger and newspaper article that agrees with you, should prove to be great therapy especially once found to be all for naught. I may respond a bit along the way but there's no way I'll be as prolific as you need to be. Carry on.

Obama will, in fact, eke out a win over Romney. I'm sure it will be close but not Supreme Court close.

Ray, if you read what I have been posting, that is in fact the scenario that I have been positing as the most likely for some time; in fact I said this to you, just a couple of months ago:

Ray, if Obama is re-elected I will be disappointed, but I will not be driven to madness or a catatonic state....

I am fully prepared for him to win; as a matter of fact, I would rate him about a 60%-40% favorite to win...

Despite all the problems he has, between Romney being a candidate with many weaknesses of his own, and the fact that he will have something like a billion dollars to spend trying to destroy Romney, (which is what he has to do to get re-elected; he obviously can't run on his record; even his top people know this.) and the power of the Presidency to a certain extent to be able to manipulate the news and the national dialog, at this point I think he has to be rated the favorite.

The totals for this election are going to look a lot more like 2004 than 2008.

There's nothing that's happened since then that would alter my views on that....

On the other hand, if I recall correctly, you have previously been predicting that Obama would win easily....

Nice to see you coming around to my point of view...

Romney/Toomey... 2016

I'm banking on Huckleberry running...

Jim--I agree wth you about the practical impossibility of viable third party candidates, but what, if any, effect do you think of those, like myself, who think "none of the above" is the only possible vote will have on the outcome? Those don't think things will change much regardless of which of these two candidate is elected and/or feel either candidate does not even begin to represent their point of view? I do think we will have a very sparse turnout for this election, but do you think that could favor either candidate? Ordinarily I would think that momentum would go to the challenger, but I'm really not certain here.

I always say "WILL", you always say "IF". You are purposefully setting yourself up for a whole bunch of wiggle room with that kind of language. You'll be able to claim that you called the election "way back when" with impunity. One again, you'll be 100% right which, of course, is nothing new. Show some spine and get behind a candidate and stick with with him. Otherwise, all your most brilliant tomes will be nothing more than the rantings of a crazy person. Hmm, "LJ"... I'm guessing the 'L' really stands for 'Limbaugh.'

So let the best incumbent win.


Romney/Bain Capital Management Committee... 2016

Romney/Bain Capital Management Committee... 2016

Now that's just silly...