Mitt Romney continues to resist pressure to turn over more tax returns. In an interview today he said he is “simply not enthusiastic about giving them hundreds or thousands of more pages to pick through, distort, and lie about.” 
 
 The call for more information about Romney’s financial past, however, is bipartisan. A poll released today found fifty six percent of all voters, including sixty one percent of independents, think that Romney should release twelve years of returns. 
 
 These fifteen prominent Republicans are calling on Romney to release more tax returns, now: 
 
 
 
 1. George Will. On ABC’s “This Week,” Will, a long-time conservative commentator and Washington Post columnist, said, “The costs of not releasing the returns are clear, therefore he must have calculated that there are higher costs in releasing them.” At one point, he even played devil’s advocate to Republican consultant Mary Matalin, who was defending Romney. 
 
 
 
 2. Bill Kristol. “Here’s what he should do,” said Kristol, another conservative commentator, on Fox News. “He should release the tax returns tomorrow. This is crazy… you’ve got to release 6, 8, 10 years of back tax returns. Take the hit for a day or two. Then give a serious speech on Thursday.” 
 
 
 
 3. Ron Paul. Unitl just days ago, Paul was the other Republican presidential candidate. He is also one of those calling for Romney to release the returns. Paul told Politico today, “Politically, I think that would help him. …In the scheme of things politically, you know, it looks like releasing tax returns is what the people want.” 
 
 
 
 4. Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley. The Alabama Governor actually went further than others in suggesting that perhaps Romney is hiding something by not releasing his tax returns. “If you have things to hide, then maybe you’re doing things wrong,” he told the AP. “I think you ought to be willing to release everything to the American people.“ 
 
 5. Michael Steele. The former chair of the Republican National Committee is pushing for release. He claims it will help voters trust Romney, especially since he claims there is nothing to see in the returns: “If there’s nothing there, there’s no ‘there’ there, don’t create a ‘there.’ Put out as much information as you can. Even if you don’t release 12 years worth of tax returns, at least three, four, five.” 
 
 
 
 6. Rep. Walter Jones. In an interview with CNN, the Republican Congressman from North Carolina said, “I think he should release his financial records and I think if he does it in July it would be a lot better than in October. …whenever you are asking for the vote of the American people you need to fully disclose what your holdings are, if you have any.” 
 
 
 
 7. Ana Navarro. “He should just release the stupid taxes and eliminate the Obama campaign tactic of insinuating he’s got something to hide,” the former adviser to John McCain said. “The Obama people are going to keep the issue alive and it has the potential of mushrooming into a bigger issue. …It’s time to just pull off the band-aid.” 
 
 
 
 8. Rep. Pete Sessions. Sessions (R-TX) leads the National Republican Congressional Committee, and even he called Romney’s tax returns “fair game” and a “legitimate question.” In an interview with CNN, Sessions said that “[Romney’s] personal finances, the way he does things, his record, are fair game.” 
 
 9. Gov. Haley Barbour. The Mississippi Governor has been outspoken about the need for Romney to hand over the documents. “The advice I would give Romney is: Who cares about your tax returns? Release ’em!” Barbour said in a phone interview. “We need for this campaign to be about Obama’s record.” Earlier this week, Barbour also called for Romney to release the returns on CNN. 
 
 
 
 10. Matthew Dowd. This conservative commentator called it “arrogance” that Romney was not releasing his returns. Joining forced with Bill Kristol, Dowd spoke candidly about his doubts around Romney’s tax returns: “There is obviously something because if there was nothing there he would say have it…But I think the bigger thing is, it’s arrogance. Many of these politicians think I can do this, I can get away with this.” 
 
 
 
 11. Rick Tyler. Republican strategist and former adviser to Newt Gingrich’s campaign had this to say about Romney’s returns: “Mitt Romney had an opportunity to answer these questions during the primary. …He did not answer these questions and now they’re coming up again. …Only [Romney] can provide that information. …Or we’ll just have drip, drip, drip to November.” 
 
 12. John Weaver. This Republican strategist had a straightforward message that got picked up as a quote-of-the day. In regard to Romney releasing his returns, he said, “There is no whining in politics. …Stop demanding an apology, release your tax returns.” 
 
 
 
 13. Brit Hume. The conservative Fox News commentator told fellow Fox man Bill O’Reilly, “Any time it’s disclosure versus non-disclosure, you always wonder whether it isn’t better to put it out there. And if it turns out that if people get to hear once again that Mitt Romney is a very very rich man. …I guess the Obama team would have some sport with that for a couple days.” 
 
 14. David Frum. The conservative journalist David Frum Tweeted his opinion on the tax release controversy. “Tax returns the next problem. Releasing returns under pressure: more weakness, more pain,” he wrote in one tweet. “Do promptly and cheerfully what you will eventually have to do anyway,” he added. 
 
 15. John Feehery. This Republican strategist joined the growing list of Republicans asking Romney to release the returns when speaking with Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC. “Might as well get it over with,” he told her, “Couple of years, get it over with.” 
 
 16. Gov. Rick Perry Texas Governor and former Republican Presidential candidate Rick Perry (R) has come out and urged Romney to release his returns. According to the AP, “Perry said that anyone running for office should give people what he called ‘backgrounds,’ including tax returns, if asked and if the requests are within reason.” When Perry was running for President, he released 10 years of returns. 
 
 17. Sen. Chuck Grassley The Iowa Republican joins the fray, The Hill reports: “”I don’t think he should be called on to do anything extraordinary other than what other presidential candidates have done.’ When asked if he thought Romney should do as much as prior presidential nominees have, meaning release more returns, Grassley said, ‘based upon my comment, I’d have to say yes.'” 
 
 18. Sen. Dick Lugar In an interview with CBS, Lugar, who himself ran for president in 1998, said it would be smart for Romney to release more returns. “‘It was quite a number which we released.’ …He added it would be “prudent” for Romney to release more years of his tax returns. ‘I have no idea on why he has restricted the number to this point,’ Lugar said.” 
 
 19. Wayne MacDonald The chair of the New Hampshire GOP came out and told the Washington Post in a phone interview that Romney should probably just release the returns. “Certainly, I don’t think Mitt Romney has anything to hide, and probably the best thing to do is to eliminate any chance for (the Democrats) to make this an issue,” he said. New Hampshire will be an important state in the election. 
 
 20. Mike Murphy The Daily Beast adds another person, long-time GOP consultant and former Romney employee, to the ever-growing list: “‘Why they didn’t release more of this material a year ago is confusing to me,’ says Mike Murphy, a veteran GOP consultant who has worked for Romney in the past.” ||||| Earlier today, Mitt Romney spoke with National Review Online about life on the trail, his meeting with Dick Cheney, and his upcoming trip to Europe. He called from western Pennsylvania, where he will later hold a rally at a wireless company. 
 
 
 
 A few days ago, you visited Vice President Cheney. Did he have any advice for you? 
 
 We did speak, at some length, about foreign-policy matters, in particular the circumstances surrounding some of the foreign-policy decisions of the Bush administration. I discussed with him the process of decision-making, and he described the individuals, the types of meetings that occurred, and the expression of views. Of course, I did not get him to tell me about individual personalities and their own perspectives, but rather the process by which the White House was able to take on important issues. 
 
 
 
 Speaking of Cheney, what makes a good vice president? 
 
 Well, I can’t speak for other people who’ve run for office and what they’ve looked for in a person who would be their vice president. In my own view, the people I’ve worked with over my career have been people who have the capacity to lead, who share my philosophy, and in some cases, people who provide perspectives and skills that I may not share. 
 
 
 
 We’ve heard a lot about Bain this week. How would you rate the press coverage? 
 
 I don’t see a lot of the press coverage because my travel schedule keeps me from seeing all of it. A long time ago, I got good advice from a friend who said, “Don’t read the papers, they’ll only throw you off of your message.” I don’t worry a lot about what’s being said from day to day. My own view is that people will recognize that I was instrumental in helping build a very successful business that employed a lot of people, and that our business was able to invest in other people’s dreams, many of which were successful. 
 
 
 
 Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel says you should stop whining about the Bain attacks. What’s your response? 
 
 I only call people out when they are being dishonest.#more# 
 
 
 
 Looking back, how did your time at Bain prepare you for the presidency? 
 
 Your life experiences can come together and prepare you for responsibilities later in life. In my own experience, my family life, learning from the example of my parents, my life in my church, my education, my years in consulting, my years in the investment world, my leadership at the Olympics, and finally my leadership in Massachusetts — this all contributed to the person I am today and the capability I have to lead. With regard to Bain in particular, I had about ten years in consulting and 14 or 15 years in the investment world. The 25 years I spent in business gave me an understanding of how business decisions are made, as well as an understanding of the actions that are destructive to job creation and the actions that encourage job creation. I’ve watched this president, and his policies have made it harder to create jobs. His economic philosophy, shockingly revealed in his comment a day or so ago, is the reason why he has been so unsuccessful in reigniting economic growth. 
 
 
 
 Up in Boston, does your campaign have a similar corporate culture? Do you run it the Bain way, with horizontal leadership and vigorous debate? 
 
 Bain Capital was a firm that I led for 14 or 15 years, and Bain Consulting was an enterprise I led for two years as CEO. Our campaign is not modeled after either group. 
 
 
 
 For much of this week, you’ve been asked about your tax returns. What’s the downside to releasing your pre-2010 financial records? 
 
 My tax returns that have already been released number into the hundreds of pages. And we will be releasing tax returns for the most current year as soon as those are prepared. They will also number in the hundreds of pages. In the political environment that exists today, the opposition research of the Obama campaign is looking for anything they can use to distract from the failure of the president to reignite our economy. And I’m simply not enthusiastic about giving them hundreds or thousands of more pages to pick through, distort, and lie about. 
 
 
 
 From a political perspective, a lot of pundits wonder why you haven’t gotten rid of your offshore accounts. Can you explain why you have not done that? 
 
 Well, first of all, all of my investments are managed in a blind trust. By virtue of that, the decisions made by the trustee are the decisions that determine where the investments are. Secondly, the so-called offshore account in the Cayman Islands, for instance, is an account established by a U.S. firm to allow foreign investors to invest in U.S. enterprises and not be subject to taxes outside of their own jurisdiction. So in many instances, the investments in something of that nature are brought back into the United States. The world of finance is not as simple as some would have you believe. Sometimes a foreign entity is formed to allow foreign investors to invest in the United States, which may well be the case with the entities that Democrats are describing as foreign accounts. 
 
 
 
 Former president George W. Bush is coming out with a new book, The 4% Solution, about economic growth. Is 4 percent growth viable? 
 
 He’s absolutely right that we’re not growing fast enough. The president’s policies have failed to create the kind of GDP growth that America could achieve. Job growth is well beneath the level we should be seeing, and that results from an economy that’s growing much less swiftly than it could. My policies are designed to achieve 4 percent per year growth of the GDP. I would also note that I would hope we could see a rate a good deal higher than that on a temporary basis after we come out of the economic doldrums of the Obama years. 
 
 
 
 In late June, when the Supreme Court upheld the president’s health-care law, Chief Justice Roberts disappointed many conservatives. Did Roberts’s ruling change your perspective on how you, as president, would evaluate a Supreme Court nominee? 
 
 I disagreed with the Roberts decision and I would be interested in an evaluation of a Supreme Court nominee that looked at his or her thinking on making difficult constitutional decisions. We don’t yet know the rationale fully behind Roberts’s change of opinion, but when we do, it will tell us more about the nature of someone we would nominate. I suspect that Justice Roberts shied away from making a big decision, despite his conviction that the Constitution, in reality, would have led to striking down Obamacare. 
 
 
 
 You’re heading abroad next week. Why are you going to Europe? 
 
 Foreign affairs and associations with foreign leaders are an important part of the presidency, a position I hope to achieve. 
 
 
 
 Upon your return, you’ll have a small window before the national convention. What’s your core campaign message, your big theme, between now and Tampa? 
 
 You’re going to have to wait to find out. If I told you that now, I wouldn’t have anything to spring on you guys after I get back. 
 
 
 
 The Democratic National Convention is being held in early September. Do you plan on campaigning while the Democrats are hosting their convention in Charlotte? 
 
 We haven’t got plans right now, but that’s a decision we’ll make down the road. 
 
 
 
 You’ve written many of your own speeches. Are you already working on your convention speech? 
 
 I am not yet working on my convention speech. 
 
 
 
 
 
 With that, Romney was whisked away to his next event. He’ll be in Bowling Green, Ohio, on Wednesday, and he’ll head across the pond early next week. Inside the Beltway, the vice-presidential speculation continues, but for now, there is little news on the veep front. ||||| It's not clear if voters really care about the fact that Mitt Romney hasn't revealed more than one year of taxes, but the talk surrounding this issue is so loud that it's a "win" for Obama because it's a topic other than the economy and jobs. 
 
 A growing number of Republicans think that obviously Romney should release his taxes. But only he knows what's in his returns, and he does not think it's so obvious. 
 
 So everyone has their theories. 
 
 One easy possibility is that it's just a matter of drawing more attention to the fact that he is really rich and his tax rate isn't all that high. But this doesn't make sense since this would only confirm what everyone really knows. 
 
 Joshua Green at Bloomberg has what is the most logical theory so far... which is that thanks to the economic collapse of 2008, and the massive losses he probably suffered, Romney might not have paid any taxes in 2009, thanks to tax-loss carryforwards. 
 
 As a member of the ultra-rich, Romney probably wasn’t spared major losses. And it’s possible that he suffered a large enough capital loss that, carried forward and coupled with his various offshore tax havens, he wound up paying no U.S. federal taxes at all in 2009. If true, this would be politically deadly for him. Even assuming that his return was thoroughly clean and legal — a safe assumption, it seems to me — the fallout would dwarf the controversy that attended the news that Romney had paid a tax rate of only 14 percent in 2010 and estimated he’d pay a similar rate in 2011. 
 
 We're not sure whether Green is right that it would be politically "deadly" though we could certainly see why Romney wouldn't want this known, if it were true. 
 
 Incidentally, another more exotic possibility that had come to mind is that somehow Mitt Romney made a windfall profit in 2008-2009, perhaps by being part of a fund that was short housing or bet on the bank bailouts. That's 100% speculation, but it would also be the kind of thing that would be deadly (probably more deadly than $0 taxes). It also would have been somewhat unplannable. 
 
 A problem with the tax loss carryforwards argument is that if Romney knew he'd be running in 2009 (and he probably did) then you'd think he'd have gone out of his way not to do anything that might look bad, even if 100% by the book. 
 
 Going back to the no tax issue, former political strategist and now media guy Peter Feld notes that the latest Obama TV ad specifically raises the possibility that Romney paid $0 in taxes. So in the absence of counter-evidence it seems likely that this is the theory that will become the most popular. ||||| 2012 campaign 
 
 As George Will and many others have noted, there must be something truly damaging in Romney’s pre-2010 tax returns for him to willingly endure the criticism and scrutiny that has accompanied his refusal to release them—a refusal he reiterated on Friday, even as the issue, and the matter of his departure date from Bain Capital, has engulfed the campaign. “The cost of not releasing the returns are clear,” Will said on ABC’s This Week on Sunday. “Therefore, he must have calculated that there are higher costs in releasing them.” 
 
 So what could it be that Romney is so determined not to disclose? 
 
 Last night I had dinner with some (non-Bain) private equity executives, and I took the opportunity to quiz them on the topic and test my own theories about Romney’s tax returns. Let me emphasize that I have no idea what is in those returns, and neither did anyone I spoke with. What follows is unfounded, though not implausible, speculation. The most intriguing scenario that emerged about what could be lurking in those returns is as follows: 
 
 When the stock market collapsed in 2008, the wealthiest investors fared worse than everyone else. (See, for instance, this Merrill Lynch study.) The “ultra-rich”—those with fortunes of more than $30 million—fared worst of all, losing on average about 25 percent of their net worth. “There was really nowhere to hide as an investor in 2008,” Merrill Lynch’s president of global wealth management pointed out in 2009. “No region ended the year unscathed.” 
 
 As a member of the ultra-rich, Romney probably wasn’t spared major losses. And it’s possible he suffered a large enough capital loss that, carried forward and coupled with his various offshore tax havens, he wound up paying no U.S. federal taxes at all in 2009. If true, this would be politically deadly for him. Even assuming that his return was thoroughly clean and legal—a safe assumption, it seems to me—the fallout would dwarf the controversy that attended the news that Romney had paid a tax rate of just 14 percent in 2010 and that estimated he’d pay a similar rate in 2011. 
 
