ABC: Romney has millions parked in funds in the Caymans

posted at 6:15 pm on January 18, 2012 by Allahpundit

A Twitter buddy reminds me that this is technically old news. The LA Times published a long, detailed piece about it in 2007. But then, Romney’s support for the mandate is also technically old news and yet Republicans care about it a lot more this time than they did last time. As the national debate changes, so do the issues that matter to voters. Go figure.

Does this matter?

In addition to paying the lower tax rate on his [domestic] investment income, Romney has as much as $8 million invested in at least 12 funds listed on a Cayman Islands registry. Another investment, which Romney reports as being worth between $5 million and $25 million, shows up on securities records as having been domiciled in the Caymans…

Romney campaign officials and those at Bain Capital tell ABC News that the purpose of setting up those accounts in the Cayman Islands is to help attract money from foreign investors, and that the accounts provide no tax advantage to American investors like Romney. Romney, the campaign said, has paid all U.S. taxes on income derived from those investments.

“The tax consequences to the Romneys are the very same whether the fund is domiciled here or another country,” a campaign official said in response to questions. “Gov. and Mrs. Romney have money invested in funds that the trustee has determined to be attractive investment opportunities, and those funds are domiciled wherever the fund sponsors happen to organize the funds.”…

Tax experts agree that Romney remains subject to American taxes. But they say the offshore accounts have provided him — and Bain — with other potential financial benefits, such as higher management fees and greater foreign interest, all at the expense of the U.S. Treasury. Rebecca J. Wilkins, a tax policy expert with Citizens for Tax Justice, said the federal government loses an estimated $100 billion a year because of tax havens.

Supposedly, Bain Capital maintains no fewer than 138 “secretive offshore funds” in the Caymans. To reiterate: No one’s claiming that Romney is using a tax shelter for his own money here. He’s paying the normal rate. (ABC’s headline is highly misleading on that point.) The claim, rather, is that the funds created by him and Bain operate as a tax shelter for other investors — specifically, per the LA Times piece, nonprofit institutional investors like pension plans and university endowments, which can avoid the 35 percent federal tax on “unrelated business income” by investing in an offshore hedge fund instead of a domestic one. Those investors get a little extra cash from that tax break plus higher foreign interest, Bain and Romney get some extra cash from higher management fees plus the profits that came from attracting additional investors, and everyone’s happy — except the IRS.

Which brings us back to the key question: Does this matter? Not as much as it would if Romney was sheltering his own dough, certainly, but it’s easy to imagine The One on the stump this fall talking about Mitt and his old company (whose profits he still shares in) making bank by helping others avoid the taxman while Joe Sixpack has no recourse but to pay up. If you think that’s a big nothingburger and are willing to go to war to defend perfectly legal tax shelters, okay, but this is yet another reason why we’d better see Romney’s tax returns now, not later. I appreciate Mitt not wanting to provide Democrats fodder for class-war demagoguery, but if we’re going to invest in Romney Inc in hopes of a big dividend in November, let’s see a prospectus so that we know exactly what liabilities we’re taking on. Read NRO’s new editorial for more on that.

Update: After re-reading the LA Times piece, it looks like I conflated two different funds above. It’s a shell company in Bermuda, not the Caymans, that helps institutional investors avoid certain taxes. The Caymans shell company is aimed at “shield[ing] foreign investors from U.S. taxes they would pay for investing in U.S. companies.” Same left-wing political attack applies — Bain and Romney are helping their wealthy clientele to avoid paying their “fair share” in taxes — but the specifics are apparently a bit different.

Update: ABC’s now changed the headline. It used to read “Romney Parks Millions in Offshore Tax Haven.” Minor problem: It’s not actually a tax haven for him. He pays the same tax on that money as he does on his U.S. investments. Now the headline reads “Romney Parks Millions in Cayman Islands.”

Update: By the way, even Romney fan Chris Christie thinks Romney should release his tax returns.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

What does she have? Does it involve rope? So much for private info. Speaks volumes as to how much she hates him. Hate not being to strong a word in this context.

Bmore on January 18, 2012 at 7:22 PM

Yeah. Her own kids are campaigning for him, right? Bizarro. I’d have blackmailed him and lived my golden years out in comfort.

Rational Thought on January 18, 2012 at 7:25 PM

And to think Romney was trying to paint Newt as Obama lite…should’ve been going with Clinton all along.

cd98 on January 18, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Yea, but the thing is, Clinton wasn’t anywhere near as big of a disaster as Obama or hell, even Bush. People don’t hate Clinton.

thphilli on January 18, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Romney could have 25 wives and he’d still be a better husband than Newt.

fatlibertarianinokc on January 18, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Yeah, it feels like this was a Romney ace under the table. Sleazy all around.

