Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Mitt Romney and the Cayman Islands: WHY?

This is an example of how our media is NOT INTERESTED in INFORMATIONI. I am not intreseted in Mitt Romney's taxes, so long as he did not fail to pay the tases he legally owed (like Obama's Secretary of the Treasury). I am not intrested in how much money Mitt Romney earned, or how much money he has. I don't hink Mitt Romney's specific example, as an individucal, has anything to do with what tax POLICY should be, although if you favor a dramaticaly lower capital gains tax raate, you have to acknowledge that people in Romney's situation will be able to earn a LOT of money on CPITAL without paying much (relatively) in taxes. But that is a "problem" for ou (if, say, you are Gingrich) fully as much if you, yourself, pay 35% in taxes--o earn a small amount of income--as if yu earned the same investment income as Mitt Romney. I actually thnik peole in general "get" this, even though our media people do not. The issue here is overall POLICY, and not whether certain individuals "benefit" from a partticlar policy and others do not. As blog articles have explained, I thik the 15% capital gains rate is totally appropriate, while I think a zero percent capitalgainss rate is a mistake-because it encourages GAMES by people manipulating the form in which they earn money in order to save money on taxes. Yes, you can often CHOOSE whk;ether you earn ordinary income or capital gains, and I don't think the tax system should push you into ckoices based on taxes (or overly reward FORM in the tax system). But that is a problem for you, as a politician faovring a really low capital gains tax rate, whether you eearn money to the extent Romney does or ear $50,000 a year You still have to defend the POLICY you ddvocate. This PERSONAL poitcs is truly an evil thing. I digress (a little).

As stated, I am NOT INTERESTED in Romney's personal taxes, income or money However, I am MILDLY INTERESTED in his alleged account in the Cayman Islands. Now Romney, and Romney people, have said that money Romney sent to the Cayman Islands (or to a Cayman Island based entity, which may often by the equivalent of a post office box in terms of actual connectin to the Cayman Islands, was not for "tax avoidance. I am MILDLY interested in this; What WAS the purpose of "investing" money in the Cayman Islands? In otgher words, I am interested in INFORMATION (distinguishing me from the incompetent POLITICAL HACKS of the mediaj). I can make my own decision as to what to think of th information. Todya's media is only interested in teling you WHAT TO THINK about their "spin" on information, rather than reporting the neutral facts themselves.

Thus, hre is the question I would like to hear answered by Romney: "Mri. Romney, it has been reported that you have invested money in one or more Cayman Island based entities. Is that tre? Have you had acconts or investments nt he Cayman Islands? If so, how much and with what entities,. And why did you ut money in Cayman Island based entities, rahter than in United States entities and/or financial institutions? Yes, it might take more than one question to get the INFORMATION, but a real "journalists" could do it IF he were INTESTED. At the very least, such a real "journalist" could get Romney to explain why he thninks the detailed FACTS and REASONS are irrelevant.

This article was prompted by a 15 second "surf" of MSNBC this morning, where the reference to a Mitt Romney account in the Cayman Islands was used basically as an all-pupose set of CURSE WORDS. You know Something like: "You goddamned Cayman Island f------ rich guy have no business running for President of the 99%!!!!" I only exaggerate slightly.

Again, I would be MILDLY interested in the FACTS as to the connecton between Mitt Romney and the Cayman Islands. No, as with MSNBC, this will have NOTHING to do with why I oppose Mitt Romney for President. I already opose him for other reasons, as does MSNBC. Does the fact that Newt Gingrich got "consulting" money from Freddie Mac have anything to do with why MOST people who OPPOSE him do so? Not a chance. It is the other way around, as it is too often with the media. Still, the FACTGS regarding Gingrich and Freddie Mac have the potential to be a relevant consideration to weigh with ALL OF THE OTHER FACTS. That is someting that can't be said about Gingrich's personal, sexual life, which is not relevant at all. Similarly, the FACTS of Romney's "connection" to the Cayman Islands seem to me to have POTENTIAL relevance, even if they are hardly likely to be the mani factor in why you vote for or against Mitt Romey. I would be mildly interested in knowing those FACTS, without needing to know the business details of every transactin, so I could make up my own mind as to their impact (at least enough facts to make up my mind whether the whole subject has any relevance). I hae NO interest in peole merely using the Romney Cayman Island acccount as an alll-purpose SLUR onRomney.

P.S. No proofreading or spel checkng (bad eyesight). A political partisan, by the way, is perfectly free to "spin" the facts to suport his or her candidate. A "journlist", however, has a DUTY to develop the FACTS first, and present them, putting aside his own politcal partisanship to do so. Such a "journalist" no lnoger exists, although this blog DOES actually approach things the way a real "journalist" should, interested in the facts first. "Skip, how can you say that when you use such derogatory terms in describing people and when you have such an obviusly extreme political point of view?" I did not say that I do not have a strong (wich is the word I prefer instead of "extreme") political point of view, and I generally make clear what that point of view is. However, I do NOT deliberately distort facts to push my point of view. I may interpret facts through the prism of my own ideology (less htan most, I think), but I do NOT ditort facts because I am suporting a particular party or person. Nope. That is NOT true of the odern "journalist", who not only distorts facts for those reasons, but distorts them additoinally because his "profession" (now more and more like The Oldest Profession, except much worse) is al about 'storyline" and AMBITION for the "journalist". See Michael Crichton's "Airframe" for what I mean.--a novel that sketches out odern "journalism" with such devastating effet that I don't know how any "journalist" could read it and not feel a dagger has been inserted into his or her heart.

No comments: