Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

ROMNEY: Critics need to do their research

Letter by Craig Chilton, Bonney Lake on Jan. 24, 2012 at 11:54 am with 55 Comments »
February 1, 2012 11:51 am

A letter writer claims Mitt Romney has an empathy gap due to his wealth (TNT, 1-18). I would suggest the writer has a hypocrisy gap. He and the Democrats had no problem with their 2004 presidential candidate, John Kerry, who is more wealthy than Romney.

Last year, we didn’t hear a peep out of them when Democrat Warren Buffett announced he paid his income taxes at the 15 percent rate. Romney stated that he paid the same rate on his investments, and the Democrats were outraged. More hypocrisy.

I believe this writer also has a research gap, since he knows nothing about  Romney. I would recommend he read David Brooks’ Jan. 22 column in The Seattle Times, “Wealth doesn’t define Mitt Romney.” Brooks writes “Mitt Romney is a rich man, but is Mitt Romney’s character formed by his wealth? Is Romney a spoiled, cosseted character? Has he been corrupted by ease and luxury? The notion is preposterous. All his life, Romney has been a worker and a grinder.”

Romney gives back to society by tithing to the Mormon church and donating millions through his foundation. His average annual donations are well over 10 percent of his gross income. The year he ran for governor of Massachusetts, it was 13 percent.

What percentage of their gross income do President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden give to charity? In 2007, Obama gave 5.7 percent (other years as low as 1 percent) and Biden 0.3 percent.

Who has an empathy gap?

Leave a comment Comments → 55
  1. Fibonacci says:

    Romney does

  2. chris3dog says:

    Forget about the unimportant stuff, let’s see his birth certificate!

  3. BlaineCGarver says:

    Lib hypocrits abound.

  4. The hypocrites on this issue are the Republoyalists who refuse to acknowledge that the attacks on Mitt’s financial status – the “class war envy” stuff – is coming from Gingrich and Perry.

  5. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Perry and Newt are not writing LTE in Tacoma or commenting on these boards.

  6. BlaineCGarver says:

    “The hypocrites on this issue are the Republoyalists who refuse to acknowledge that the attacks on Mitt’s financial status – the “class war envy” stuff – is coming from Gingrich and Perry.”

    Prove it….I see primary races being played out, nothing more. At least try.

  7. BlaineCGarver says:

    No more free passes to the usual suspects that just say what ever comes into their little, socialist brains.

  8. aislander says:

    George Romney earned HIS wealth without benefit of even a college education. Mitt was close to his father and aware of the amount of work he did to become an American success story.

    It usually isn’t until the third generation of wealth that people become derisive of what the established rich refer to as “strivers.”

    THAT’S when they become Democrats…

  9. aislander says:

    …unless they marry their money. In that case, they’re already Democrats…

  10. Good letter Craig.

    LOL aislander!

  11. PumainTacoma says:

    Obama gave 1% to charity and Biden gave $369….

    Michelle spends more on a dress than they give to charity….

  12. ManuelMartini says:

    The Romney campaign must have had letters ready to go out to newspapers as soon as the IRS form hit the media. This one makes two today.

  13. ManuelMartini says:

    “Obama gave 1% to charity and Biden gave $369….
    Michelle spends more on a dress than they give to charity….”

    How much did either give without reporting it for IRS purposes? I know I don’t report all of my charitable giving.

  14. ManuelMartini says:

    “…unless they marry their money. In that case, they’re already Democrats…”

    Calista Gingrich is a Democrat????????

    Say it ain’t so!!

    Something tells me that congressional aides are not independently wealthy.

  15. sandblower says:

    It’s how he earned his money that is most important. Greed comes first in his world. Then he gives a bunch to his church hoping to make up for it.
    He should be paying 50% on everything over $300K.

  16. Mitt Romney’s biggest critics right now are the people in his own party. They are Republicans! And, they have proven that they will criticize him on any and every issue they can find or make up amd use against him.

    You can’t blame Romney criticism on the libs, progs or Dems this time. You just can’t, because they are staying pretty much silent about Romney and letting Gingrich and his pals beat-up on Mitt.

    Why do you suppose that the majority of the Republican party base is allowing such a mauling of one of their own?

    I think it’s because Mitt is a Mormon, and a lot to the party faithful would take anyone as their candidate EXCEPT a Mormon.

    How else can you explain a party that prides itself on “family values” supporting a serial wife-cheater like Newt Gingrich? “Well,” they say, “he may cheat on his wives, but at least he’s NOT Mormon.”

    How else do you explain the party faithful putting their political faith into a guy like Gingrich who has already proven he can’t be trusted to do the right and ethical things when he was in a position of political power in Congress, and was basically kicked-out and fined over $300K? “Well, at least he’s NOT a Mormon!”

    Someday I would like to see John Travolta or Tom Cruise run for the presidential nomination under the Republican banner. Can you possibly imagine what would happen if a Scientologist ran for president as a Republican? Mitt might have a real chance then.

  17. aislander says:

    ManuelMartini writes: “How much did [the Obamas] give without reporting it for IRS purposes? I know I don’t report all of my charitable giving.”

    Are you kidding? The Obamas are Democrat pols! I remember the Clintons deducting used underwear, for God’s sake!

  18. Thanks for the laughs aislander. Anybody who wants to attack Mitt on this issue or his very positive work for the economy is just ignorant.
    I like Newt and Rick Perry as candidates more than Mitt(to frickin liberal) but they are completely out of line here. 3 million to charity in 2010? He’s a hero! Lol he set Obama up with this buildup to his tax return release. Has Buffet’s secretary released her taxes do we can see that she is making 6 figures? The talking heads on CNN etc are claiming the average American pays 28 percent taxes. They are lying. You’d have to make 500 to a mill a year to be there. Obama considers me “rich”. I don’t make half a mill but I am in the top 2 percent of income earners and my overall rate is about 24 percent. People forget there is a significant difference between marginal and overall tax rates. We have an extremely unfair progressive income tax system so you progressively pay a higher marginal rate the higher your income goes.

    Great letter!

  19. Muck – You are absolutely right about the Mormon prejudice and it needs to stop. Romney is the only hope for the Republican Party. I have said that for months and Ann Coulter(the bomb thrower) has said that for months (I said it first). Polls show one third of Evangelicals won’t vote for a Mormon. I do think if Romney gets the nomination, they will come around and vote against Obama. Newt is a disaster. He paid a $300,000 fine back in the late 90’s – for what? – he lied to federal investigators! Then he was reprimanded by the house. He was the poster child for the Democrats when he said – “I am going to let Medicare wither on the vine”. We need Romney who will fight for free enterprise and capitalism. Not a left wing ideologue that believes everyone isn’t given a fair shot – what nonsense.

  20. Prove it

    Gingrich has cut the lead held by Romney in Florida and also caught the former Massachusetts governor in a national poll released Monday. One reason for the changing dynamic is Romney’s uncertain response to calls for him to release his tax returns.

    He first said he would do so in April, but under increasing pressure from opponents and some supporters, Romney agreed to do so on Tuesday.

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/politics/republican-debate/index.html

    Gingrich Camp Smacks Romney for Not Releasing Taxes Earlier
    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/24/gingrich-camp-smacks-romney-for-not-releasing-taxes-earlier/

    Gingrich Calls on Romney to Release Tax Returns
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/288363/gingrich-calls-romney-release-tax-returns-brian-bolduc

    Newt Gingrich has suggested a flat tax rate of 15 percent, which he now proposes to call the “Romney Tax.”
    http://www.csmonitor.com/…/Newt-Gingrich-s-Romney-tax-not-a-bad-idea

    There’s so much more…

  21. When you don’t itemize, you don’t report charitable giving.

    LOL @ Extradordinaire. Fits the bill.

  22. took14theteam says:

    Reminds me of BTDT…..

  23. alindasue says:

    ManuelMartini said, “How much did either give without reporting it for IRS purposes? I know I don’t report all of my charitable giving.”

    I don’t report everything I give either, mainly because I don’t bother to save my receipts for such things – however, the church makes it easy to claim my contributions to them because they give me a statement of my contributions at the end of every year. The same is no doubt the case with the Romneys.

    So far, all the criticism of Mitt Romney seems to be coming from the other Republican candidates and their supporters, although I’m sure the Democrats will no doubt get their say in too if/when he makes it through the caucus nominations.

    took1fortheteam said, “Reminds me of BTDT….. ”

    What’s BTDT?

  24. SPeters says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Jan. 24, 2012 at 8:28

    LOL! Like I said, fox is guarding the hen house.

  25. Pacman33 says:

    “The question is not what anybody deserves. The question is who is to take on the God-like role of deciding what everybody else deserves. You can talk about ‘social justice’ all you want. But what death taxes boil down to is letting politicians take money from widows and orphans to pay for goodies that they will hand out to others, in order to buy votes to get re-elected. That is not social justice or any other kind of justice.”

    ~ Thomas Sowell

  26. Irresponsibility abounds. Rescind the Bush tax cuts. Thats what Obama was elected to do.

  27. ManuelMartini says:

    Many people donate to charity without claiming it for a tax deduction.

    Many people are childish about what they don’t know, also.