BoxHead1 on January 18, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Predictable assault on Romney. If Gingrich did something that bad, then it’s not Romney’s fault. And moreover, why would Romney release dirt on a guy he has already beaten twice, is poised to beat thrice, and has way more money to pound him all the way to the nomination. He’s got no incentive to go that low.

Besides, whatever it is, and I’m sure it is bad, it isn’t bad enough to keep Newt from running. I mean he obviously knew what she knows before he bothered running for president.

cd98 on January 18, 2012 at 7:26 PM

The Mittbots are at the point of making death threats against people.

Dack Thrombosis on January 18, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Yeah. Her own kids are campaigning for him, right? Bizarro.

Rational Thought on January 18, 2012 at 7:25 PM

I think that is kids from the first marriage.

haner on January 18, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Yeah, it feels like this was a Romney ace under the table. Sleazy all around.

BoxHead1 on January 18, 2012 at 7:17 PM

And boom goes the tinfoil-hat dynamite.

That didn’t take long.

KingGold on January 18, 2012 at 7:28 PM

The Mittbots are at the point of making death threats against people.

Dack Thrombosis on January 18, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Like “go develop a PE!”…..?

haner on January 18, 2012 at 7:28 PM

How is this a problem for Newt? The dems loved Billy Bob, still do. Almost sounds like an endorsement.

Erich66 on January 18, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Exactly.

Ugly on January 18, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Again, Newt needs to be properly vetted. He needs to come clean with his skeletons just like Romney needs to release his tax records.

cd98 on January 18, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Romney could have 25 wives and he’d still be a better husband than Newt.

fatlibertarianinokc on January 18, 2012 at 7:26 PM

LOL, the sad thing is this is probably true.

haner on January 18, 2012 at 7:29 PM

The Mittbots are at the point of making death threats against people.

Dack Thrombosis on January 18, 2012 at 7:27 PM


What?!

Rational Thought on January 18, 2012 at 7:29 PM

Romney could have 25 wives and he’d still be a better husband than Newt.

fatlibertarianinokc on January 18, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Awesome. He definitely gets my vote in the great husband guy contest.

Kataklysmic on January 18, 2012 at 7:29 PM

Yeah. Her own kids are campaigning for him, right? Bizarro.

Rational Thought on January 18, 2012 at 7:25 PM

There’s some good perks for daddy getting elected president. Helps you turn a blind eye.

cd98 on January 18, 2012 at 7:29 PM

See! The main street media is already starting on the Republicans before we even have a nominee. They have to start early with JugEars record, and divert everyone.
Can’t wait until we have a nominee, and then JugEars starts paying them back- advertising on the alphabet networks with all the money that will come from Brazil, the failed green companies American taxpayers fronted, etc. There will be so many ads…the media will be overwhelmed…and won’t know where all the money and groups come from…nor will they care! Capitalists!

KOOLAID2 on January 18, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Nope. The MSM and the Dems don’t want Mittens. Nope…nope…not at all. ABC will air it…for Duty and Humanity!

Ethics be d!@ned.

kingsjester

Ironic. Did you forget what thread you’re posting in? Let me help you….it’s the one about ABC implying that Romney the evil rich guy is evading taxes via the Cayman Islands, and gets to pay a super secret special tax rate reserved for evil rich guys while his secretary can barely get by.

The MSM and the Dems don’t want ANY Republican to win, and they’re going to do everything they can to make sure a Republican doesn’t win.

xblade on January 18, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Besides, whatever it is, and I’m sure it is bad, it isn’t bad enough to keep Newt from running. I mean he obviously knew what she knows before he bothered running for president.

cd98 on January 18, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Don’t be so sure. People with big egos brush aside “baggage” that would make a normal person think twice. Think John Edwards.

haner on January 18, 2012 at 7:30 PM

More From The EX;

“He believes that what he says in public and how he lives don’t have to be connected,” Marianne Gingrich, Newt’s wife of 18 years, explained to ESQUIRE last year. “When you try and change your history too much, and try and recolor it because you don’t like the way it was or you want it to be different to prove something new … you lose touch with who you really are.”

fatlibertarianinokc on January 18, 2012 at 7:31 PM

There’s some good perks for daddy getting elected president. Helps you turn a blind eye.

cd98 on January 18, 2012 at 7:29 PM

Which is curious. If I was this woman, I would want to see Newt become president no matter how much I hated him. Imagine the perks of knowing things that could destroy the republican party’s nominee?? Id be VEEEEERY wealthy and would be set for a while. Then out of spite right before the election you could ruin his campaign and still walk away with a delicious amount of goodies.

thphilli on January 18, 2012 at 7:31 PM

WHO CARES? If I had millions I’d park it in the caymans too. Unfortunately I only have hundreds.

jephthah on January 18, 2012 at 7:32 PM

I think that is kids from the first marriage.

haner on January 18, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Right. I didn’t realize marriage #2 lasted so long.

