Romney tax returns: Harry Reid may be bluffing, but he's winning

There's no proof that Sen. Harry Reid is correct in asserting that Mitt Romney paid no taxes for 10 years. But he has succeeded in keeping the political universe focused on Romney's wealth and finances, not the struggling economy.

J. Scott Applewhite/AP
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, (D) of Nev., speaks to reporters at the Capitol in Washington, in this July 25 photo. Reid is getting slammed by political watchdogs, Republicans, and some Democrats for asserting that Mitt Romney paid no taxes for 10 years.

Harry Reid is being slammed by political watchdogs, Republicans, and some Democrats for making an unsubstantiated assertion about the content of Mitt Romney’s unreleased tax returns.

On Monday, top Republicans continued to heap scorn on the Senate Democratic leader, calling him a liar and accusing him of trying to divert attention from the struggling economy. Democrats pounded back, saying that President Obama’s Republican challenger could solve the problem by releasing more of his taxes.

Indeed, if throwing sand in our eyes and sowing dissension among Republicans were Senator Reid’s goals, he has succeeded: Reid has kept the political world – and most important, the media – focused on speculation around the wealthy Mr. Romney’s taxes, even amid an uptick in the unemployment rate. And Republicans are continuing to say that Romney should release more than the two returns he has already put out.

"I think at this point in time it's going to dog him all the way, and he needs to get it behind him," Republican strategist Ed Rollins said Sunday on Fox News. "I think he needs to release more taxes. Absolutely."

Mr. Rollins joins conservative columnist George Will, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, and former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) in saying that Romney should release more returns.

Nearly a week after Reid claimed in an interview with the Huffington Post that an unnamed investor in Romney’s former company, Bain Capital, told him Romney didn’t pay any taxes for 10 years, the topic continues to rage in the political media.  

At best, Reid is repeating an assertion for which he has provided no backup. He has not revealed the identity of the investor in Romney’s former company, nor has he explained the specifics of what this investor has allegedly seen or how this person would have access to Romney’s personal tax information. Reid’s defense is that the investor is “an extremely credible source.”

Romney’s response has been, “Put up or shut up.” Democrats are saying, in effect, “Back at you, pal.”

In short, it’s possible that Reid is bluffing. He may know that his source can’t prove his claim. If Romney does release more returns, and is shown to have paid something in taxes, Reid will look foolish. But maybe he doesn’t care. He was reelected in 2010, and will not face voters again until 2016 – if he decides to run at all. And he will have gotten the prize the Democrats and the Obama campaign are looking for: more fodder on Romney’s finances, which include off-shore accounts that are easy to demagogue.

On Monday, The Wall Street Journal editorial page – at times critical of Romney – came out in defense of the former Massachusetts governor. The editorial noted that the paper had called on Romney long ago to release more tax returns and put the matter to rest. But it ended by taking Romney’s side.

“[W]ithout any proof, Mr. Reid's accusations are a smear from the fever swamps that say more about Mr. Reid's ethics than they do about Mr. Romney's taxes,” the piece concluded.

The editorial was entitled “Stay classy, Harry.” It could have been called “Dirty Harry.” But the one-time boxer from Nevada might have found that flattering.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.