Mitts Pick

[Hoss]

Soledad O'Brien takes John Sununu to the woodshed over this $716 billion dollar number.

http://mediamatters.org/embed/static/clips/2012/08/14/25948/cnn-startingpoint-20120814-soledadsununu

Harhar...

John worries too much about money.  Wasn't he the one spending exorbitant numbers on personal trips while he was Chief of Staff?

[guido911]

I freekin love her!

Her and Biden are awesome!

[nathanm]

Wow, Sununu straight up lied when he said that current law cuts benefits to Medicare beneficiaries. It's hard to watch over all the whining, but it is good to see an interviewer at least attempting to force factual answers. It's interesting how any analysis that bothers to point out that the numbers don't add up is somehow "Democratic" analysis in Sununu's world. As if it's anyone's fault but their own that the math simply doesn't work.

It's also interesting that what he's complaining about, a phase out of Medicare Advantage if the insurers don't get their act together and get costs in line with the rest of Medicare, is exactly the kind of accountability and budget cutting Republicans say they want. They complain about anything that actually cuts the deficit (Obamacare, impending military cuts) while bleating about it, and their plans, as written, will either increase taxes on the poor and middle class or increase the deficit beyond current projections.

Ryan's plan counts on growth to finally balance the budget in 2050! Twenty. Fifty. Shooting for the moon, there.

One other funny thing about Medicare Advantage. People's overall satisfaction with it is worse than standard Medicare and people on Advantage plans are more likely to be unable to afford needed care. And it costs more. That's what we can expect with Vouchercare, only with more of the premium dollar being paid out of the senior's income.

[Teatownclown]

Hippie critic web site sez it all Guido....you are a warrior in the culture war. Too bad you know nil about economics and success.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I just keep wondering how it is Mitt got over $100 million in a Roth IRA??    Without some serious lying and cheating....

[nathanm]

I just keep wondering how it is Mitt got over $100 million in a Roth IRA??    Without some serious lying and cheating....

I'm sure it's perfectly reasonable to value an investment that will result in very large future income at zero before the payments begin. You know, like if you won the lottery and it were going to be a couple of months before they started paying out on the annuity? You never know, the lottery might go bankrupt before paying you the first payment.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I'm sure it's perfectly reasonable to value an investment that will result in very large future income at zero before the payments begin. You know, like if you won the lottery and it were going to be a couple of months before they started paying out on the annuity? You never know, the lottery might go bankrupt before paying you the first payment.

Or something...

Yeah, he did the magical waving of hands on that one.  At $5,000 per year, for the time a Roth has been available for anyone, it would not have worked if every penny had been put into Apple when it was $1.00 a share until now.

Lying and cheating.   Well, at least he is the complementary bookend to Ryan.  I have become very disillusioned with him, after having some modest hope.

[nathanm]

Or something...

No, that's the only remotely plausible explanation I've seen other than rank tax fraud. Presumably some of his carried interest went into the IRA and some into the kids' trust accounts and a smidge was kept outside the trusts and retirement accounts. S'ok, though. Eliminate the capital gains tax and he won't ever have to worry about it again. Poor guy never paid less than 13%. A great American Patriot, that one.

[erfalf]

First, how do you know it is a Roth. Never heard that. Second, it has been explained several places (see one below) how a balance of BETWEEN $25M and $100M could end up in an IRA. There is a limit on how much an individual can put in there, but the employee isn't the only contributor. The employer is allowed to make contributions as well. And the articles also describe how the IRS allows for valuations that could have made Bain's investments valued extremely low when he put them in. If that's the case, he will pay even more taxes (on income) than he had put investments in at a higher valuation. If it is not a Roth (which is extremely unlikely), then he will pay taxes on this income, it is just deferred. He is not avoiding taxes, he is just deferring when he pays it.

http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/08/10/mitt-romney-ira-unlikely-centerpiece-wealth-and-tax-avoidance/snjZMpnYF8bbTG3HUMtflO/story.html

[Teatownclown]

http://truthout.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/11684-did-romney-possibly-commit-fraud-on-his-2009-taxes-but-received-amnesty

I told you in a separate thread the way RMoney arrogantly proclaimed he's never "done anything wrong" (as opposed to unethical) indicated to me he had been audited and granted a stay but was still felonious.

Did Romney Possibly Commit Fraud on His Income Taxes, But Received Amnesty?
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

In a brilliant critique of an NBC interview with a defiant Ann Romney who disdainfully refused to release any further family income taxes, Lawrence O'Donnell raises the interesting prospect that the real smoking gun may be that the GOP presidential candidate committed a felony by sequestering taxable income offshore.

This is speculation, of course, because as Ann Romney has said, she and Mitt won't release more income taxes because it will provide the public with "ammunition."  Of course, as O'Donell points out, there is only ammunition if there are improprieties.

Beyond Harry Reid's claim of informed knowledge that that Romneys have paid no income taxes for a period of ten years in the recent past, the most compelling possible scenario is that in 2008 many of the nation's 1% paid little or no income tax because they took large capital gain losses as offsets against capital gain profits due to the crash of Wall Street.  Romney quite possibly, given his inclusion in the plutocracy, was among those who paid no income tax.

But, as O'Donnell pointed out, the year 2009 even looms larger on the horizon.  (Remember that Romney has only released a 2010 income tax return with the vague offering to release his 2011 income taxes at some undesignated point in the future.)  Given that most of Americans paid their taxes by August 15th, the indefinite delay in sharing his 2011 income taxes raises the question of why he just won't release his 2009 IRS filing, which is completed.

Here may be the answer: Romney may have taken advantage of a 2009 IRS amnesty period to disclose income hidden in offshore accounts but subject to US taxation.  The amnesty offer allowed such persons to escape potential criminal prosecution for tax evasion.

Here is an example of what happened to one person who banked taxable income in offshore accounts to avoid paying US taxes, according to a law firm that specializes in such cases. It is entitled, "Additional Criminal Prosecutions for Undeclared Offshore Accounts.":

This week, Anton Ginzburg, another taxpayer with a non-compliant account at UBS, plead guilty in a Federal Court in New York to criminally concealing his account and failing to disclose the account on the required FBAR form.  This taxpayer faces a jail sentence of up to five years and a fine of approximately $1.5 million, constituting fifty percent (50%) of the value of the account during 2007.  In fact, the law allows the government to impose a 50% penalty for every year that the account was non-compliant, although the pattern in recent criminal prosecutions is that if the defendant enters a guilty plea, the government imposes a 50% penalty for one year.

This potential jail sentence and monetary fine stands in contrast to taxpayers who voluntarily disclose their foreign accounts.  A proper voluntary disclosure would avoid a criminal prosecution and jail time, and the fine would be capped at twenty five percent rather than fifty percent.

Indeed, even the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) information web page on the amnesty (which was re-instituted for part of 2011) notes: "Taxpayers with undisclosed foreign accounts or entities should make a voluntary disclosure because it enables them to become compliant, avoid substantial civil penalties and generally eliminate the risk of criminal prosecution."

More explicity, according to the IRS:

Possible criminal charges related to tax returns include tax evasion (26 U.S.C.§ 7201), filing a false return (26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)) and failure to file an income tax return (26 U.S.C. § 7203).  The failure to file an FBAR and the filing of a false FBAR are both violations that are subject to criminal penalties under 31 U.S.C. § 5322.

A person convicted of tax evasion is subject to a prison term of up to five years and a fine of up to $250,000.  Filing a false return subjects a person to a prison term of up to three years and a fine of up to $250,000.  A person who fails to file a tax return is subject to a prison term of up to one year and a fine of up to $100,000.  Failing to file an FBAR subjects a person to a prison term of up to ten years and criminal penalties of up to $500,000.

This is addition to the civil penalties, including fines.

No one can do other than hypothesize that Mitt Romney might have taken advantage of the 2009 amnesty to report previously undisclosed foreign bank accounts and interest earning.  But if he did, he would have on the one hand committed a felony, but then had it expunged by participating in the 2009 program.

And that is possibly why we are still awaiting the 2011 Romney income tax returns, even though his 2009 returns are complete and ready for public review.  It would be hard, as O'Donnel notes, to win the presidency when you have committed a potential felony, even if you escaped possible prosecution because of a special IRS pardon for past behavior.

If this theory is incorrect and unfair to the Romney, all Mitt has to do is release his 2009 returns to prove the contrary.

That's what this country needs....a liar who can be read so easily. At least Cheney/Bush were "good" at it.

[Conan71]

O'Donnell is into the innuendo game now.  Great journalism!

[erfalf]

http://truthout.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/11684-did-romney-possibly-commit-fraud-on-his-2009-taxes-but-received-amnesty

I told you in a separate thread the way RMoney arrogantly proclaimed he's never "done anything wrong" (as opposed to unethical) indicated to me he had been audited and granted a stay but was still felonious.
That's what this country needs....a liar who can be read so easily. At least Cheney/Bush were "good" at it.

If the author has to rely on O'Donnell as his expert witness, well, I'll just leave it at that.

[AquaMan]

Are there any sources other than Beck or the Fox braintrust you guys find believable?

I heard that same supposition on a radio show travelling between here and OKC. Sorry, can't remember the show. Heck, I even saw it on an internet blog. The thing is, he invites these suppositions because, even though he required his VP candidates to give him three years, he doesn't think he needs to. Something is there and until he divulges the stink remains.

My gosh. If what he says is true he could slay his enemies in one motion. Show the returns and humiliate them.

[Red Arrow]

Are there any sources other than Beck or the Fox braintrust you guys find believable?

Of course not.  Just like the left has their favorite sources that the right has absolutely no confidence in believing. 

Partisan enough?

[AquaMan]

Of course not.  Just like the left has their favorite sources that the right has absolutely no confidence in believing. 

Partisan enough?

I don't believe you Red. I think there are sources that are believable by both sides even thought they say things you don't want to hear. If not, then each side cancels each other out and what is left is your own deductions from fact.

You're pretty good about making deductions from facts. What deduction do you draw from a guy who previously lied to the public when he refused to show his tax forms when he ran for governor of Massachusetts. A guy who expects his VP candidates to show more tax returns than he does and who refuses to make the issue disappear by simply affirming his truthfulness with the release of a couple more years?