You are inferring that I am a Republican, that I support John McCain, and that my opinion on this is partisan.
I'm not (although I don't have a drippy, bleeding heart). I don't (although I think he is an American hero). It isn't.
Tax returns are private, and I don't believe any candidate should have to disclose them to the public. (In fact they don't, but this has turned into a ridiculous game of chicken.) I ESPECIALLY don't think a candidate's spouse should be expected to disclose her private financial details. Cindy McCain did not speak on behalf of the GOP in this instance. She said that she, personally, would not hand over her returns, and I applaud her decision.
Heinz-Kerry and Cindy McCain, both heiresses and no doubt vilified for it, are/were not running for office. I adored politically shy Judy Dean for refusing to give up her career and declaring in 2004 that she is not her husband's appendage.
None of these women found wealth or success through their husbands. Their money is no more our business than my money is the business of my husband's prospective employers. (I also have a problem with this new trend of having to provide 10 years of tax returns as a condition of hire.) Heinz and McCain may be benefiting from tax cuts for the /rich/, but these are not tax cuts specifically for the wives of politicians. The numbers in question can be derived without singling out the spouses of would-be presidents.
You said: "It seems to me that Kerry allowed for much more public transparency to occur with his wife than McCain is willing to allow." That's just it. It's not John McCain's or John Kerry's decision.
Tax returns are private, and I don't believe any candidate should have to disclose them to the public. (In fact they don't, but this has turned into a ridiculous game of chicken.)
I disagree completely. The Presidency is a taxpayer funded job. The Executive of the US, indeed the entire Government (more or less; exceptions could be made I'm sure) essentially works for you and me, Jane and Joe Taxpayer, although they would like for us all to behave otherwise (which sadly, we tend to do). As such, I believe that we have the right to know all sorts of exacting detail about the life and times of those who would deign to be "Leader of the Free World". They have access to a tremendous amount of power and control over the country, how it spends its money, etc etc. If you were hiring someone to be the CEO of your company, and you were going to be essentially forced to abide by all their decisions for the next four years, wouldn't you want to know everything you possibly could about them?
When I wanted to start fully working for JP Morgan Chase & Co, I had to undergo two finger printings, and FBI background check, a comprehensive credit check and two pee tests. And this was because I had POTENTIAL limited access to some ANCILLARY transaction and financial information from really big players like Bear-Sterns. And this was back in the pre-9/11 days! If I didn't want my life poked into like that, I had a very simple choice: Don't go for the job. Politicians have the same choice. They don't have any "right" to the job any more than I had any "right" to any of my past occupations.
I will grant you that a politicians wife is another story. I could see the argument made both ways. On the other hand, I wouldn't expect my wife to be given the same treatment I had if I were to go to work for JPMC again. My biggest knock was that Republicans were now decrying the very tactics that they themselves were espousing with gusto and glee not four years ago. If they thought it was so important in 2004, then why are they suddenly digging in their heels in 2008?
Regardless, I can't fault you for what appears to be an evenhanded treatment of the matter :)
I'm not (although I don't have a drippy, bleeding heart). I don't (although I think he is an American hero). It isn't.
Tax returns are private, and I don't believe any candidate should have to disclose them to the public. (In fact they don't, but this has turned into a ridiculous game of chicken.) I ESPECIALLY don't think a candidate's spouse should be expected to disclose her private financial details. Cindy McCain did not speak on behalf of the GOP in this instance. She said that she, personally, would not hand over her returns, and I applaud her decision.
Heinz-Kerry and Cindy McCain, both heiresses and no doubt vilified for it, are/were not running for office. I adored politically shy Judy Dean for refusing to give up her career and declaring in 2004 that she is not her husband's appendage.
None of these women found wealth or success through their husbands. Their money is no more our business than my money is the business of my husband's prospective employers. (I also have a problem with this new trend of having to provide 10 years of tax returns as a condition of hire.) Heinz and McCain may be benefiting from tax cuts for the /rich/, but these are not tax cuts specifically for the wives of politicians. The numbers in question can be derived without singling out the spouses of would-be presidents.
You said: "It seems to me that Kerry allowed for much more public transparency to occur with his wife than McCain is willing to allow." That's just it. It's not John McCain's or John Kerry's decision.
Reply
I disagree completely. The Presidency is a taxpayer funded job. The Executive of the US, indeed the entire Government (more or less; exceptions could be made I'm sure) essentially works for you and me, Jane and Joe Taxpayer, although they would like for us all to behave otherwise (which sadly, we tend to do). As such, I believe that we have the right to know all sorts of exacting detail about the life and times of those who would deign to be "Leader of the Free World". They have access to a tremendous amount of power and control over the country, how it spends its money, etc etc. If you were hiring someone to be the CEO of your company, and you were going to be essentially forced to abide by all their decisions for the next four years, wouldn't you want to know everything you possibly could about them?
When I wanted to start fully working for JP Morgan Chase & Co, I had to undergo two finger printings, and FBI background check, a comprehensive credit check and two pee tests. And this was because I had POTENTIAL limited access to some ANCILLARY transaction and financial information from really big players like Bear-Sterns. And this was back in the pre-9/11 days! If I didn't want my life poked into like that, I had a very simple choice: Don't go for the job. Politicians have the same choice. They don't have any "right" to the job any more than I had any "right" to any of my past occupations.
I will grant you that a politicians wife is another story. I could see the argument made both ways. On the other hand, I wouldn't expect my wife to be given the same treatment I had if I were to go to work for JPMC again. My biggest knock was that Republicans were now decrying the very tactics that they themselves were espousing with gusto and glee not four years ago. If they thought it was so important in 2004, then why are they suddenly digging in their heels in 2008?
Regardless, I can't fault you for what appears to be an evenhanded treatment of the matter :)
Reply
Leave a comment