When candidates keep their tax returns secret — no, not that one

Putting aside whether it’s an effective political strategy, one of the side debates of the Democratic presidential race has been about transparency and disclosure. Barack Obama has released his tax returns and a list of every earmark he’s ever requested; Hillary Clinton has declined, thus far, to do either.

The issue hasn’t exactly reached Ferraro or Wright levels of attention, but there’s been plenty of media scrutiny of the fact that Clinton has kept her tax returns under wraps, and hasn’t exactly explained why. But what’s gone entirely unmentioned is the fact that John McCain, who used to present himself as a reformer committed to openness in government, hasn’t released his returns, either.

Jamison Foser explained the issue in a great column this week.

Tucker’s assertion that “every candidate” other than Clinton has released his tax returns isn’t quite right. John McCain hasn’t released his tax returns, either.

Not that you would know that from watching MSNBC. According to Nexis, there hasn’t been a single mention on MSNBC this year of the fact that McCain hasn’t released his tax returns. No indication that McCain might even pay taxes, much less that he hasn’t released his returns.

Even when Republican strategists appear as guests on MSNBC, they get asked about the fact that Clinton hasn’t released her returns — but not about the fact that McCain hasn’t, either.

Foser shares a fantastic anecdote from a recent episode of “Meet the Press,” in which Tim Russert asked Mary Matalin, a conservative Republican, about Clinton’s reluctance to release her returns. On its face, it’s odd that Russert would just invite Matalin to attack Clinton, but more importantly, “Given that Republican strategist Mary Matalin had just said that Clinton’s failure to release her tax returns conflicts with the public’s desire for ‘transparency,’ Russert could have followed up by asking her why that isn’t also true of de facto Republican presidential nominee John McCain. Russert could have done that — it would have been the most obvious thing in the world to do — but he didn’t.”

Not surprisingly, NBC and MSNBC are hardly unique in this regard.

MSNBC has by no means been unique in keeping secret the fact that John McCain hasn’t released his tax returns. Media Matters has repeatedly documented media raising Clinton’s lack of disclosure without mentioning McCain’s — see here, here, here, and here for examples. During a March 5 Washingtonpost.com online discussion, Washington Post congressional reporter Jonathan Weisman wrote, “I think McCain has” released his tax returns. Weisman was wrong. Not only hasn’t McCain released his taxes, he hasn’t even promised to do so in the future, as Clinton has. But it’s hard to blame Weisman for not knowing this, given that the rest of the news media were all but ignoring the subject.

OK, you’re thinking, but there’s a context here. Clinton loaned herself $5 million, her husband has accepted money from international sources, and this makes her returns relevant, while McCain’s returns matter a lot less.

But Foser notes that this is flawed, too, and that McCain’s decision not to disclose is “directly relevant to one of McCain’s central campaign messages.”

In 2001, John McCain voted against President Bush’s tax cuts, noting that they were skewed toward the wealthy. In a Senate floor statement, McCain explained that he could not “in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief.”

But now, John McCain supports making the Bush tax cuts permanent rather than allowing them to expire, as they are scheduled to do under current law. Now, John McCain runs around saying things like, “The Democrats have already … told us they will increase our taxes.”

Who do you think McCain means when he says “our”?

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have both made clear that they would roll back the Bush tax cuts only for the super-wealthy; Obama has said only “the top 1 percent” would be affected, and Clinton has said she would roll back the tax cuts only for “people making more than $250,000 a year.”

So, for the overwhelming majority of Americans — those making less than about $250,000 per year — Clinton and Obama would not roll back the Bush tax cuts.

Indeed, McCain himself has previously acknowledged that the Bush tax cuts unfairly benefited the wealthy. So, when he says the Democrats would “increase our taxes,” maybe that’s who he is referring to. Indeed, Money magazine estimates John McCain’s net worth at $40 million.

If the media were to apply the same standards to John McCain that they applied to John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, they would report (endlessly) that John McCain, a very rich man, is embracing tax cuts that even John McCain has said unfairly benefit the very rich. And they would be demanding that he release his tax returns so voters could see how much money John McCain would personally save under McCain’s tax plan.

