I always maintain that one does not act like they are hiding something if they are not in fact hiding something. Take for example Mitt and Ann "Marie Antoinette" Romney who continue to refuse to release their tax returns prior to 2010. If there is nothing damaging in the returns, why continue to hide them and help create widespread suspicion that something amiss would be disclosed if the returns were to be made public? A piece in Daily Kos suggests that the Romneys' intransigence comes from the strong possibility that Mitt and Marie Antoinette sought relief under an IRS amnesty program for 1% tax cheats. While the conjecture might be totally off base, there's only one way for the Romneys to end the speculation: release the returns. Here are highlights from the Daily Kos piece:
GOP presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, has been exceedingly hostile towards requests for transparency about his past tax records, only releasing his tax records for 2010 & 2011 as of yesterday (9/21/12), which essentially confirmed what even casual observers know: he's filthy rich & like most of the top 1% has accountants, tax lawyers exploit a myriad of tax loopholes, off-shore tax havens, and financial shenanigans to minimize his taxable wealth/income.Using only the power of scientific thinking, I proffer the following falsifiable prediction:Mitt Romney is hiding the fact that the he was one of the 5000 wealthy American tax-dodgers that Swiss bank UBS turned over to US authorities, as part of a USDOJ-brokered 2009 deal, which both fined UBS for hiding rich American's money in a massive tax-evasion scheme, and offered the 5000 rich Americans "amnesty" (from criminal prosecution, trials & prison time), if they paid back the tax revenues they stole from US Treasury during the previous years.In other words, I hypothesize that Mitt Romney is hiding the fact that- according to US law- he should be in a federal prison, but is only free and running for to be the next US president because of the special "amnesty" program offered to 5000 American financial elite, who violated US law in order to hoard their riches in in an illegal tax-evasion scheme, which was cooked up by Swiss banks & exposed by a heroic whistleblower, who- in accord with the new 1% US morality- was the only one to be imprisoned, while Romney & his elite 1% cronies plotted his White House takeover.Here's a simple lesson for the incurious swarm of media reporters/commentators who routinely fail to ask the most important questions or connect the most "obvious" dots, or really do much more than distract & regurgitate undigested propaganda to prop up the charade that we have a healthy democracy (e.g. free press, free speech, competitive elections) of, by, and for the people.Logical reasoning: He's hiding something else more damaging than public perception that he's hiding something, or the other tax fraud he committed. His 1% fortune put him in small sub-population UBS would likely risk recruiting for illegal tax-evasion scheme. Romney's 1% "above the law" & greedy values & dishonest character make him type of rich American to utilize illegal tax-evasion scheme. Proof he purchased "amnesty" from criminal prosecution/prison for tax evasion would be devastating & worse than bad press of being suspiciously secretive & intransparent. He already admitted to retroactively "correcting" his tax-evasion crime that was embarrassingly dishonest (claiming Utah residence until he opted to run for MA governor) that saved him more than median US income (i.e. "conscious, profitable mistakes"), so it must be something much more embarrassing and worth all the negative press he's getting for not fully disclosing like his father did.Deduction: My hunch is that his records show he paid massive back-taxes in exchange for USDOJ offered amnesty.[I]t's worth noting that: . . . . .The USDOJ-brokered "amnesty" deal & UBS settlement brought in about $5.75 billion in revenues to the IRS/US Treasury (i.e. approx. annual cost of 2007 bill providing health insurance to 4 million poor American kids blocked by 1 of Bush's 4 vetoes).While my hypothesis about Romney's amnesty from prison might not be the dark secret he's hiding in his 2009 (& previous) tax records, it would certainly fit with his character and the fact that the biggest criminals and most corrupt are not only "above the law," but rewarded with more power & money, while whistleblowers & the bottom 99% are aggressively- often illegally- punished by the so-called "rule of law" that increasingly does not include fundamental constitutional or human rights.
I admit that I don't know what Romney is hiding through his refusal to release his tax returns for periods prior to 2010. But my gut tells me he must be hiding something he considers devastating. The premise would certainly be in keeping with Romney's arrogance and what I perceive to be his sense of entitlement. If he wants something, he believes he should have it. End of discussion.