Put me down as someone who really doesn’t care in the slightest what the tax returns of the various presidential candidates show–unless, of course, their disclosure reveals fraud on the part of a candidate. Otherwise, the entire enterprise is a gigantic waste of time in terms of giving voters actual information that actually educates them regarding how a candidate might behave if he/she were president.
Thus, it matters not a whit to me that Mitt Romney pays only 15% tax; the vast majority of his income stems from investments, and by all accounts, he has complied fully with the law. Of course, I get the fact that his political opponents are trying to make him look like Daddy Warbucks, and that they are also trying to wage class warfare over the tax system. On the former charge, is there any reason to believe that a less rich Romney would make a better president? Perhaps the claim might be that he would relate better to the average man or woman if only he had less wealth, but (a) it is not as though Romney has never won an electoral contest, or served in public office, so perhaps he is not as divorced from the lives of working men and women as his opponents make him out to be; and (b) did anyone raise these concerns about the very wealthy Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton when they ran for president?
If we are going to insist upon paying attention to tax returns, I trust that we will take notice of the fact that Romney tithes to his church. Any other presidential candidates regularly donate 10% of their income to their churches? Does the president? I think not. And what does this refusal to help out their churches as generously and consistently as Romney has helped out his say about the ability of the other presidential candidates–not to mention the incumbent president–to relate to the needs of others less fortunate than themselves? And how about the ability of the Democratic party to relate to the needs of the working man and woman? Last I heard, Democrats favored assisting the laboring American with the presence and protection of labor unions. How then to explain this?
One of the contractors responsible for building Bank of America stadium in Charlotte, N.C. is ‘praising’ President Obama and the Democratic Party for holding a convention event there, calling the stadium an ‘outstanding example’ of the free enterprise system.
Brett McMahon, president of the concrete construction firm Miller & Long DC and the spokesman for the anti-labor, pro-business group Halt the Assault, notes that the stadium where President Obama will formally accept the nomination was built by non-unionized workers.
“It is a great example of a grand monument that was built entirely union-free. . . .”
If Republicans did this kind of thing–especially with Romney as the nominee–Democrats and the media would have a field day with the issue. Now that the shoe is quite firmly on the other foot, it would behoove the media to be equally unsparing with the Democrats, and Team Obama, for paying attention to motes, while ignoring beams altogether.