Kevin concluded, “Maybe somebody should start asking Honest John the same questions they’re asking Hillary.”

It would be a nice change of pace, wouldn’t it?

Kevin concluded, “Maybe somebody should start asking Honest John the same questions they’re asking Hillary.”

Why? He’s Honest! And a Straight-Talker! The media’s told me so!

  • This is the sort of line much more easily pushed if the Democrats would just recognize their nominee as such. The America-for-Clintons Party continues to exact a high opportunity cost on behalf of the First Narcissists.

  • If McCain were to release his tax returns, what we would learn is that he gives all his proceeds from the Senate earnings and books to his own charity (The John and Cindy McCain Foundation). In fact they are virtually the only donor to the Foundation. Much of the proceeds from the charity has gone to schools that his kids were attending.

    Democracyforums.com writes,“The largest individual recipient is the U.S. Naval Academy Foundation, which received $210,000 in both 2001 and 2002. That money was earmarked for conferences that ‘bring together key military officers and civilian academics responsible for ethics education and character developments.'”

    That said, it would be nice to know what else is in there.

  • Corporate media’s love-fest with McCain aside, its obsession with every utterance from Clinton v Obama means that McCain barely gets mentioned, much less subjected to a panel of pundits. I wish Obama would just start working on McCain and forget HRC, but the last time he did that she felt left out and started throwing kitchen sinks.

    The thing about McCain is that under every rock, some maggot seems to be hiding. Sure would be nice if someone (other than CB and friends) turned over a few.

  • The Corporate/Repiglican media has become not it’s own kind of mafia, but the NEW AXIS OF EVIL that is a clear and present danger to what is left of our once great country called America. They stand, sit, there looking out at you thru your TV screen and consciously, purposefully, lie to all Amercians in order to advance the corporate agenda. There they sit with their straight faces, the suites and ties on, hair combed, pretty dresses with the made up hair do’s, lying right to your face ..and THEY KNOW THAT THEY ARE LYING. There is corporate game plan in place that is being acted out in the unison of choreography. No different when the evil fuhrer called Bush was caught sitting there reading ‘My Pet Goat’ for over seven minutes after being informed by Card that ‘America is being attacked’. And that fact, which was on video, was repressed by the entire, entire, corporate media for over two fucking years and was only exposed by Michael Moore in his documentary. And, of course, he was then totally attacked by that same corporate media for doing so. Here’s a question that no one can answer: exactly who is pulling the switch to CONTROL THE ENTIRE CORPORATE MEDIA LIKE THAT ? do any of you have or know this answer ? And now look at how the corporate game plan is being played out relative to Obama and his pastor …… the entire corporate media is ejaculating on itself in it’s fervor to destroy Obama while at the same time SAYING FUCKING NOTHING ABOUT THE FUCKING ‘CHRISTIAN’ MINISTERS THAT McCAIN HAS RECEIVED ENDORCMENTS FROM, AND EVEN CALLS HIS ‘SPIRITUAL GUIDES’ … THE AGENDA COULD NOT BE MORE FUCKING CLEAR

  • Man, it’s quiet in here.

    Where’d all of our new friends go? It’s almost as though the Rev. Wright post got linked somewhere and a bunch of people who don’t normally read this sort of column swooped in to speak their piece.

    I’m glad that they are all as enthusiastic about the Democratic primary as they seem to be, but it’s surprising that they don’t chime in more on a column that makes a fair criticism of John McCain.

  • Actually, I’ll be just as happy if the McCain tax thing holds off (assuming McCain does too) until we have a nominee. More traction later, I think.

  • OT, but truthout has a piece by Eric Lotke for all all Republican relatives: Conservatism is Dying

    …While conservatives repeat their time-worn slogans – “small government, low taxes, high security” – the American people are living the consequences.

    We’ve seen eight years of a conservative presidency, six years overlapping with a conservative Congress, and 30 years of broadly conservative ideology. Now reality is showing how the values embodied in those slogans have been betrayed.