Rational Thought on January 18, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Follow along on the hilarity #MarianneGingrichRevelations

Flora Duh on January 18, 2012 at 7:32 PM

More From The EX;

“He believes that what he says in public and how he lives don’t have to be connected,” Marianne Gingrich, Newt’s wife of 18 years, explained to ESQUIRE last year. “When you try and change your history too much, and try and recolor it because you don’t like the way it was or you want it to be different to prove something new … you lose touch with who you really are.”

fatlibertarianinokc on January 18, 2012 at 7:31 PM

So far nothing really mind blowing. Nothing even that seems that damaging.

thphilli on January 18, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Which is curious. If I was this woman, I would want to see Newt become president no matter how much I hated him. Imagine the perks of knowing things that could destroy the republican party’s nominee?? Id be VEEEEERY wealthy and would be set for a while. Then out of spite right before the election you could ruin his campaign and still walk away with a delicious amount of goodies.

thphilli on January 18, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Kids benefit. Ex-wife gets nothing. Nobody cared about Reagan’s first wife.

cd98 on January 18, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Ex-wife gets nothing. Nobody cared about Reagan’s first wife.

cd98 on January 18, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Reagan’s first wife was a Hollywood actress who dumped Reagan. Not exactly a victim in the divorce.

Big difference with Newt.

haner on January 18, 2012 at 7:34 PM

So far nothing really mind blowing. Nothing even that seems that damaging.

thphilli on January 18, 2012 at 7:33 PM

That’s not from the interview, that’s from the Esquire article years ago.

haner on January 18, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Follow along on the hilarity #MarianneGingrichRevelations

Flora Duh on January 18, 2012 at 7:32 PM

LOL

“He talked about history a lot…and it was boring.”

“He married someone else.”

Rational Thought on January 18, 2012 at 7:35 PM

From Drudge:

Gingrich canceled a press conference on Wednesday to deal with the matter.

LOL, I bet he did.

thphilli on January 18, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Gingrich canceled a press conference on Wednesday to schedule another appointment with his mistress.

fatlibertarianinokc on January 18, 2012 at 7:37 PM

If this exwife interview was a Romney ace, Romney wouldn’t have been spending millions on attack ads against Gingrich. ..haner on January 18, 2012 at 7:22 PM

It could have been a coincidence so I’m not going to argue hard on this. But here goes

Newt was just closing the gap despite the millions. The tide was turning.

In Iowa Newt was pulling votes from Santorum so he was not such a threat. Mitt had already stopped the Newtmentum with the FF/prochoice.. attacks.

For instance, see the 200+ doc from the Mcain camp. THey hold on to stuff. Smart campaigns don’t release it all. By SC Newt was now threatening Romney’s sweep(Newt was helping in Iowa).

And as long as we are on this, Clinton is a great example. The repubs overplayed and over did lewinsky. By the time it mattered, Clinton was inoculated against the lewinsky mess.

BoxHead1 on January 18, 2012 at 7:37 PM

From Drudge:

Gingrich canceled a press conference on Wednesday to deal with the matter.

LOL, I bet he did.

thphilli on January 18, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Should have added more zeros to that check, Newt.

Rational Thought on January 18, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Follow along on the hilarity #MarianneGingrichRevelations
Flora Duh on January 18, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Shocking stuff!/

Buy Danish on January 18, 2012 at 7:37 PM

“He believes that what he says in public and how he lives don’t have to be connected,” Marianne Gingrich, Newt’s wife of 18 years, explained to ESQUIRE last year. “When you try and change your history too much, and try and recolor it because you don’t like the way it was or you want it to be different to prove something new … you lose touch with who you really are.”

Speaking as a bitter ex-wife, Marianne sounds like a bitter ex-wife.

Flora Duh on January 18, 2012 at 7:40 PM

Oh, so that was Mr. Romney I saw in “Hell“, Grand Cayman! And what was I doing there? A-brr hmmph-hmmph brr…
:)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on January 18, 2012 at 7:43 PM

It’s a shame we can’t interview the babies that would be alive today but for the actions of Mitt Romney.

Stayright on January 18, 2012 at 7:44 PM

So do all the Kennedys – all their trusts are there, to avoid taxes.

Don’t begrudge them a penny. Just consider them all hypocrits.

Schadenfreude on January 18, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Wait! What happened to Lobotomy4life?
4 pages of comments…a picture of Mitt Romney- that makes l4l zero in like a Buck on a Doe in rut…
It’s 6:45 and no Lobotomy4Life?
I’m concerned! You think ‘it’ pharted…and passed out!

KOOLAID2 on January 18, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Shocking stuff!/

Buy Danish on January 18, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Gosh, none is shocking, at least not so far, except the timing.

Schadenfreude on January 18, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Clinton was inoculated against the lewinsky mess.

BoxHead1 on January 18, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Clinton was innoculated because it happened in 1998. His reelection was in 1996. Gore’s loss was also partly due to the Clinton fatigue from the Lewinsky scandal, so I wouldn’t exactly call it innoculation. People sort of forgave Clinton later on because the economy boomed during his administration, people generally had good happy memories of the decade.

haner on January 18, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Speaking as a bitter ex-wife, Marianne sounds like a bitter ex-wife.

Flora Duh on January 18, 2012 at 7:40 PM

Who to believe:

Mh, bitter ex

Mh, lout

It’s tough. Romney is now the official guilded horseshiite hurler extraordinaire. Mitt is the lout he’s always been.

West/McDonnell

Schadenfreude on January 18, 2012 at 7:48 PM

And boom goes the tinfoil-hat dynamite.

That didn’t take long.

KingGold on January 18, 2012 at 7:28 PM

No,no you’re right. Political campaigns are a gentleman’s pursuit. You d8rks with the “tin foil” cliche are just shills. I’m actually just a regular guy with no firm commitment to a candidate. You’re the wierdo.

BoxHead1 on January 18, 2012 at 7:49 PM

Again, Newt needs to be properly vetted. He needs to come clean with his skeletons just like Romney needs to release his tax records.

cd98

I’m just curious…..have all the other candidates released their tax records? I know Newt hasn’t, but what about the others? Or is this something that only applies to Romney?

xblade on January 18, 2012 at 7:49 PM

ABC (who just dumped an innacurate hit piece on Romneys taxes today) doesn’t want to air this interview with Newt’s Ex wife because they “don’t want to interfere with South Carolina”

http://drudgereport.com/flash2.htm

Who’s the MSM behind again Newtbotts?

1punchWill on January 18, 2012 at 7:50 PM

He is a quarter-billionaire. He ran a major private-equity firm and he supported the bailouts; he will be tremendously vulnerable to attack from the left (by Democrats) and the right (by duplicitous Super PACs trying to demoralize conservatives). He has money parked in the Cayman Islands. He tries to prove he is right in nationally-televised debates by making $10,000 bets. Romney is a riskier candidate than most people think.

Lawdawg86 on January 18, 2012 at 7:50 PM

haner on January 18, 2012 at 7:47 PM

You’re so funny. The economy and Clinton’s record “boomed” because Newt and company forced Clinton to sign things.

I will enjoy watching the left rib Newt but I will enjoy the rightie perfect people even more.

Manna from Heaven!

Schadenfreude on January 18, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Boy can’t wait until the interviews start dropping with Mitt’s ex-wives and multiple whores.

Oh wait….

AttilaTheHun on January 18, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Clinton was inoculated against the lewinsky mess.

BoxHead1 on January 18, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Clinton was inoculated against the Lewinsky mess because the Senate wasn’t in supermajority Republican control, and thus he knew that hell would freeze over before he ever got removed from office.

But it is true that Gingrich and company vastly overplayed their hand.

KingGold on January 18, 2012 at 7:50 PM

AttilaTheHun on January 18, 2012 at 7:50 PM

The Pope is not dead, yet.

Schadenfreude on January 18, 2012 at 7:51 PM

I know Newt hasn’t, but what about the others? Or is this something that only applies to Romney?

xblade on January 18, 2012 at 7:49 PM

Newt paid 31% in 2010.

Schadenfreude on January 18, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Del Dolemonte on January 18, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Others have conjectured that it’s not authentic, however, at BuzzFeed Kaczynski wrote that some of it had already been posted at RedState, and he links to a pdf.

In Erick Erickson’s Mitt Romney: The Magically Malleable Man of Mystery of October 31, 2011, he stated the McCain opposition book was given to him twice, and he quotes from it—enough, in my opinion, to corroborate the authenticity of the doc.

INC on January 18, 2012 at 7:53 PM

guilded = gilded

Schadenfreude on January 18, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Who’s the MSM behind again Newtbotts?

1punchWill on January 18, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Obama.

thphilli on January 18, 2012 at 7:54 PM

THis shows who ABC and the rest of the media want to be our nominee.

evergreenland on January 18, 2012 at 7:55 PM

BoxHead1 on January 18, 2012 at 7:49 PM

Throwing out accusations that an opponent is manipulating oppo to this degree – essentially accusing Romney of being ABC’s puppetmaster – is so ridiculous that only wishcasting can explain it.

KingGold on January 18, 2012 at 7:55 PM

Test..:)

Dire Straits on January 18, 2012 at 7:56 PM

People don’t hate Clinton.

thphilli on January 18, 2012 at 7:25 PM

How do you know that? No one has done a poll about him in nearly 1 years.