 The “zero tax in 2009” theory—again, this is sheer speculation—gains further sustenance when you consider it’s the only year for which nobody knows anything about Romney’s taxes. He’s revealed what’s in his 2010 and 2011 returns, and he reportedly submitted 20-some years’ worth of returns to the McCain campaign when he was being vetted for vice president in 2008. Steve Schmidt, McCain’s chief strategist in that campaign, said on MSNBC last night that while he didn’t examine Romney’s returns himself, nothing that McCain’s vetters found in them disqualified Romney from consideration. 
 
 That would indicate that 2009 is singularly important and, if there’s anything to this theory, incredibly vexing for Romney because there’s no way he could release additional returns without including that year. And the chaos that would ensue would be bad enough that it’s probably worth enduring significant damage to avoid. ||||| Mitt Romney is steadfastly resisting calls to release additional years of his personal tax returns, arguing — not without good reason — that this demand is part of a fishing expedition by the Obama campaign, which hopes to exploit Romney’s personal wealth and successful business career as part of a class-warfare election strategy. Romney argues that whatever he releases will not be enough to satisfy the Obama campaign and its factota in the media, who are, once again, proving their bias and double standards. Romney is right, but he should release the returns anyway. Let them go fish. 
 
 We doubt that there is anything truly surprising in Romney’s additional personal tax returns (he’s already released 2010 and will release more from 2011). We already know that he has made vast amounts of money, that he gives generously to his church and to charities, that he has set up trusts for his family, that he maintains bank accounts and investments overseas, and that he takes advantages of such benefits as are available to him under our ridiculously complex tax code. If there is scandal to be had of that, it can be had from the information that already is available. But there is no scandal in that: Romney is a wealthy man — and he has complicated personal finances, something that is typical of wealthy men. In fact, Romney’s personal finances are a very good case study in what’s wrong with the American tax system and regulatory climate. 
 
 The Romney campaign says he has released as many returns as candidate John Kerry did in 2004, and cites Teresa Heinz Kerry’s refusal to release any of her tax returns. Neither is an apt comparison. John Kerry actually released returns from 1999 through 2003, and also released tax returns during his Senate runs. As for Teresa Heinz, Romney isn’t the wealthy spouse of a candidate, but the candidate himself. In 2008, John McCain released two years of returns, but he had been filling out financial disclosure forms for decades as a senator. Romney protests that he is not legally obliged to release any tax returns. Of course not. He is no longer in the realm of the private sector, though, where he can comply with the letter of the law with the Securities and Exchange Commission and leave it at that. Perceptions matter. 
 
 Romney may feel impatience with requirements that the political culture imposes on a presidential candidate that he feels are pointless (and inconvenient). But he’s a politician running for the highest office in the land, and his current posture is probably unsustainable. In all likelihood, he won’t be able to maintain a position that looks secretive and is a departure from campaign conventions. The only question is whether he releases more returns now, or later — after playing more defense on the issue and sustaining more hits. There will surely be a press feeding frenzy over new returns, but better to weather it in the middle of July. 
 
 If he releases more returns, Romney will be in a better position to resist the inevitable demands for even more disclosures. More important, he will be in a better position to pivot his campaign to what should be its focus — telling a story, through a series of detailed, substantive speeches, about where he wants to take the country. It is to President Obama’s advantage to fight the election out over tactics and minutiae. By drawing out the argument over the returns, Romney is playing into the president’s hands. He should release them, respond to any attacks they bring, and move on.
– Scores of prominent Republicans are ratcheting up pressure on Mitt Romney to release his tax returns, notes ThinkProgress, but the candidate tells the National Review that he's not thrilled about giving the Obama camp "more pages to pick through, distort and lie about." (The editors at the conservative site sympathize, but called on him to release them anyway.) At Bloomberg/BusinessWeek, Joshua Green floats a theory that might explain Romney's reticence: Maybe he paid no federal taxes in 2009. How so? Like other uber-rich investors, Romney probably lost a lot of money in the 2008 market collapse. "It’s possible he suffered a large enough capital loss that, carried forward and coupled with his various offshore tax havens," he ended up paying nothing to Uncle Sam in '09. "If true, this would be politically deadly for him," writes Green. At Business Insider, Joe Weisenthal thinks the theory has much merit, though he disagrees that Romney would be "politically dead" if true. Another possibility: Romney made a nice profit in 2008-09, maybe through a fund that bet on the bailouts. That's "100% speculation," admits Weisenthal. But unless Romney releases the actual returns, he can surely expect more of it.