< .comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Massachusetts Liberal

Observations on politics, the media and life in Massachusetts and beyond from the left side of the road.

Monday, July 16, 2012

Fine whine

I don't know about you, but I'd sure remember when I left a job that paid me $100,000.

That, in a nutshell, is why Mitt Romney's protests over Barack Obama's focus on his tenure at Bain Capital is significant -- and why Romney's complaints about the continued attention to the issue is nothing more than the usual whine you hear when bullies get a taste of their own medicine.

Romney aides are now claiming Mittnocchio "retroactively retired" from Bain -- turning a leave of absence taken in 1999 into a formal retirement three years later. That was after he saved the Salt Lake Olympics and negotiated a retirement package that's apparently so lucrative he's afraid to share his tax returns with the American public.

Romney and his surrogates complain it's unfair for the other side to sift through his resume for the types of inconsistencies that mar his political stances.

But the flip-flops in the documentation of his tenure is even more significant than those he has made on abortion and gay rights to name two. These inconsistent answers come in documents filed with state and federal authorities, a fact that would make mere mortals vulnerable to review from investigators far more important than reporters.

If Romney can't be straight about details of his career, why should we assume he can be honest about anything?

Labels: , , ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm going to guess the facts about Romney's Bain retirement package conflict with what he's reported publicly. And that, combined with Bain's ruthless pilfering of target companies retirement funds, (leaving the workers for pennies on the dollar on the federal plan,) would be a game changer.

Still who thinks a multi-millionaire Mitt could hope to be elected based on offering one tax return?

July 16, 2012 8:13 AM  
Anonymous Sharoney said...

Mittens is the poster boy for the 1% and releasing his returns would yield a treasure trove of facts (all legal under current tax laws, alas) that would cement that image in the mind of those voters lacking offshore accounts, blind trusts, shell corporations, or 100K IRA accounts.

July 16, 2012 12:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharoney, not sure how old you are but a 100K IRA is not really that amazing. If you think it is you're not saving enough and must be expecting those of us who do save to take care of you in your old age. We're tired of paying.

July 19, 2012 5:02 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home