The Romney Campaign's Brilliant Dodge on his Tax Returns

[KurtNYC]

2 weeks ago they were all demanding that Harry Reid apologize for saying that Romney paid ZERO dollars for 10 years. Romney and his minions pretended like Reid had no source for this claim when they demanded that he name his source. They tried to pretend like the claim had no basis and was reckless. Reid, of course, had already said that his source was a Bain investor with inside knowledge.

Romney and Rove were searching for a strategy to deal with this. Now it seems they have found one: say Mitt paid 13%. Bill Kristol, the NY Times, The Christian Science Monitor and others are now front and center debating whether 13% is enough. Bill Kristol called 13% "weird" as he advances the notion that it is true.

It has worked brilliantly so far. We have mostly stopped saying that Romney paid 0% for ten years and have taken this bait and now debate 13% as if it was fact. Romney moved conventional wisdom from zero to 13% without presenting one page of returns. No evidence at all. It has worked just as well as them repeating that Romney is releasing 2 years of returns when Romney has not released even one complete year.

But this analysis from the Guardian is still on the mark:

Many (many, many, many, many, many) theories have been advanced to explain why Romney keeps refusing to produce any returns prior to 2010, ranging from "voters might learn he's wealthy" (which voters already know) to "he underpaid his church tithe" (doubtful).

None of them is really satisfactory, because none of them posits Romney concealing any facts more harmful than the blowback he is getting for not producing more returns. The problem may be that all of the prominent theories (with a couple of under-noticed exceptions) assume Romney is trying to conceal facts about his finances. Like the purloined letter pinned prominently in plain sight, what Romney's really hiding might be something more mundane: the home address written on the top of the tax form. That address that might reveal a connection between the "tax returns" brouhaha and the "voter fraud" fizzle – which may be the strongest explanation of all. Here's why...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/17/mitt-romney-tax-returns-voter-fraud-theory?newsfeed=true

In conventional wisdom, Romney went from paying zero to allegedly paying 13% and has us all debating that rate now which makes it seem 1) like it is true and , 2) like that was the point of asking for the returns. We are like a fish who sees the worm but not the hook and bites it while thinking 'stupid fisherman just lost himself a worm."

It is not about how much money Romney made or what rate he paid. Don't be fooled.

[1StrongBlackMan]

1. If I understand your post ...

you're opining that the gop shift to paying 13% is an out for them?

Question:

Which is the more powerful, far reaching, narrative ...

"Show us your tax filings"

"No!"

"What are you attempting to hide?"

or,

Show us your tax filings"

"No! But, I am paying 13% ... You'll just have to trust me."

"What are you attempting to hide? But okay, assuming that you ARE paying 13%, how do you justify that when 99% of men and women, republican and Democrat, including your VP pick, work long hard days and nights, and pay a far higher rates?

[KurtNYC]

4. they make it about the percentage and we go for it

which sets them up to release 2011 which will show 13% and then they say 'case closed.' It is a dodge.

Again, it is not about the percentage -- it is about voter fraud and perjury (since he signed the returns) at the very least.

Why did a guy worth $250 mil live in his son's basement in Belmont, Massachusetts as it says on his 2010 returns? He didn't; it's fraud.

[cleduc]

2. Would you like Romney to withdraw before the GOP convention?

I sure wouldn't.

It's 'AKin' to where McCaskell is. I think she's much better off if Akin stays in the election or withdraws after the deadline passes to replace him.

If Romney thinks this is the last of the tax return controversy, he's even dumber than I think he is.

I think the Obama campaign has at least two very strong cards to play. And they'll probably lob a couple of more volleys before doing so.

My guess on the "strong cards":
1. "Will you jointly appoint with us an independent 3rd party auditor to answer the following questions on your tax returns since you won't release them" (largely kills his concern about being attacked about all the details)
Here's the Obama campaign's seven questions
http://secure.assets.bostatic.com/pdfs/labolt-memo-tax/labolt-memo-tax.pdf

when he says no
2. "Will you release the Commissioner of the IRS to tell the American people if you received amnesty for taxes from the use of overseas tax shelters?"

if he says no to that, he's screwed and if he can't say yes, he's screwed.

Romney is not likely to ever release his tax returns but they can still inflict considerable political damage if he doesn't.

[Xyzse]

3. From what I understand all the OP is saying is that...

By saying "I have never paid less than 13% in taxes" Romney was able to deflect the burden of proof of showing his taxes.

Where, it is barely mentioned in the media now since the media has taken that as indication that the subject is done and swept under the rug. Which they are desperately trying to do.

Now, I don't agree with it, but what is being shown is that they are having an effect.

So, I would still demand for the tax returns as well as proof that he did leave Bain during the time he mentioned. The only way to do so is to show that he was not receiving a salary from Bain at the time.

I still want those answers, and I fear that they are dropping the ball as the discussion seems to have changed in the media.

[KurtNYC]

5. The 13% number is low enough to fuel this bogus debate

and when we say 13% is not high enough we fall into the trap -- we legitimize the 13% number with no evidence for it AND we bury the bigger problem for Mitt, this one:

[mgarr]

6. Romney's tax returns

Trust but Verify. Ronald Reagan was right.
Release the tax returns, Mr. Romney.

[ecstatic]

7. I noticed that. His lack of transparency

is very offensive to me. I don't care what the hell it says, if we ask for it, he should provide it!

[grasswire]

8. Rove has used this tactic multiple times

It's called a "limited hangout" -- if you can insert a specific into the public conversation then it becomes fixed in the public's mind. So if you plant a less damaging specific, that's called a "limited hangout."

[KurtNYC]

9. That fits.

I wonder if it is a British term because "hangout" has a somewhat different meaning in American English. I think Americans would coin this tactic as "partial revelation." I see that saying something is a "one time incident" is a version of this tactic and that is used very frequently.

Limited Hangout...a form of propaganda that is used to reduce backlash against an immoral or would-be illegal act (usually considered a cover-up), by making it seem like the perpetrators have come clean about their role, while still keeping important details hidden.

http://wideshut.co.uk/glossary/limited-hangout/