Del Dolemonte on January 18, 2012 at 7:57 PM

I wish I had my rump parked in the Caymans..Sitting on the Beach..Drinking a cold Beer!..:)

Dire Straits on January 18, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Clinton was inoculated against the Lewinsky mess because the Senate wasn’t in supermajority ..KingGold on January 18, 2012 at 7:50 PM

The way I remember it is
This isn’t the thread theme but I don’t agree( or understand what you are getting at)

We had Clintoln on white water and then the Lewinsky affair broke. Starr decided to focus on Lewisnky. The MSM on DNC portrayed the repubs as sex starved obsessed old white men and after a year of national obsession, it worked. I don’t know why a supermajority would have swayed the populous at large?

BoxHead1 on January 18, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Throwing out accusations that an opponent is manipulating oppo to this degree – essentially accusing Romney of being ABC’s puppetmaster – is so ridiculous that only wishcasting can explain it.

KingGold on January 18, 2012 at 7:55 PM

Romney doesn’t have to be ABC’s puppet master. All Romney has to do is call up this lady and be like “Now, Now is the time for maximum damage to your ex husband”. And down goes Newt. You don’t think Romney would contact a woman who said she could end his biggest rivals presidential run with a single interview???????? I mean come on, stop being naive. He was in contact the moment Gingrich started polling well.

thphilli on January 18, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Romey and his poeple are using the same tactics that Obama and the Librals will use. So it proves that he is not a conservative.

evergreenland on January 18, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Parking money offshore hurts our economy, our banks loan money on their reserves, remove the reserves and you lose leverage…plus it just smells bad.
It, once again, makes him appear an elitist, right or wrong…and these things add us, alone with “I don’t make much speaking, just $350,000 a year”…good grief, see the writing on the wall?

right2bright on January 18, 2012 at 7:59 PM

People sort of forgave Clinton later on because the Democrat Media convinced everyone that the economy boomed during his administration, people generally had good happy memories of the decade.

haner on January 18, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Fixed.

The Democrat Media also didn’t report that the economic boom really started in March of 1991, or 18 months before they got Clinton elected. Fed statistics prove that that is when the recovery started, but the NYT sat on the story until 1999.

Del Dolemonte on January 18, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Del Dolemonte on January 18, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Others have conjectured that it’s not authentic, however, at BuzzFeed Kaczynski wrote that some of it had already been posted at RedState, and he links to a pdf.

In Erick Erickson’s Mitt Romney: The Magically Malleable Man of Mystery of October 31, 2011, he stated the McCain opposition book was given to him twice, and he quotes from it—enough, in my opinion, to corroborate the authenticity of the doc.

INC on January 18, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Well, as I noted, it’s curious that what BuzzFlash calls “complete” isn’t. And why did they just “discover” it today?

Del Dolemonte on January 18, 2012 at 8:02 PM

So Mitt starts to feel a little heat in SC.

* The debate goes just okay for him but Newt hits it out of the park.

* Probably some internal polling showing he is losing his lead.

* Palin comes out and says vote for Newt to keep this thing going and properly vet the candidates.

All of sudden, ABC comes out with an interview with Newts’ Ex. So who is behind it.

Mitt – because he is feeling the heat?

Obama – because they want to face Mitt?

Marianne – Because she’s sincere? Being Paid by Obama? Being paid by Mitt.

Politics are brutal. No wonder we get this quality of candidates. What sane person would put themselves through this?

WisRich on January 18, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Throwing out accusations that an opponent is manipulating oppo to this degree –..KingGold on January 18, 2012 at 7:55 PM

#1 Sue me. I can speculate all I want and the KingGold’s law has no sway in this territory.

#2 I assume that much of what goes down in a campaign is not accidental. THese people aren’t paid to just argue bullet points. Politics is violent and nasty. Would it be Tin foil to say that people have been destroyed because of political games?

#3. You insulted me. I didn’t insult you. That’s my first rule for who is in the right.

BoxHead1 on January 18, 2012 at 8:04 PM

I don’t know why a supermajority would have swayed the populous at large?

BoxHead1 on January 18, 2012 at 7:58 PM

*facepalm*

Clinton was in his second term. The only way he was leaving office was at the end of an impeachment trial.

We didn’t have a supermajority in the Senate (or, more precisely, a two-thirds majority) so the Dems just voted to acquit and that was that.

KingGold on January 18, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Del Dolemonte on January 18, 2012 at 8:02 PM

I doubt they just “discovered” it. They may have seen it earlier. It was promoted by BuzzFeed last night, and I’m sure they calculated the timing.

INC on January 18, 2012 at 8:05 PM

WisRich on January 18, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Its one of two people. Marianne or Mitt. Obama would LOVE to face Gingrich and would certainly not let Marianne use a bombshell like this up during the primaries if Gingrich even had a chance. Mitt WOULD tell Marianne to unload on Gingrich to cement his sweep. Marianne could see that Gingrich actually had a chance of winning and decided on her own to end Gingrich’s campaign.

thphilli on January 18, 2012 at 8:06 PM

We didn’t have a supermajority in the Senate (or, more precisely, a two-thirds majority) so the Dems just voted to acquit and that was that.

KingGold on January 18, 2012 at 8:04 PM

I *FacePalmed* to hard. ouch!
We didn’t have the population behind us. Starr was a vilian. We are lucky that Clintoln was not removed right then. Dems would have won be a landslide if he was.

I don’t want to argue this anymore though because I hated Clintoln for this and it’s not relevant.

BoxHead1 on January 18, 2012 at 8:11 PM

Gosh, none is shocking, at least not so far, except the timing.
Schadenfreude on January 18, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Schadie, surely you know what a sarc tag is by now. Do note that I began this discussion by saying M.G. is not “trustworthy”, linked to some crazy story about arms dealers, and said you would not find me “piling on”.

As for the timing, out with your allegations, please. As I see it (if viewed as a conspiracy) Mitt would have had to contacted the wacky M.G., arranged an interview with Brian Ross of ABC, and then timed it to break just before the primaries. You believe that? Cause I don’t.

Buy Danish on January 18, 2012 at 8:12 PM

Romney has millions parked in offshore funds in the caymans

At least the “parking meter attendents” get their share.

Newt and company may want to apply for that job.

Mcguyver on January 18, 2012 at 8:25 PM

The Beck ads on Drudge are starting to elicit epileptic seizures, I must scroll down a bit or rely on you folks to keep me posted on updates.

Bmore on January 18, 2012 at 8:26 PM

For all we complain about the media not vetting Obama, it would be a shame if we didn’t do the same.

I think this is survivable based on what I understand, and its not new (at least), but it is the stuff that needs to be (a) out there, (b) vetted, and (c) Romney needs good answers to.

However, it fits a pattern of stuff that Obama is going to run on against Romney, which is both a concern and needs to be weighed and evaluated – not ignored. But that’s the whole point of vetting and why it needs to be done. No surprises.

One point that Mitt should point out (and I’m not a Mitt fan, just some free advice in case I am stuck with him as the nominee) is that Clinton also used Cayman island stuff, and I think they were not as straightforward or forthcoming about it. However, the dollars were less and it was after they left office (as I understand it).

Small point, but worth noting.

Also, it should be a jumping off point for a tax reform discussion, e.g. turn the assault around on the whomever raises to point out. A little tax-reform judo and an “assault the assumptions of the media” a la Newt would be a good tactic here.

A bigger point, and one I hope I hear.

PrincetonAl on January 18, 2012 at 8:28 PM

Newt and company may want to apply for that job.

Mcguyver on January 18, 2012 at 8:25 PM

He won’t have time, he’ll be on Dancing with the stars, silly.

BettyRuth on January 18, 2012 at 8:36 PM

Major reach on Romney again. This is a conservative website right?

Why do these irrelevant stories keep popping up on HotAir??

Again, the “Uh Oh” posted by this author pops up when there is nothing “Uh Oh” about the story. Annoying.

kmalkows on January 18, 2012 at 8:43 PM

NOthing illegal about this if true, so move on. Lets ask Obama to open all the “sealed or unavailable” records he is hiding from the American people. We demand to see what he is hiding before we vote.

Amazingoly on January 18, 2012 at 8:45 PM

Yeah. We all remember how concerned the media was with Clintons tax scandals. And the Obama house and lot purchase.

pat on January 18, 2012 at 8:59 PM

jittery mitt is a terrible fit for this electoral cycle. the optics awful. obama will chop him up and feed him to the sharks(abc,nbc,cbs,etal)

rik on January 18, 2012 at 9:04 PM

listens2glenn on January 18, 2012 at 7:16 PM

Of course! That’s why Warren Buffet has been fighting the IRS in court for 5 years – so they’d let him pay MORE!.
peski on January 18, 2012 at 7:20 PM

I wish the IRS would ‘fight’ some of my wealthier associates like that.

Could we even imagine that conversation?

I gonna give it try.

Hypothetical: Some friend of yours who’s not “too poor,” gets an IRS audit notice in the mail.

John Smith: Hi, I’m John Smith, is this the correct room for my audit?
IRS agent: Yes it is, and good morning Mr. Smith, do have a seat. Have you all your documents?
John Smith: Yes sir (or mam), I’m quite certain I should have it all. I double checked and all that, what with receiving an IRS audit notice putting the “fear of God” into me, I could hardly sleep last night for wondering what the reason for this audit could be.

IRS agent: Oh, well I’m sorry to hear this has caused you much distress. Let’s see if we can put your mind at ease.