  • well i can bet you this .. john not revealing his tax returns wouldn’t deprive him of a single republican voter .. it would affect us independents however ..

    but imo .. anyone disposed to vote for john in the first place wouldn’t give a whit one way or the orther whether he did .. or didn’t ..

  • Let’s not muddy the waters. While both McCain and hillary’s tax returns are important, it is more so for Clinton because of her history of secrecy and back-door deals.

  • Justin .. i’d say if it’s important for one it’s just as important for the other ..

    and so far as i know .. even after $75 million of taxpayer funded investigations by an ungodly number of special prosecutors .. not one charge of illegal wrongdoing was ever leveled against hillary .. so what exactly are you insinuatung ..??

  • What? The Clintons aren’t more secretive than every Republican leader, ever? Say it isn’t so!

    …Honestly, that’s why I keep pointing out how unfair all this is to Clinton (and other Democrats) despite my support for candidates other than her.

  • 10. JustinA said: Let’s not muddy the waters. While both McCain and hillary’s tax returns are important, it is more so for Clinton because of her history of secrecy and back-door deals.

    I disagree. One of the earliest signs of sickness from the Clinton campaign was on the whole “plagiarism” thing, when Wolfson insisted that even though Clinton had undoubtedly done the same thing that was supposedly a mortal sin when Obama did it, Obama should be held to a higher standard because he made integrity an issue in his campaign. Screw different standards for different candidates, hypocrisy lies down that road. If it’s important for one then it’s equally important for all.

  • Hate is not a good substitute for facts.

    If only we could get the facts, maybe people wouldn’t rush to hate.

    Seriously, for all the Clinton backers hinting darkly that Rezko is some giant scandal waiting to happen to Obama, why aren’t you concerned that there’s something lurking in the Clinton tax returns?

    She hasn’t released 2001-2007 yet, but promises to once she’s won the nomination. Why wait?

  • As someone has noted on Kevin Drum’s website, the Clinton’s have made public all of their tax returns since 1988, and they have promised to release this year’s returns before April 15. I think that is sufficient transparency. Obama has only made this year’s public, not prior years. Shall we all call for Obama to release his prior returns too?

  • Here is an old Daily Howler column about how the Clintons got treated when it came to examining their tax returns in 1998:

    http://www.dailyhowler.com/h042598_1.shtml

    Required reading for Obama supporters who think the Clintons are nothing but dirty.

    I found a similar Washington Post article disparaging the Clintons for giving away so much money to various charities through their family foundation and through Bill’s charity. Those awful Clintons. How dare they give away so much money and not reveal all the details in their various tax returns and senate reports (even though most politicians, including Nancy Pelosi and Bill Frist, similarly misreport and underreport participation in family foundations).

    No wonder the Clintons aren’t eager to publish this year’s returns. It will evoke a storm of negative comment no matter what they contain, because outrage can be trumped up over anything, even giving large sums to charities.

  • OMG! Would you people start reporting the facts for a change!?! Is it laziness or wilful? Either way, do you jobs!

    This this tax return thing Obama keeps pushing is such a stupid red herring for the sound bite voters. All these calls for her to release her tax returns are just absurd. They’re talking about only the 2006 returns, cause the others are already public domain from her service in the Senate, and she has till 4/15 to finish her 2007 returns just like everyone else, right? What do the witch hunters think they’re going to find in her 2006 returns for Pete’s sake?

    I don’t know the hold up on the 2006 returns. She says they’re working on it as hard as they can. Rich people, they get extensions and have extremely long and complex returns, so I doubt they filed them on 4/15/07, and releasing them publicly probably requires a lot of redacting for the sake of protecting 3rd parties and such (and I mean redacting as far as addresses, tax ID numbers, etc.). But again, what boogie man is Obama thinking there is in this one year’s returns that isn’t in all the other years returns? If he knows of something (which I doubt), he should come out and say so.

    Btw, it’s not up to Hillary when those presidential library documents are released, as she has stated. They have to be vetted according to law, including by the Bush Admin. She’s stated that she’s urged all those in charge of this vetting to move as quickly as possible. IMO, this is another one of those red herrings.

  • Comments are closed.