Paul Ryan Says He'll Only Release 2 Years Of Tax Returns In '60 Minutes' Interview

Paul Ryan Says He'll Only Release 2 Years Of Tax Returns In '60 Minutes' Interview

WASHINGTON -- Presumptive vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan said on Sunday that while he turned over "several years" of tax returns to the Romney campaign during his vetting process, he would only make two years of tax returns public for voters.

It's the same nonsense over and over again. I'm for one am happy that both political parties continue the blatant disrespect toward American voters. Sooner or later people will get fed up (I hope).

"It was a very exhaustive vetting process," he told CBS's Bob Schiefer. "It is a confidential vetting process. So there were several years. But I'm going to release the same amount of years that Governor Romney has. But I got to tell you Bob -- two, I'm going to be releasing two, which is what he's releasing -– what I hear from people around this country, they are not asking, 'Where are the tax returns,' they are asking where the jobs are? Where is the economic growth?"

Oh really! Nobody is asking about the financial transactions and positions these men have acquired? Well let me be the first to ask. Whats up with Romney's and Ryan's tax returns? Being in a possible position to represent me at a federal level, I think I should know whether or not you may have any conflicts of interest.

reply to post by GD21D

Sorry, I'm missing something. Why would his tax returns from three or more years ago show whether he has conflicts of interest now? Wouldn't his current taxes be more revealing?

I'd be a liitle surprised if he was worth as much as Biden. We're not talking wealthy here.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by GD21D

 

Sorry, I'm missing something. Why would his tax returns from three or more years ago show whether he has conflicts of interest now? Wouldn't his current taxes be more revealing?

I'd be a liitle surprised if he was worth as much as Biden. We're not talking wealthy here.

It's not about one guy or another doing it. It's the fact that since Romney is pulling this stunt then it's acceptable for everyone to do it now. So now we have Obama with the birth certificates and college transcripts, Romney and Ryan with financial records, ect, ect. I don't care whether these things have substance or not. I care about the fact that a level of secrecy is considered acceptable at this point. We're moving in a direction where there is no obligation to the American people by their representatives.Think about it like this. In order to get a TS clearance you have to go through an extreme vetting process. Criminal background checks, financial background checks, interviews with friends, coworkers, family members, ect. The process is so extensive that it usually takes 6 mos to a year to complete. But somehow individuals running for the highest levels of office in this country (individuals that should be held to the highest standards) are able to circumvent the process as far as disclosure to the people they represent.This is a dangerous precedence that is currently being set, and it should not be allowed.

reply to post by GD21D

Dear GD21D,

It's not very much, but I sort of agree with you.

Think about it like this. In order to get a TS clearance you have to go through an extreme vetting process. Criminal background checks, financial background checks, interviews with friends, coworkers, family members, ect. The process is so extensive that it usually takes 6 mos to a year to complete. But somehow individuals running for the highest levels of office in this country (individuals that should be held to the highest standards) are able to circumvent the process as far as disclosure to the people they represent.

But the point about your clearance example is they do get vetted, and by the IRS in the case of taxes, as well as the parties nominating them. These groups don't release the information they obtain to the country because it is private, personal, information.

Is your position that candidates should have no privacy at all? I can understand it if it is, but I would disagree with it. And what would the citizenry do with the over 2000 pages (estimated) of Romney's tax returns. They would do nothing at all. No normal citizen would spend five minutes on it. The people don't care at all. The only people who would care are the political operatives desperate to find something damaging in them, even if it has to be made up. And we know things are being made up already.

I'm just not persuade to your point of view yet, maybe if I sleep on it.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
But the point about your clearance example is they do get vetted, and by the IRS in the case of taxes, as well as the parties nominating them. These groups don't release the information they obtain to the country because it is private, personal, information.

Is your position that candidates should have no privacy at all? I can understand it if it is, but I would disagree with it. And what would the citizenry do with the over 2000 pages (estimated) of Romney's tax returns. They would do nothing at all. No normal citizen would spend five minutes on it. The people don't care at all. The only people who would care are the political operatives desperate to find something damaging in them, even if it has to be made up. And we know things are being made up already.

I'm just not persuade to your point of view yet, maybe if I sleep on it.

With respect,
Charles1952

We're not talking about an FBI agent or anything of the sort. We're talking about the positions of President and Vice President of the United States. These positions hold worldwide implications on many levels. If you have an issue with privacy then maybe you shouldn't be running for one of the most scrutinized positions in the world.Everyone has some dirt on them somewhere sometime. I can accept that, and I don't necessarily condemn it. When you begin to be secretive it says you may have much more to hide than a little something here or there. What's upsetting is that secrecy is becoming more and more commonplace at all levels of government. It's creating a disconnect between the people and their representative republic.I appreciate the civil discourse. Even if we disagree I'm glad it didn't turn into a personal jabbing match.

I see the secret one as being Obama. Where there is credible smoke there must be some fire.

I'm not very concerned about Paul Ryan's net worth or his tax returns. On the grand scale, Ryan is ranked 124th in the House in regards to his net worth. If he ends up in the top 25 suddenly my eye brows will certainly go up.

Let's see if the opposition can connect him with an endless assortment of political and social radicals throughout his entire life... That would certainly concern me.... hint hint....

Here are his financial disclosure statements that he is required to file
www.opensecrets.org...

It would be impossible for Ryan to publicly release more tax returns without embarrassing Romney, who hasn't even released one year of complete tax returns. If Ryan were to release 12 or 15 years worth of returns like Obama/Biden, it would only highlight Romney's tax problems.

reply to post by GD21D

Dear GD21D,

Golly! An ATS member who appreciates civil discourse! Oh, I see... you're pretty new still. Well, do the best you can at keeping that attitude and I hope to run into you again.

I agree with you here

What's upsetting is that secrecy is becoming more and more commonplace at all levels of government.

It is upsetting and we'd both like to see the amount of material being kept secret be reduced, and the reasons for hiding it be narrowed.

But you mentioned that it is occuring more frequently in government, and I think that introduces an important (well, at least to me) distinction. Governmental secrecy v. individual privacy. As the government creates more and more secrets, it seems to be robbing the individual of what few remaining secrets he has.

Is that depriviation of privacy justified in Romney's case? I can give you a firm, unequivocal, "maybe." Do the American people have a "right" to the returns? Not in any meaningful sense of the word. That would imply he has a duty to release them, and no such duty can be found in any law. There is, however, an imperfectly adhered to custom, but I'm not sure that's enough.

I'm also concerned about the planned use of the information. I am as sure of this, as I am of anything, that if Romney's returns violated the law, Obama knows about it. I am positive those audits have been done. Evidence? None. But it would be the most natural and commonplace thing in the world for this administration to check his returns very carefully.

So what would the use be, and why should we know it? Look at the very worst scenario. Romney found a way to pay less taxes than other people or used a legal loophole. Is that a required piece of information for Americans? I'm tending to think it isn't. I suspect it would be misinterpreted and used in an over-heated campaign ad. And I'm sorry for sounding partisan, but it strikes me that the returns are less essential for Americans than the material the other Presidential candidate is refusing to release.

It's creating a disconnect between the people and their representative republic.

I agree, but I also think that a fair part of the disconnect comes from citizens asking "How could they vote for that? I don't want it and 60% of the country doesn't want it, don't they listen to us? And where are these stupid new regulations coming from? Stop pestering me, you guys are making life miserable."

Thanks again, stick around.

With respect,
Charles1952