0
Gravitymaster

Should All Members of Congress Release Their Tax Returns?

Recommended Posts

Given the recent criticism of Mitt Romney for not releasing his tax return, it occurs to me that since Congress has the nations purse strings and there could be laws that are passed which they could benefit from, that they should all be required to release their tax returns. Why should this demand only extend to a candidate for President?

So what do you think? Should our elected leaders be subjected to the same financial scrutiny as a candidate for President?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We should ask for Obama's top 10 at least

Quote


10. State senate papers. In the 2008 primary, Obama criticized Hillary Clinton for not releasing papers from her eight years time as First Lady--but failed to produce any papers from his eight years in Springfield. “They could have been thrown out,” he said.

9. Academic transcripts. His supposed academic brilliance was a major selling point, but Obama (by his own admission) was a mediocre student. His GPA at Occidental was a B-plus at best, and his entering class at Columbia was weak. Can he prove his merit?

8. Book proposal. Obama’s literary agent claimed he was “born in Kenya”--for sixteen years. His original book proposal exists--biographer David Maraniss refers to it--and seems to have embellished other key details of his life. Yet it has never been released.

7. Medical records. In 2000, and again (briefly) in 2008, GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain released thousands of pages of his medical records. Obama, who had abused drugs and continued smoking, merely provided a one-page doctor’s note.

6. Small-dollar donors. In 2008, the McCain campaign released the names of donors who had contributed less than $200, though it was not required to do so. But the Obama campaign refused, amidst accusations it had accepted illegal foreign contributions.

5. The Khalidi tape. In 2003, Obama attended a party for his good friend, the radical Palestinian academic Rashid Khalidi. The event featured incendiary anti-Israel rhetoric. The LA Times broke the story, but has refused to release the tape--and so has Obama.

4. The real White House guest list. Touting its transparency, the Obama White House released its guest logs--but kept many visits secret, and moved meetings with lobbyists off-site. It also refused to confirm the identities of visitors like Bertha Lewis of ACORN.

3. Countless FOIA requests. The Obama administration has been described as “the worst” ever in complying with Freedom of Information Act requests for documents. It has also punished whistleblowers like David Walpin, who exposed cronyism in Americorps.

2. Health reform negotiations. Candidate Obama promised that health care reform negotiations would be televised on C-SPAN. Instead, there were back-room deals woth millions with lobbyists and legislators--the details of which are only beginning to emerge.

1. Fast and Furious documents. After months of stonewalling Congress, Attorney General Eric Holder asked President Obama to use executive privilege to conceal thousands of documents related to the deadly scandal--and Obama did just that.


"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please don't use this thread to bash Obama. That was not my intent. There are many laws that are passed which could benefit those passing them. I'm interested in knowing if people really want transparency in government or if they just want to use Romney's refusal to release his tax returns as a wedge issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Please don't use this thread to bash Obama. That was not my intent. There are many laws that are passed which could benefit those passing them. I'm interested in knowing if people really want transparency in government or if they just want to use Romney's refusal to release his tax returns as a wedge issue.



It was not intended to bash Obama

It was to point out the hypocrisy

I don’t think any of them should be required or asked to release anything

Much of it is none of our business

If a candidate was doing something illegal with their taxes the IRS would be obliged to go after them

Schutz, Reid and Pelosi are among those screaming the loudest to get Romeny's tax returns released. But they want theirs to remain unseen

If we had an honest media this issue would have died months ago. But we dont

In the end

It is a distraction more than a wedge issue IMO

Anything to distract the campaign away from Obama
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Please don't use this thread to bash Obama. That was not my intent. There are many laws that are passed which could benefit those passing them. I'm interested in knowing if people really want transparency in government or if they just want to use Romney's refusal to release his tax returns as a wedge issue.



It was not intended to bash Obama

It was to point out the hypocrisy



Irony score 10/10
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
U happen to think that tax returns are absolutely nobody else's business. Period. And I do not believe anyone should be compelled to release them. If they decide to, then fine.

But a tax return is like a person's whole life. No. Nobe should be compelled to be released.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

U happen to think that tax returns are absolutely nobody else's business. Period. And I do not believe anyone should be compelled to release them. If they decide to, then fine.

But a tax return is like a person's whole life. No. Nobe should be compelled to be released.



Then perhaps some other type of disclosure so that we know if they benefit from the laws they pass. I would even go so far as to say that they should not be voting on issues that they stand to gain financially. Perhaps all investments should go into a blind trust? I think the issue of corruption is much more rampant that we know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

tax returns are absolutely nobody else's business. Period. And I do not believe anyone should be compelled to release them. If they decide to, then fine.

But a tax return is like a person's whole life. No. Nobe should be compelled to be released.



this

If they break the law, then that's for the IRS to pursue, not the hacks of either party looking to construct strawmen for soundbites

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Agreed.

To be fair, it's not right for one side to stand there and demand transparency while providing none in return either.



I agree. In fact recently many members of Congress who have been beating the disclosure drum against Romney were asked to release their own tax returns. They refused. I think it's more important for a member of Congress to disclose their financial dealings than a Presidential Candidate. Corruption happens over a period of time and the only way to prevent it is with the threat of being caught and punished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

tax returns are absolutely nobody else's business. Period. And I do not believe anyone should be compelled to release them. If they decide to, then fine.

