We have heard the deafening silence of Mitt Romney on the issue of his tax dodges. We have heard the deflections. We have heard Mitt insult the voting public as "small-minded" for wondering what this self-styled fix-it man was and is really up to with the piles of cash he sucked out of American businesses before saddling them with debt and shutting the doors. Now we hear the line about paying what was "legally required" from both Mitt Romney and his wife, Anne. We have absolutely no way of knowing if the Romneys did live up to the minimal standard of doing what was "legally required." We won't know until Romney does what every other candidate for the highest office has done: disclose the multiple years of tax returns instead of one PARTIAL return with substantial omissions regarding his overseas tax shelters.
Let us assume that the Romneys did not do anything for which they could be prosecuted. That is a generous assumption given the facts in evidence about the timing of certain large overseas cash transfers which suggest they were intended to avoid prosecution during an amnesty period for tax cheats. It is also generous to take Romney at his word when he will not provide even a scrap of evidence to clear things up. But assuming he did, strictly speaking, comply with the laws by using his many complex tax shelters: does that make it right, moral, patriotic, or statesmanlike? Certainly not.
There are many examples all around us of people doing things that are legal but certainly not admirable or proper. Indeed, there are examples of people who cause pain, illness, and death without being legally culpable. For several years we have heard horrible stories of stores selling potent deadly drugs labeled as "bath salts" to children. Until recent action by the Obama Administration to stop this, a store selling poison to children was another example of doing all that was "legally required." A store owner should not need a law to tell them not to sell poison to a child, and a candidate for the Presidency of The United States should not need a law to tell them to pay their fair share. In fact as a Presidential candidate, the bar should obviously be set far higher than merely a lack of ongoing criminality.
The indignation of Mitt and Anne Romney is distasteful in the extreme. The attitude displayed is one of entitlement to hold high office, privilege to hide what they want, and utter contempt for the voting public, the media, and the Office of The President of The United States. We may not have the pleasure of seeing Mitt and the other 1 Percenters held accountable for their selfish and disloyal betrayal of their country and countrymen. We may not ever get to put these strutting peacocks in their place through the legal system. They may all have made the necessary arrangements to hide, shelter, and offshore their collective trillions of dollars from legal scrutiny. What they cannot do is escape the court of public opinion. This is why we have elections. We must not reward those who thumb their nose at our laws, insult us for asking legitimate questions, and expect us to just take their word that they are honest. We must not elect this man Mitt Romney. Even if he is in the right where the law is concerned, he is most definitely not in the right where morals, ethics, and statesmanship are concerned.