  28. Of course they do. Many people don’t itemize either, therefore they wouldn’t be able to deduct a charitable contribution. :)

    And yes, you are.

  29. Romney critics really do NOT need to do their research. All they need do is just listen to what Newt says about Romney.

    Everything Newt says about Romney must be absolutely true, because Newt is the absolute epitome of truth, honor and integrity in the Republican Party.

    Newt Gingrich is the yardstick by which the ethics and honesty of ALL Republicans can be measured today. Isn’t that RIGHT?

  30. ManuelMartini says:

    Oh, an “I know you are but what am I?” statement! How cute.

    If you don’t own property (many people enjoy the convenience of renting in major cities especially), you don’t have enough write-offs to itemize, thus you can’t deduct charitible giving, either.

    Now, that being said, the ability to itemize need not stipulate the ability to earn and pay taxes.

    Meanwhile, many people find charitable giving to be a matter that isn’t for the purposes of a tax deduction.

    Since some people like to “compare” – ask yourself, which man grew up in a lower middle class family and worked to make himself what he is today? Was that Romney? Obama?

    Some people are just spoiled and have never had to work for anything.

  31. ManuelMartini says:

    paranoid much?

  32. aislander says:

    Bandito writes: “Irresponsibility abounds. Rescind the Bush tax cuts. Thats what Obama was elected to do.

    Then, why didn’t he do that when Democrats owned the whole government? And you DO know that taxes would go up most for the lowest brackets, don’t you.

    The very lowest bracket would go up by an infinite percentage, since it is paying nothing now. The next lowest would increase by 50%.

    The lower brackets would pay more in raw dollars, too. The additional amount from the “rich” would net $70 billion more per year, but everybody else would “contribute” $400 billion…

  33. So muck for staying on topic, again.

  34. Yea Larry, Obama wasn’t privilaged. ;);)

    •Both his parents were PhD.s
    •His Indonesian stepfather was part of that country’s ruling class, working for Union Oil and the national government of Indonesia. They lived there in a house with servants.
    •In Hawaii, Obama went to Punahou prep school–tuition this year is $18,450.
    •In Hawaii, he was raised by his grandmother–who was a bank executive.
    •He attended Columbia University and Harvard Law School, and was president of the Harvard Law Review.
    •He has not served in the Armed Forces, nor has he ever had a job that involved lifting anything heavier than his hat.

    All of that is remarkably similar to what people call “white privilege.”

    LOL

  35. without the White part……

  36. I find it very interesting that some people can criticize President Obama for having a few lucky breaks in his life go right for him, but they get all defensive for Mitt Romney when someone suggests that Mitt was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

    President Obama and his wife were still paying on their student loans just two years before he ran for president. You think Mitt Romney ever had to take out a student loan? I could be wrong, but I don’t think so. You think Mitt Romney ever had a job were he was required to lift “anything heavier than his hat.” Don’t think so.

    Hypocrites!

  37. Thanks for agreeing with me beerboy.

    a few lucky breaks LOL, good one.

    So besides having a privilaged upbringing he was delinquent paying back his loan. Priceless.

    Nice deflection.

  38. aislander says:

    Mitt Romney was not born privileged. His father, George, was a self-made man, lacking even a college degree. Mitt earned his own money, too…

  39. Mitt Romney was NOT privileged? Really!

    “Romney was born in Detroit, Michigan. He was the youngest child of George W. Romney, who by 1948 had become an automobile executive.”

    – FATHER was an AUTO EXEC in DETROIT

    “Romney went to public elementary schools and then from seventh grade on, attended Cranbrook School in Bloomfield Hills, a private boys preparatory school of the classic mold where he was the lone Mormon and where many students came from even more privileged backgrounds.”

    – Romney went to Cranbrook private boys prep school with other students from PRIVELEGED BACKGROUNDS.

    “While a sophomore, he participated in the campaign in which his father was elected Governor of Michigan. George Romney was re-elected twice; Mitt worked for him as an intern in the governor’s office, and was present at the 1964 Republican National Convention”

    – Romney father was the GOVERNOR who gave his son a campaign job and a government internship!

    – Romney went to the Republican Convention in ’64. Why?

    “Initially a manager for the ice hockey team and a pep squad member, during his final year at Cranbook,”

    – OMG!!! Romney was a member of the pep squad, JUST LIKE GEORGE W. BUSH WAS A CHEERLEADER.

    No, Mitt Romney wasn’t privileged at all. (Historical revisionism aside that is.)

  40. aislander – just cuz Mitt’s grandpa wasn’t rich doesn’t mean that Mitt didn’t have a silver spoon.

