Buffet in Reverse

The fact that Mitt and Ann Romney paid federal income taxes equal to 14% of their adjusted gross income in 2011 troubles me greatly. Apparently they decided to forego taking deductions they had coming for $1.75 million in charitable contributions. Taking those deductions would have lowered their effective rate to around 10%.

He's Warren Buffet in reverse:

Warren Buffet, while exploiting every opportunity the tax-code provides to reduce his tax burden, says he's for higher rates. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, while purposely subjecting himself to a higher tax bill, says he's for lower taxes. And, quite frankly, this is not the example the Republican nominee ought to be setting. A 10% effective tax rate on $13.7 million of income means he's engaged in the types of activities this country needs the most --- private investment activities. By not taking those charitable deductions, by making this political calculation, he in-effect took $550,000+ from the private sector and handed it over to Uncle Sam. Which further distorts his message.

If Romney doesn't (soon) get comfortable with Romney, he's done.