Candidates and Tax Returns
The Santa Rosa Press- Democrat's editorial today supports recent efforts by Congressman Jared Huffman and on the state level by assemblydude Mike McGuire to require candidates to disclose their tax returns as a requirement of running for office. It should be no surprise the Press- Democrat would get behind it, believing we can clean up politics through legislation. I disagree.
I suggest leaving it as it is. If voters care about such things, they can vote for the candidate that releases his or her returns, and not vote for the one that doesn't. Simple enough and everyone is left to their choice.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 8:44 AM
29 comments
29 Comments:
I agree. Since when did a person's tax return become the vetting tool for running for public office? Releasing tax returns should be the decision of the candidate.
Has Mike McGuire released his tax returns ?
Why not ?
Probably not. There was a comment to the editorial that said they called either Huffman or McGuire's office asking to see their tax returns. That call was not received well, according to the comment.
I'm a little surprised at your position Fred though I understand the rationale. Isn't in the best interest of all the voters to have relevant information available on which to base their votes? In Trump's case, voters could likely have seen that it's fiscally impossible for him to avoid conflicts of interest because of sources of income. And it would've been even more obvious to the oblivious that he is willing to outright lie to get what he wants. It would've made a candidate like Meecham seem a far wiser choice because even if you disagree with his positions he is at least a person of integrity -- something sorely lacking in the pending administration.
I don't know that it would be in any of our best interests for government to tell candidates what they must do and how they run their campaigns.
People have the choice to consider tax info already, and candidates have the choice to make that info available. Seems workable enough to me.
I can't help but think the whole reason for this effort is some people didn't like who got elected? I doubt any of that would have ended up different had Trump opened his returns to scrutiny.
If ANY other candidate refused to release the returns, the screaming would be deafening. No matter what he does, people sickenly justify it.
Suddenly people on here are saying "Oh, gee, doesnt really matter, right?"
Yeah-Im sure they would have been fine with Hillary not releasing hers, right? Ha. Please.
Goodbye to the America we wanted and fought for. Goodbye to the natural world.
Let me fix this sentence for you -
"If A Democratic candidate refused to release the returns, the screaming would be deafening."
Thank you.
We also need to consider that tax returns aren't proof positive a candidate is on the straight and narrow. Tax returns could easily be altered by a candidate's accountant to present the sort of picture a candidate might want to present, especially if he or she planned on running some time prior. And candidates often have the means to do so with skilled accountants working for them.
We're fooling ourselves if we think a tax return is solid proof of a candidates prior economic activities.
Should we simply allow candidates to state "I am not a crook"?
Doesn't that make about as much sense as requiring tax disclosure?
Tax returns are legal documents which demonstrate a candidates willingness to follow the law, as complicated as that might be for the rich folks who run for office, and as a result are windows into their world view.
For instance, take Trump and his willingness to use shelters and tax dodges while yelling about companies offshoring jobs. And then claiming the system is rigged while not acknowledging that he actually wants the system rigged in his favor. Statements like he can run his business and the presidency too.
Come to think of it, once he takes office as president *shudder*, don't we the people have a legal right to see all of his tax returns and income while he's in office?
No, we have no right to see his tax returns after he enters office.
Apparently we have no right to demand he not use the presidency to enrich himself and his children.
Much of how presidents behave is tradition, not written into law. Expect Trump to do things largely as he likes and if challenged will tell us to piss off. The only recourse we have is to sue and he knows how to tie stuff up in the courts.
Our only hope, and it is a very weak hope, is for Democrats to take back control of Congress in 2018.
Lord help America. It is in danger of being wrecked.
From a comment to the Press- Democrat on the editorial:
"
mumbletongue
I asked for McGuire's tax returns two days ago. I was told they wouldn't be made available.
Go figure?!?"
"For instance, take Trump and his willingness to use shelters and tax dodges while yelling about companies offshoring jobs. And then claiming the system is rigged while not acknowledging that he actually wants the system rigged in his favor. Statements like he can run his business and the presidency too."
And yet you came up with all that without seeing Trump's returns. Where's the problem?
Trump has publicly talked about taking advantage of tax loopholes.
Trump has not told us how much he is or is not in debt to Russian friends of Putin.
"Trump has not told us how much he is or is not in debt to Russian friends of Putin."
And there's little, if any, mention in the mainstream media of Clinton's selling off a bunch of uranium to the Russians apparently in return for their donation to the Clinton foundation.
That could be because responsible reporters would have checked the facts. You could get a lead by doing nothing more than taking a look at what Snopes has to say -
"The Uranium One deal was not Clinton's to veto or approve
Among the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating the transaction for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can't veto a transaction; only the president can. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the Uranium One decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton herself "never intervened" in committee matters."
"Of the $145 million allegedly contributed to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One investors, the lion's share — $131.3 million — came from a single donor, Frank Giustra, the company's founder. But Giustra sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007, three years before the Russia deal and at least 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state."
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
When will you learn to not trust the crap that comes out of the Heritage Institute and Breitbart News?
Snopes is a highly questionable source.
I wonder if Sharpton ever paid his taxes?
The right is tired of seeing their bullshit pointed out on Snopes so they have now launched an attack on the site's credibility.
Snopes backs up its finding with sources. If you doubt their findings then dig into their sources.
Fucking Republicans. They're ruining the United States. Lying assholes.
That's one way to view it, but there are other ways too. For instance, most people, excepting the lefties, prefer honest research.
The right doesn't accept honest research. It waves away inconvenient facts that come from "scientists and other pointy-headed people".
If the middle and working class people on the right accepted honest research they wouldn't vote Republican. They'd vote their self interest. It's the left that has supported workers rights, fair play, good education for all, health care for all, affordable housing, etc.
Republicans oppose the things that help the 95%. You can look up the facts and see for yourself.
Fair😀.
Further, tax returns reveal what.......How wealthy or taxed a person is......Who cares except those who put so much value into money.....And, money is not evil, just the intentions of those who use money.
Like Democrats and Republicans that enjoy taking money.
Or voters believe money is the deciding factor of who is "the best of the best of the best"....
Now, if a candidate is guilty of some crime involving finances, then ya, tax returns should be required for "full disclosure", but did not read that suggestion by these California Cons.
Protected Speech versus personal information.......
Easy decision.
Personal Information is Supreme.
Should voters in majority "care?"
The two party system voters like to vote for crooks, and very few voters ever look at tax returns.
Can't imagine Bob Wallace actually reviewing Donald Trump's or Hillary Clinton's tax returns.....Just can't.
Most people probably could care less about either candidates tax return, it means nothing in so far as "proving honesty"......If it's a foundation scheme or donation drive, the attacks and excuses over discrepancies will pave a space road to Mars.
Quit funding foundations, Donors.
Simple Response, and effective results.
Democrats are a kinky breed.....They like to undress others, abuse and molest......But not doing it to themselves....
Democrats = You Give or be taken, us not so much.....
No,
FUCK BERNIE
YOURS TRULY,
DNC HACK PROPONENTS.
As if most people give a flying fuck about tax returns that they fly like an eagle to Hawkeye review the tax filings......Are you selling some of that potion, cuz that's some mighty confidence of the American Voter......
Ironic, everything you wrote explains the typical liberal and progressive too.
Must be a question of, "picking and choosing winners and losers yet again."
Post a Comment
<< Home