But a tax return is like a person's whole life. No. Nobe should be compelled to be released.



this

If they break the law, then that's for the IRS to pursue, not the hacks of either party looking to construct strawmen for soundbites



How do you prevent the Attorney General from protecting members of his own party?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

How do you prevent the Attorney General from protecting members of his own party?



with the current guy, apparently we can't


but to my comment, the process still shouldn't rely on party hatchetmen to do that job

it's kind of sick how the legal system is set up. Instead of objectivity and process, we have a system where one side gets to have an advocate grossly biased towards prosecution, squared off against an advocate grossly biased towards defense and let them battle it out. :|

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If voters want to demand tax returns of their candidates for the Senate and House, that's reasonable. Demanding public disclosure of returns of candidates (and elected officials) from other states and districts is much less reasonable.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Given the recent criticism of Mitt Romney for not releasing his tax return, it occurs to me that since Congress has the nations purse strings and there could be laws that are passed which they could benefit from, that they should all be required to release their tax returns. Why should this demand only extend to a candidate for President?

So what do you think? Should our elected leaders be subjected to the same financial scrutiny as a candidate for President?



Sure, I'd be fine with tax returns of all members of congress being open to the public.

Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

tax returns are absolutely nobody else's business. Period. And I do not believe anyone should be compelled to release them. If they decide to, then fine.

But a tax return is like a person's whole life. No. Nobe should be compelled to be released.



this

If they break the law, then that's for the IRS to pursue, not the hacks of either party looking to construct strawmen for soundbites



What if they're completely compliant with the law, but their tax bill goes down 30% from one year to the next because of a little exception they snuck into a 10,000 page law specifically for their own gain? Or their income goes up substantially due to legal but unethical income. That'd be my interest in seeing tax returns of law makers...to ensure they're not abusing their authority for personal gain.

Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

it's kind of sick how the legal system is set up. Instead of objectivity and process, we have a system where one side gets to have an advocate grossly biased towards prosecution, squared off against an advocate grossly biased towards defense and let them battle it out. :|



I agree with this. I understand logically why prosecutors try to convict at all costs, it's because they're facing an opponent trying to get an acquittal at all costs. However I'd be a lot more comfortable with the system if the prosecutors and defenders were more interested in truth than winning. The state especially should have a vested interest in pursuing right over wrong instead of conviction over acquittal. Don't prosecute only what you think you can win, evaluate the evidence and then prosecute what you think really happened.

Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What if they're completely compliant with the law, but their tax bill goes down 30% from one year to the next because of a little exception they snuck into a 10,000 page law specifically for their own gain? Or their income goes up substantially due to legal but unethical income. That'd be my interest in seeing tax returns of law makers...to ensure they're not abusing their authority for personal gain.



well, if our tax code was really simple, direct, and applied the same to everybody, then that would be difficult for them to do in the first place

but, you gotta buy votes and influence people, so bring on the complexity

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Given the recent criticism of Mitt Romney for not releasing his tax return, it occurs to me that since Congress has the nations purse strings and there could be laws that are passed which they could benefit from, that they should all be required to release their tax returns. Why should this demand only extend to a candidate for President?

So what do you think? Should our elected leaders be subjected to the same financial scrutiny as a candidate for President?



Sure, I'd be fine with tax returns of all members of congress being open to the public.



With the STOCK act signing in April, all Congressional trades will now be reported within 45 days. Details beyond that are scant on my quick search - not sure if there will be a compliance department like at every financial I've been at, or annual certifications of holdings by each Member.

Not sure how I feel about open disclosure of tax returns - slightly redacted ones would be appropriate.

As for Romney, we know why he wishes to avoid this - that ~15% taxation rate didn't look good even against other GOP candidates. It's definitely a hot button issue of the election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Given the recent criticism of Mitt Romney for not releasing his tax return, it occurs to me that since Congress has the nations purse strings and there could be laws that are passed which they could benefit from, that they should all be required to release their tax returns. Why should this demand only extend to a candidate for President?

So what do you think? Should our elected leaders be subjected to the same financial scrutiny as a candidate for President?



Nah. IRS has all that information as it is. Besides, Tax info is historical data. It doesn't tell anything about how much stock you actually own or other without a lifestyle audit.
_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure I'm in favor of divulging medical information to the public.
We demand privacy; why shouldn't they?
How many good past presidents wouldn't have made the cut with certain afflictions they had then, that would discount them if they were running today.

Tax records.. meh. I really don't see the relevance.
Other than "if" they didn't file at any point.
Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I'm not sure I'm in favor of divulging medical information to the public.
We demand privacy; why shouldn't they?
How many good past presidents wouldn't have made the cut with certain afflictions they had then, that would discount them if they were running today.

Tax records.. meh. I really don't see the relevance.
Other than "if" they didn't file at any point.



I'd be OK with some modifications of an ethics committee if it would ensure that members of Congress were not voting on laws that they stood to benefit from passing. I also think we need to insist that all members of Congress have their investments placed in a blind trust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


I'd be OK with some modifications of an ethics committee if it would ensure that members of Congress were not voting on laws that they stood to benefit from passing. I also think we need to insist that all members of Congress have their investments placed in a blind trust.



Don't know if it needs to be blind, but managed by an independent manager. There would be considerable difficulties around requiring a blind trust for someone that may come in and out of office in only 2 years.

The requirements by the SEC for "insiders" in financial corps may be sufficient as well. The company's compliance department gets duplicate statements, trades are approved before execution, and then there are guidelines around practice (minimum 60 day holding periods, no derivatives, etc). If I had to deal with these to ensure that my company looks to be on the up and up, it's not asking too much of our legislators in DC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0