The Audacity of Hypocrisy

Remember the media storm around the release of Mitt Romney's tax returns. for about a week in January, it seemed that about half of the stories run in the main stream media dealt with Romney's returns. When the returns were released, it was revealed that Romney paid about 15.4% of his adjusted gross income in taxes to the federal government. The reason for this low tax rate was two fold. First, Romney donated just under three million dollars to charity; since these charitable contributions are fully deductible, the tax rate for the Romneys was substantially reduced. Second, much of the income received by the Romneys came in the form of qualified dividends or long term capital gains which are taxed by law at a maximum rate of 15%. After the returns were released, the media then spent another week pointing out how rich Mitt Romney paid a mere 15.4% of his income in taxes. Even when folks pointed out that Romney had given millions to charity, the media sniffed that most of that money went to the Mormon Church, as if that contribution were somehow unworthy of mention or did not count. The Obama campaign went crazy with attacks on Romney for his tax status.

Well now, today, we have gotten to see the Obamas' 2011 tax returns. Guess what, Barack and Michelle paid only 20% of their substantial adjusted gross income in federal taxes. The Obamas had income of just under $800,000 for the year, the biggest chunk of which came in the $400,000 presidential salary. The rest was mostly all from book royalties. That means that very little of the income came in from dividends or capital gains, so the 15% tax rate set by law did not apply. The Obamas were generous with charitable contributions, donating just under $180,000 to charity.

All this is fine, but the really interesting thing is the way the media is covering the story. With Romney all we heard was that this rich guy paid only a small part of his income in taxes. Occasionally, they added that Romney used contributions to the Mormon Church to avoid taxes. I have now heard or read stories about the Obamas' taxes from CBS, ABC, CNN, the AP and Yahoo News. In each story, the reader/listener is told that the Obamas were extremely generous last year in giving charity so that their rate of taxation was surprisingly low as a result. The focus is on how generous Obama is. For Romney, the focus was on how rich he is and how he used donations as a gimmick to avoid paying his fair share of taxes.

It never fails to amaze me just how biased the media really is. The truth is that Obama paid only 2/3 the rate of taxes that the poor secretary to Warren Buffett pays. What an outrage! How can we let him get away with this. In truth, does anyone think that the reason that Obama switched from seeking higher taxes on those making over $250,000 to those making over $1 million in a year is unrelated to the fact that Obama made $800,000 but Romney made more than one million bucks?

Seriously, the tax returns of the Obamas show one thing and one thing alone. Anyone upset with the structure of the income tax had better come up with an entirely new plan for that tax. Tinkering around the edges with nonsense like the Buffett Rule is a waste of time, a phony issue.