John Smith: I’ve always tried to make sure, if there was any doubt, to ‘err’ on the side of the Government. I just can’t understand how I could have missed something.

IRS agent: Uh huh, yes, we do appreciate the efforts of taxpayers who try to ensure that they don’t . . . . . oh, oh my . . . why there’s the discrepancy.

John Smith: What, WHAT IS IT? !

IRS agent: Actually, it’s discrepancies, plural. It appears you have failed to take advantage of two different deductions that you were perfectly qualified to claim, pertaining to your line of business. You have overpaid us by $67,054.73.

John Smith(incredulous): Huh?

IRS agent: Oh yes sir, you have grossly overpaid, and I can cut you a refund check right here to take with you.

John Smith: Well (gulping), I don’t know what to say . . . . . . you’ve caught me totally off guard with this turn of events. Why, I’m SPEECHLESS!

IRS agent: Well, it’s all in a days work for us, Mr. Smith. Uhh . . . let me be clear about this; you’re not complaining about this, are you Mr Smith?

John Smith: Dear lord, NO. Was I giving you that impression? I sure didn’t mean to!

IRS agent: Well that’s good to hear. For a second I was beginning to suspect you might be like Warren Buffet.
You wouldn’t believe the effort we have to go through every year with that guy, to keep him from overpaying. He’s even tried some “creative” reporting to try and hide his over-payments. But, we’ve been able to stay a step ahead of him on that score.
Yep, Warren’s quite a character.

listens2glenn on January 18, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Who cares when Romney releases his tax return? Why should he do it now? I think he should wait until the day after Obama releases his college transcripts.

TheLoudTalker on January 18, 2012 at 9:18 PM

Incidentally.

Yeah Romney should release his tax-return, just to clear the air. I don’t blame him for being surprised though. Like the whole Bain thing, this was mostly a far-left fringy talking point until the past few days. They probably figured they’d release the tax returns after the primary was over, before the general election has gotten into full swing.

Then his opponents decided to grab the issue and run with it. I don’t blame them for doing so, but it is strange that they keep grabbing issues out of the democrats playbook.

Releasing them tomorrow during the debates would probably be the best idea. I doubt there is anything incriminating or anything like that, but as we all know the media will even spin paying the legal capital gains tax-rate as something sinister. By releasing them during the debate tomorrow, there is an excellent chance the media will be too busy with the Gingrich-Ex story to try spinning his tax-return into something that could be used against him.

WolvenOne on January 18, 2012 at 9:37 PM

OK, this is an issue, why?

If I recall, there is a court decision that pretty much affirms an individual’s right to order his or her affairs to their advantage regarding the taxes they will owe.

If he didn’t break any laws, then there is no issue.

Just more frickin’ class warfare nonsense.

/… and I don’t even want Romney as the nominee

AZfederalist on January 18, 2012 at 9:51 PM

What a load of crap.

BTW, Romney can release his tax returns when Gingrich finally explains exactly what he did to earn that 1.6 million from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He did promise to do that.

Terrye on January 18, 2012 at 10:28 PM

Yeah. We all remember how concerned the media was with Clintons tax scandals. And the Obama house and lot purchase.

pat on January 18, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Remember that! One or two stories on the House and lot purchase…and then no follow-up! Typical.
Remember the Clinton’s writing off socks with holes in them and old underwear too…when their taxes were being scrutinized.

KOOLAID2 on January 18, 2012 at 10:41 PM

ROMNEY…………next in line.

that’s the way the gop works, it has for decades and it just doesn’t change.

assuming we have elections in 2016 it will be Jeb Bush’s turn (or some hand-picked Bush clone).

We’re not going to get a real Reagan Conservative as the head of the gop EVER AGAIN.

PappyD61 on January 18, 2012 at 10:52 PM

Apparently you haven’t been listening to what Newt has been saying Terrye. He made a fraction of the total bill to Fannie and Freddie. His consulting business, which did work for several large corporations and involved numerous consultants that did a bulk of the work and received a bulk of the revenue. Using consultants is nothing new and using history experts in government is very common. On the other hand, since I missed the “detailed piece” in 2007 referenced above about the Caymens and Romney, this is pretty much the first time this has been sprung on me and I’m amazed at the reaction by Romney supporters. Actually No. Sadly, I’m not.

mike_NC9 on January 18, 2012 at 10:58 PM

amazed=surprised

mike_NC9 on January 18, 2012 at 10:59 PM

PappyD61 on January 18, 2012 at 10:52 PM

That may be true Pappy, but Newt and anti-corruption czar Sarah Palin would kick some ass.

mike_NC9 on January 18, 2012 at 11:01 PM

“Romney’s support for the mandate is also technically old news”

We must remember to distinguish between support for an in-state mandate and support for a national mandate. Support for neither may be most preferable, but that doesn’t mean both are equivalent.

netster007x on January 18, 2012 at 11:07 PM

Although it is not apparent on his financial disclosure form, Mitt Romney has millions of dollars of his personal wealth in investment funds set up in the Cayman Islands, a notorious Caribbean tax haven.

