Friday, July 20, 2012

You know Krugman... jettisoning any pretension of non-partisan rationality when he rants the below.  Shifting the burden of proof ("has there ever been a president with Swiss bank accounts?***) to the audience he seeks to persuade is bad form.

This, coupled with the usual asymmetrical character assessments (it is "right" for Romney to disclose every financial transaction he has ever been involved with, but "wrong" for Obama to disclose academic records, grades, etc.) destroys this articles credulity.

It is also very interesting that Mr. Krugman believes his political judgement merits serious least to his editors.

[***99% likely, and if not Swiss then somewhere else.  Does he not know the history of this country, how it started, the relationships it has enjoyed, and the folks who have been President??  44 Presidents, with the likes of Hoover, Kennedy, Johnson, et al.  In addition, the question should include presidential candidates.  This significantly raises the total pool of people with possible Swiss bank accounts, and would certainly snag at least one unlucky politico who dared to place private assets in non-domestic jurisdictions.]

Put it this way: Has there ever before been a major presidential candidate who had a multimillion-dollar Swiss bank account, plus tens of millions invested in the Cayman Islands, famed as a tax haven?
And then there’s his Individual Retirement Account. I.R.A.’s are supposed to be a tax-advantaged vehicle for middle-class savers, with annual contributions limited to a few thousand dollars a year. Yet somehow Mr. Romney ended up with an account worth between $20 million and $101 million.
There are legitimate ways that could have happened, just as there are potentially legitimate reasons for parking large sums of money in overseas tax havens. But we don’t know which if any of those legitimate reasons apply in Mr. Romney’s case — because he has refused to release any details about his finances. This refusal to come clean suggests that he and his advisers believe that voters would be less likely to support him if they knew the truth about his investments.
And that is precisely why voters have a right to know that truth. Elections are, after all, in part about the perceived character of the candidates — and what a man does with his money is surely a major clue to his character.

No comments: