Romney must face up to tax equity
Tonawanda News
Tonawanda, N.Y.

Though it may not prove politically expedient for Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, his decision to release his 2010 and anticipated 2011 tax returns will have at least one benefit, even if it wasn’t intended: Americans rich and poor alike are due a robust national dialogue about how we value wealth and work.

In releasing his taxes, Romney — whose total wealth is estimated at a quarter-billion dollars — revealed that in 2010 he paid a smaller federal tax rate than an individual whose gross adjusted income was $8,501.

If that doesn’t shock you enough, consider this: His vast fortune was not amassed by making a tangible object or providing a necessary service; it was amassed through a string of investments, mostly made when he ran the private equity firm Bain Capital.
The reason for this is an amoral tax policy that rewards investing someone else’s money over putting in an honest day’s work.

Translated into government-speak, earned income is generally taxed at a much higher rate than investment income. By taxing investments less than work we are sending the message that work is worth less than wealth — and that simply is not right.

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett raised this issue last year with an op-ed piece stating what should be plainly obvious: It is unfair that he pays a smaller portion of his billions of dollars in taxes than his secretary does her thousands. . . .

If Mr. Romney indeed wins his party’s nomination, this basic issue of fairness will be front and center in the campaign. If he doesn’t and his primary rival Newt Gingrich wins instead, it may well be because a strange brew of conservative populist attacks on Mr. Romney’s wealth resonated even among the most conservative Americans.

Let’s not rush to anoint Mr. Gingrich a hero, though. His attacks on Mr. Romney’s career in the private sector ring utterly hollow when you examine the Gingrich tax plan, which would see men like Romney pay absolutely nothing in capital gains taxes. Further reducing the tax burden on the top 1 percent — or in Mr. Romney’s case, the top 10 percent of the top 1 percent — certainly isn’t the answer.

The answer is to tell the vast majority of Americans on whose backs such fabulous fortunes are built that their contributions are just as valuable.
We should enact a tax code reflecting this.

x x x x

Violence flares as U.S. troops depart Iraq
New Castle News
New Castle, Pa.

It doesn’t always make headlines in America, but violence is a regular occurrence in Iraq.

Car bombings in Baghdad recently killed 14 people and wounded 75 others. In the United States, such bloodshed would be a major event. In Iraq, it’s just more of the same.

With the formal withdrawal of American forces from Iraq, there is the very real fear that the ugly sectarian violence suffered in that country will grow far worse. In the last few years, the presence of U.S. troops appears to have calmed that country. But that is now coming to an end.

The Obama administration’s decision to withdraw troops from Iraq has met with widespread criticism. And while some of that is typical Washington politics, the concerns for long-term security in the Middle East are real.

An Iraq that deteriorates into civil war presents opportunities for neighboring Iran. The majority Shiite population in Iraq has a natural alliance with Shiite Iran that could complicate efforts to maintain peace in the region.

Another faction in Iraq is the Kurds, an ethnic group whose historic territory extends well into neighboring Turkey. A Kurdish separatist movement has been in force for years in both Iraq and Turkey, causing increased friction between the two nations.

Under these circumstances, an American or international peacekeeping force in Iraq looks attractive. And violence directed at U.S. troops in that country declined significantly in recent years.

Yet that’s likely because the differing factions in Iraq saw the Americans as a short-term issue. They were content to bide their time until U.S. forces left the area.

A more permanent American presence in Iraq might make those soldiers targets. And, unfortunately, the Iraqi government was unprepared to provide key legal protections to American soldiers that the Obama administration sought as a precondition to leaving some troops in the country. . . .

The violence in Iraq stems from the basic fact it is not a real nation in any traditional sense. It was an early 20th century European creation, held together by brute force.

Without a strong central government, Iraq almost certainly will fall apart, possibly via a violent struggle. Obviously, that’s not a desirable outcome. But keeping American troops in that country may do little more than delay the inevitable.