Nah.

Insist on 2004-2010.

Trust me.

I was right about 40-100 story buildings in Seattle, after all.

My guess is they know or have a good line on something being REALLY damning in that 2009 return, and are trying to bait Romney into releasing it. If I had to put money on it, it'd probably be the amnesty for tax-dodgers.

Or maybe there's some residency irregularities or something's not matching up to his public statements and they want him to go ahead and shoot himself in the dick.

Either way, Romney has been his own worst enemy on this one, in a hilarious fashion. How did he not see this coming? He's been running for office for 5 years, for pete's sake!

It's a no-win for (R)money. If they capitulate and release them it makes Obama look strong. If they don't, they continue to look like they're hiding things.

@1 I dunno, sticking to that original 10 years of disclosures would start to look like both sides are afraid to compromise. But this absolutely screams "WE KNOW YOU DID IT! WE KNOW WHERE THE BODIES ARE HIDDEN!", which seems to drive Mitt insane.

Secondly, it also conveys the impression that Obama's open to compromise, and hammers home again how unreasonable Mitt's being.

I just can't fathom, though, what would be so bad in these that it'd be worth hiding. Hell, he should have dumped them once he clinched the nomination, when they would have been quickly eclipsed and forgotten by the time the Olympics rolled around.

Unless, of course, whatever's in them is toxic enough to get him kicked OFF the ticket... And if that's the case, why is he running for President anyway? I just don't get the political calculus here.

I'd just like to see 4 years: 1999-2002. The "I was CEO of Bain except I wasn't" years.

Then I demand Obama release five years of birth certificates!

I do have to wonder where five years came from, though. Do they have inside information on Romney's taxes? Was the number picked because it seemed the most reasonable? Or did they not care about the number because they know Romney will never release any of them?

1) Romney has been running for President full-time since 2007, the time encompassed by Obama’s proposal (this is in the letter from the Obama campaign).
2) In 2008 Obama released six years of returns iirc; he’s released ten years now because he’s been President for almost four years. So he is setting a standard for Romney slightly lower than the one he set for himself in Romney’s position, rather than demanding Romney match him year for year in 2012 or demanding Romney match his own father’s standards.

I think it’s not really clear whether the Obama campaign thinks there’s a huge discovery in those five years (the Swiss Bank amnesty, for example), or if this was just a ploy to make an extremely fair request and extract a rejection.

2009 was the tax amnesty for foreign accounts. If they believe Romney took advantage of it, they would also want to have the 2008 return to show that he illegally hid those accounts.

@8 While I'd hate to advocate this kind of political skullduggery, part of me would love to see, just for once, a Democratic operative plant a successful rumor about Mitt Romney's transcripts being bought and paid for.

Because, honestly, given how much certain racist voter blocs like to bray about Obama's "Affirmative Action" degrees, Romney's looking like he's got all the intelligence and strategic thinking of Dan Quayle out there.

Brilliant. Any year that Romney skips up to the two he released for 2010-2011 will make him look like a secretive paranoid hiding person if he skips 2009. If he does nothing, he looks like a secretive paranoid hiding person.

BECAUSE BOWIE

According to Ann Romney, releasing more tax returns "will just give them more ammunition," with "them" meaning "Democrats" and "more ammunition" meaning...what, exactly? What's in there?

Naw, she doesn't sound like someone with something to hide. She says Mitt is honest, shouldn't that be enough?

#NotEnough

@10: You've got it. The smart money is on Mitt Romney took advantage of the 2009 tax amnesty program to move his money from an illegal Swiss tax shelter back to the United States. Do you know how hard it will be to spin "He's retroactively not a felon"?

Hold it. I know what's in Mitt's tax returns...the certified original of Barack Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate.

/ExplainsEverything

@14 - It means there's literal ammunition in the tax returns, and it's all on a hair trigger. First person to open those files gets a face full of lead.

Not just 2009 and the amnesty. Also, how was Rmoney positioned in 2007, then in 2008, and then what did he do in anticipation of the 2009 amnesty?
Most Americans who had 401k's or other investments lost a shit ton of wealth 2007-09. Those who had inside access made new fortunes on top of the ones they already had during that period. Mitt's tax returns from those years will probably expose him as an insider who doubled his fortune while most people lost their shirts.

Given all the leaks out of the damn White House, do you think the IRS doesn't know how to leak shit?

The Bush Tax Cuts were eased in. I don't remember exactly when the final ones were put into place, but I'll bet it is in that period of time. And it will show how steeply his taxes dropped. Had a client whose taxable income went up $100,000 but their taxes WENT DOWN $3000 when the dividend rate was put into place. It's disgusting the tax rate the wealthy pay.

@19 - No joke. Nixon's tax returns were leaked, after all.

I'm sure the Republicans would have a field day with "Obama" leaking them, so there would have to be something career-ending in there to make it worth it.

Back to Nixon: a lot of people think his "I'm not a crook" speech was just about Watergate, but it was also about some iffy irregularities in his tax returns, resulting in his being forced to pay $400K in back taxes. It's also why releasing tax returns is standard procedure now.

And even if it weren't already standard procedure, hoo-boy, it sure will be after Romney loses this election for looking like a man who's hiding something so God-awful that would end his career if it were revealed.

I'm going with C) They do not care about the numbers because they know he will never release them. It keeps the story in the news, shuts down the "never satisfied" argument, and makes Romney look like a guy who is hiding something, some more.

I think its more that you are supposed to keep the last 5 years of your tax returns incase you are audited by the IRS.

@4 you don't understand framing.

The only way you get a good result is if people like me push for a larger period, allowing "compromise" to occur at a good median point.

@23 - 7 years for partnerships and corporations.