Regarding Romney's Taxes

In the recent debates trailing candidates attempting to trip up the front runner asked/demanded that he release his tax returns and since then it has been a growing issue. Whether it is bored media looking for something to fill air time or supporters of other candidates, there has been a a lot of discussion of whether Gov. Romney should release his past tax returns. Romney in response has shifted his position from "nothing to see here" to briefly discussing his tax situation and saying he'll release the returns at a later date. My feelings on this issue are mixed. I am not a Romney supporter because based on considerable research by a couple people (Tom Blumer & Dan McLaughlin) whose opinions I've learned to trust he is not someone we can rely upon to do the right thing and moreover his main selling point of "most electable" is clearly a myth. However, I can not get on board with the "Release the Tax Records" line of attack for several reasons. Primarily, I'm opposed to this as it reeks of the leftist nonsense of demonize this guy because his returns show he's rich or they reveal that his accountants properly applied current law to minimize his tax burden. As conservatives, do we want to attack someone for being successful? Do we want to criticize him for correctly following the law? Hopefully, your answer to both is a resounding NO! Secondly, what do we expect to learn from Romney's tax returns? Will we find out he is rich? Nope, that is already known. Will we find out that he pays a lower rate of tax based on the majority of his income being dividends, long term capital gains and other investment income as opposed to regular wages paid on a W-2. Nope, that also is already known. All Romney's tax returns should do is confirm that our tax system is a horrific mess which needs to be greatly simplified or abolished. Beyond that, the fact that everyone is clamoring for his returns shows what a gross violation of our privacy the mandatory income tax return entails. People over the last decade have denounced the Patriot Act over manufactured fears of loss of privacy yet they voluntarily provide all sorts of information to the government every year in hope of getting a tax refund. In recent years, I'll admit I joined in the laughter as released tax returns from various politicians confirm that most liberals (who believe charity starts and ends with government taxation) give very little to charity while those greedy conservatives turn out to be veryy generous. Thing is, it is none of my business whether my neighbor or a political candidate tithes to their church or gives to the Salvation Army, etc. Yet, because our income tax system has gotten so ridiculous all of that information is considered fair game. It is wrong. We should elect candidates based on their policy positions and readiness to perform the duties of the office they are seeking.

Tax The Rich!

The mantra of "Tax the Rich" is being shouted frequently now by liberals wanting to deflect attention from our debt & deficit problems caused by decades of over spending. Our president won't come out and say it in those words. Instead being too cute by half, President Obama will say something like "I don't need another tax cut, Warren Buffett doesn't need another tax cut." Well, Victor Davis Hanson wrote a great column addressing the very notion of taxing the rich and in it he responded to Obama's misleading comments.

But Warren Buffett, unlike the building contractor or family dentist, is the world's third-richest man, worth nearly $50 billion. And Obama is probably the most privileged person on the planet, with all of his expenses covered -- from a nice free mansion at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to a huge private jet.

The rich and the poor are not separated across an impenetrable barrier. The president's $250,000 line in the sand is actually quite fluid. Most of those who make incomes above it did not do so 10 years ago -- and they won't, on average, 10 years hence. The income of well-off professionals and small-business people fluctuates widely as they ascend, peak and descend in earnings -- given factors like health, age, and uncertainty in employment and business. It would be more accurate to say that raising taxes on the better-off is a sort of punishment for those who break into the top brackets for a few short years and try to be careful to save what they make and not spend what they don't.

That is the thing. When demagogues like Obama dishonestly rail against the "rich" and talk about fairness in taxation they are merely attempting to fool the uninformed people who get their political information from 30 second soundbites from useful idiots like Katie Couric or Bob Schieffer. If Obama was concerned about taxing the rich or in ensuring fairness in the tax system he would actually propose simplifying the system that Obama's friends like Buffett and GE's Jeff Immelt manipulate to minimize their tax obligations.

I'd cut and paste more of Hanson's column (it is all worth stealing), but I'd rather refer people to read the entire piece. Read it. Bookmark it. Print it out. And next time someone who is half smart but mostly uninformed says we can solve our fiscal problems by "taxing the rich" ask them to slowly read this article.

Bottom line to the whole situation is you could tax the rich at 100% and it wouldn't solve our fiscal problem. We as a nation owe more than FOURTEEN TRILLION dollars and it is increasing every day! A trillion is a thousand billions! A billion is a thousand millions! A trillion is a million millions. We are all going to have to pay more taxes at some point. However, until we convince the stink'n politicians to stop spending (which is just bribing us for votes with spending funded by borrowing against our future) it makes no sense to give them any more ammunition.

Utterly Clueless TV Host Has An Epiphany

I have always been irritated when politicians or commentators talk about tax cuts as though they are giving people money. No, if anything they are just taking less than they previously planned to take. Amazingly, Chris Matthews, an extreme left wing media sycophant, broke away from standard liberal talking point and challenged the class-warfare language used by President Obama on this issue. Here is the link to Newsbusters.com's piece on Matthews revelation.

Maybe even more surprising, the MSNBCer told the object of his affection, "Stop saying that giving people tax cuts is giving people money. It`s their money!"

The unashamed liberal host continued, "A tax cut is when the government doesn`t take our money. It`s an important distinction"

Obama's U.S. Trade Rep. Nominee Pays His Back Taxes

Stop me if you've heard this one before . . . A prominent Democrat gets nominated to serve in the Obama administration and suddenly realizes he hasn't been paying all his taxes.

Ron Kirk, nominated as U.S. Trade Representative in the Obama administration, owes an estimated $10,000 in back taxes.

Amazing! If former President Bush had this much trouble filling appointed positions the media wing of the Democrat party would be braying non-stop about how it was proof of incompetence.

Is there any chance that this is just a clever ruse? Maybe he isn't really president. Could it be it's just a cover story to get Dems to pay their taxes? You know, just like when police put out that wanted criminals won tickets to the Super Bowl to get them to turn themselves in thinking they are picking up tickets. No? That's not it? Oh well, makes more sense than thinking he actually won the election.