Diddly

I learned the other day that Haley Barbour, former Mississippi governor and former head of the RNC thinks the fact that Mitt Romney won’t release more than one year of his tax returns “doesn’t amount to diddly”.

Interestingly, back in 2010 when Virginia Republican governor Bob McDonnell (a possible short-list VP candidate) issued a proclamation regarding Confederate History Month, which left out all references to slavery (oops!) Barbour had the same response: "To me, it's a sort of feeling that it's a nit, that it is not significant, that it's not a — it's trying to make a big deal out of something (that) doesn't amount to diddly".

What, Governor Barbour, does amount to diddly? Better yet, what is diddly?

Here's what Governor Barbour said on CNN’s “The Situation Room” in response to Democratic calls for more transparency of Romney’s finances by having him release more complete tax return information: "I would. But should it be an issue in the campaign? I don't think it amounts to diddly."

OK, let’s get this straight. Not talking about slavery, the reason there was a Confederacy to commemorate in the first place, is a “nit”. And not disclosing the details of what the reasons for and, effects of, a presidential nominee’s shipping his money to various off-shore accounts is not an issue.

I’m sorry, Governor Barbour. This is major diddly!

But enough about diddly; let’s focus on Romney.

First, there should be no begrudging of Romney’s wealth and how he accumulated it. Although Romney and his surrogates trumpet his credentials as a businessman who knows how to create jobs, Governor Romney is less a “Captain of Industry” and more a “Master of the Universe”, which, for this issue, as opposed to his basic presidential qualifications, is not relevant.  Like it or not, he made his money fair and square.

But once he made the money, the question is, what he did with it. I’m no tax expert, but I believe the major (or only) reason rich people park their money in the Bahamas, the Caymans and in Swiss banks, is to shelter that money in order to minimize taxes. Or, perhaps, to hide something.

It’s been reported over and over that Romney’s father George, when he ran for president in 1968, set the standard for financial disclosure by releasing twelve years of returns. As Joe Biden said, the younger Romney’s position puts to lie the adage, like father, like son.

If Mitt Romney was not running for president but had been nominated for a post that requires Senate confirmation, his non-disclosure stance would not even get him in front of a committee; the vetting process would knock him out of contention from the get-go.

So, what’s going on? Romney claims he pays every dollar in taxes he owes. As widely reported, what he owes is less (on a percentage of income) than probably all the readers of this blog (I could say 99% of the readers, but I doubt anyone in the 1% reads my blogs). In attempting to deflect the issue, Romney has stated:

• If you own shares in foreign companies (he used Renault as one example) of course you pay taxes on any gains you make.

THAT’S NOT THE ISSUE! We’re not talking about owning stock in overseas companies; we’re talking about sheltering money in overseas accounts.

•  He doesn’t control or even know anything about his money because it’s in a blind trust.

But why did the blind trust invest in a company controlled by one of Romney’s sons. How blind is it? And back in 1994 during his senatorial campaign against Ted Kennedy, Romney, in disparaging Kennedy’s blind trust, told the Boston Globe, "The blind trust is an age-old ruse". 

• He pays the same taxes he would if the money was based in the United States.

If that’s the case, why not just put it in U.S. banks?

Here’s what Romney said on Sean Hannity the other day:

"I have followed the law. I have paid my taxes as due. I have also disclosed through all of the requirements of the government, every asset which I own, fairly and honestly, recognizing, of course, not to do so would be not only wrong but illegal and criminal."

I guess I would have to agree with the great Newt Gingrich on this (and only this) issue, who said in January:

"If there's nothing in there, why not release them, and if there is something in them, better to know now.”