  41. aislander and his mascot:

    The biography I am reading says that Obama was able to attend various schools because he won scholarships – not my-daddy-is-wealthy-so-he-is-paying-my-tuition scholarships but the kind you are awarded due to hard work and scholarship. He also attended Occidental College in LA – while it self-labels itself as a “top-tier liberal arts college it is not exactly the first school that pops into the imagination as being filled with rich kids of privilege – white or “half-white”.

  42. What biography would that be?

  43. ManuelMartini says:

    Is SPeters talking to himself now?

    Not sure who “Larry” is, but Obama’s education was on scholarships. He qualified based on academic performance and need.

    The information is all over the internet for people that want to learn.

  44. ManuelMartini says:

    I suppose if you went far enough back in Obama’s history you might find where one of his relatives was a wealthy goat herder in Kenya.

    Comparing Obama and MITT Romney (the possible two candidates), one was a bootstrapper, the other was handed everythings by dad.

  45. aislander says:

    I suppose anybody can fake “need,” even someone being supported by the vice-president of a bank.

    And ManuelMartini, an honest lefty (THERE’S a contradiction in terms!) wouldn’t say that Mitt was “handed everything” by his dad, since he received NO inheritance. He fulfilled the American Dream by building his OWN business.

    Seems that it was braaaack who was handed things…

  46. aislander says:

    It seems, too, that Obama was handed the post of President of the Harvard Law Revue. Formerly, the student with the highest academic standing was awarded that position, but the criteria were changed so that it became a popularity contest (just before Obama assumed the…er…position), and it became, essentially, an affirmative-action post.

    The position that has actual merit and status is that of Editor, by the way…

  47. Lie: “It seems, too, that Obama was handed the post of President of the Harvard Law Revue.”

    Barack Obama was elected to the position of President of the Harvard Law Review. It was not “handed” to him.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html

  48. Don’t forget, Obama was also handed the Nobel Peace Prize… LMAO.

  49. At Harvard Law School, Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude, which, according to the Havard Law School website, is awarded to the top 10% of Harvard Law School students.

    Also at Harvard Law School, Obama was accepted as one of 85-90 Editors of the Harvard Law Review, out of an estimated 1,000 students from the 2L and 3L classes that might have sought this honor.

    Obama was also elected President of the Law Review, which according to a Harvard Law spokesperson is not based at all on academics, but on other measures as would occur in any club.

  50. Which begs the question… why doesn’t he release his transcripts and grades?

  51. aislander says:

    SPeters: Selection as President of the Harvard Law Revue is NO LONGER based on academics. It was so based right up until just prior to the time of Obama’s ascension to the post.

    I don’t know if there was an annunciation, but, years later, there was certainly an immaculation…

  52. “Selection as President of the Harvard Law Revue is NO LONGER based on academics.”

    —- Hardly a credible argument or convincing statement from someone who can’t even spell “Review.”

    “It was so based right up until just prior to the time of Obama’s ascension to the post.”

    —- Where’s the proof?

  53. aislander says:

    From the Harvard Crimson (noted right-wing rag):

    In 1981, all 80-some editors except one were white, and it would be another decade before the Review elected its first black president, Sen. Barack H. Obama, (D-Ill.) Fewer than a dozen of the editors on the Review were women, although Susan R. Estrich, the law professor and Democratic political operative, served as the Review’s president in 1977.
    It was then that the saga of the Law Review’s affirmative action program began, when the editors adopted a race- and gender-conscious policy by a 45 to 39 vote, to the vehement opposition of some faculty members.
    Several months of intense debate and negotiations ensued between the Review and the faculty, at the end of which the Review began for the first time considering factors other than merit in choosing its members.
    Prior to 1981, law students could join the Review either by being among the top five students in their first-year sections—each class used to be divided into four sections—or through a combination of their grades and their scores on an annual writing competition, a process designed to preserve absolute objectivity.
    But the 1981 editors felt it necessary for their admission policy to take into account the underrepresentation of minorities and women.
    Under their modified plan, the top four students in each first-year section would still be elected to the Review, but the fifth spot would be reserved for the top-scoring minority student among the top 25, and if no such minority student existed, the fifth spot would go to the woman with the highest grades.
    Two days after the adoption of this policy, three editors—including one woman—resigned in protest.
    In response, the Review’s leadership convened to reconsider their plan, opting for a non-quota system that would merely take race and gender into consideration. But despite the modification, the Review continued to encounter opposition from students, alumni, and most importantly, from the faculty.

    …and you’re busting me for a typo? You ARE becoming hysterical, muck. Could be the increase in estrogen that occurs in some males of advanced age…

  54. Laugh Out Loud. :)

  55. aislander says:

    Besides, as someone who was born in France, I sometimes revert to the spellings of the old sod…

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0