Instead of indulging in post-truth era politics, Granholm consistently looks for facts, consistently examines and presents primary documentation on this topic. She is not running against Mitt Romney, and she clearly and openly admits to tremendous respect for Mitt's father George's legacy as governor of Michigan.
There is no comparable distinguished and honorable legacy from son W. M. Romney. Granholm has unearthed additional documents above and beyond those already unearthed. Romney contradicted himself in news interviews when he was running for governor, and in debates with the opposition candidate in that governor's race.
The Romney Bain partner will be doing an interview with Chris Hayes on Sunday 7/15/'12; I'll post that clip when it becomes available Sun or Mon. Governor Granholm made the following presentation on her Current 'War Room' program on 7/13/'12 where documents clearly indicate in which corporations Romney held an active role, and in which he had a more passive role. These documents, in addition to the SEC documents and other papers, show R-money has not been honest, and has not been forthcoming. I expect that there will be more evidence in support of this record by Romney will emerge. What we have seen is probably only the tip of that iceberg.
Speculating, it would seem that Mitt Romney may have believed that he had already survived the challenges of oppositional research, possibly believing that he was immune to this information surfacing. I find it amusing that what has been published so far has resulted in his deviating from his Fox-News and other right wing media exclusivity, to have to reach out to the main stream media (except notably MSNBC and Current cable news networks).
I continue to be impressed by Granholm's intellect, and by her resourcefulness and ability to do serious high quality research. We need more of THIS kind of activity, and less superficial hype and crap.
IMO, the Big Point is being missed -- it's about the tax rate that Romney was able to use as a hedgefund manager.
ReplyDeleteThe tax code allows for capital gains to be treated at lower rates than active wages. IF Romney earned his income as CEO and paid the taxes on that income, he would be in the top tier (ignore whether that was in the Clinton/Bush/Obama years it would be a minimum of 35%) versus using the capital gains rate of 15%.
That's the tax fairness argument that needs to be made.
IMO, just like the argument that Obama makes that the rates should be changed so that if the first $250,000 is taxed at 35% and amounts over that pay an additional 3% is reasonable (if you make $300,000 then only the additional $50,000 is taxed at the higher rate) ... thus the capital gains rate should be changed ... so let's say the first $100,000 is taxed at the low rate but anything over $100,000 is taxed at 35% the same as if the CEO earned it in salary as in stock appreciation. By allowing $100,000, the retired seniors will still get a preferred rate.
Regarding the whole not-being a CEO but owning the company makes no sense ... why would anyone "build a company from scratch" and then turn it over to others to run and not have any voice in it but just to take the checks ... makes no sense.