Translation of bolded section:

We were forced to make up practically everything you are about to read.

BobMbx on January 18, 2012 at 11:37 PM

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/01/18/video-the-real-truth-behind-the-king-of-bain-film-two-men-featured-in-movie-claim-they-were-not-aware-it-was-about-romney-or-bain-capital/

In part of the film, Jones was featured talking about the fear of losing insurance, and he added, “We weren’t even talking about Bain or Mitt Romney.” In fact, once Bain Capital took over UniMac, Jones said he had no issues because everyone at the company received raises. He also received two promotions while they were in charge.

Gingrich and his lies…

1punchWill on January 18, 2012 at 11:38 PM

We must remember to distinguish between support for an in-state mandate and support for a national mandate. Support for neither may be most preferable, but that doesn’t mean both are equivalent.

netster007x on January 18, 2012 at 11:07 PM

I wonder if the people in MA feel the same way, since they’re the ones subjected to the mandate.

How would you make that statement if all 50 states implemented a mandate? Equivalent to a national mandate then?

BobMbx on January 18, 2012 at 11:39 PM

I’m going to have to correct Alpha on this since I’ve actually helped form private equity funds in the Cayman Islands. The reason that most private equity funds are formed there (or Bermuda or the Canary Islands) is not for American tax payers to avoid paying taxes. It is for foreign companies that pay taxes in their own country to avoid also having to pay such taxes in the United States. For example, if a British national wants to invest in a fund established by Bain, that British national is taxed by Britain on the income they make from the fund. Now why in the world would that national also want to pay taxes to the US?

Second error – institutional investors, such as pension funds, endowment funds, and non-profits are supposed to be tax exempt entities. You have to understand what UBTI (unrelated business tax income) is before you say that these organizations are unfairly avoiding it. UBTI results when a tax exempt entity is engaged in business ventures unrelated to their tax exempt purpose – think Harvard running a steel mill – and using their tax exempt status to compete unfairly in that particular industry. Off-shore funds are sometimes used to avoid the circumstance when a tax exempt entity would be found incurring UBTI when a technicality of the law is triggered. For instance, many funds use “pass-through” taxation entities to purchase portfolio companies. The “pass-through” taxation status could trigger UBTI for tax-exempt companies. Thus, different structures – such as blocker corporations, parallel funds, or off-shore funds – are used to avoid putting the tax exempt institutional investor in that situation.

Finally, the mananger of the fund is still required, if they are domiciled in the US, to pay income taxes (whether ordinary income or capital gains, depending on the tax character of the income) in the US. This is a red herring that is playing on the ignorance of the masses (and apparently even conservatives) about why these funds are formed the way they are.

studentofhistory on January 18, 2012 at 11:51 PM

I see the media is getting ready to manipulate the republican primary process again.

And, it’s never about policy. Is it?

trigon on January 19, 2012 at 12:04 AM

ABC: Romney has millions parked in funds in the Caymans

Obama has $2 Billion of our tax dollars in loan funds parked in Brazil & he just out-sourced the Keystone Pipeline jobs to China. Shhh! Don’t tell ABC.

TN Mom on January 19, 2012 at 12:12 AM

for Repubs to nominate Romney is to hand Obama 4 more years on a silver platter.

we might as well nominate the CEO of Goldman Sacks, he would have just a much chance or winning…Zero.

Since Murdoch now owns Drudge, it must be that Drudges shilling for Romney means that Murdoch is either foolish enough to think that Romney has a chance, or he wants Obama in office because it is better for the news business profits

georgealbert on January 19, 2012 at 12:16 AM

ABC: Romney has millions parked in funds in the Caymans

Obama has $2 Billion of our tax dollars in loan funds parked in Brazil & he just out-sourced the Keystone Pipeline jobs to China. Shhh! Don’t tell ABC.
TN Mom on January 19, 2012 at 12:12 AM

I don’t know if a ‘threadwinner’ was announced already, but I would put this one ‘in the running.’ : )

listens2glenn on January 19, 2012 at 12:27 AM

We’re not going to get a real Reagan Conservative as the head of the gop EVER AGAIN.
PappyD61 on January 18, 2012 at 10:52 PM

Oh, I think we can.

ABOLISHING OPEN PRIMARIES would be a good start.

listens2glenn on January 19, 2012 at 12:32 AM

listens2glenn on January 19, 2012 at 12:27 AM

:)

TN Mom on January 19, 2012 at 12:42 AM

So where does Obundler have his millions billions parked?

stukinIL4now on January 19, 2012 at 12:56 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5