Letter: Obama, Democrats receive preferential treatment

By on September 6, 2012

An Elgin writer of “Letters to the Editor” has repeatedly appeared in a local daily paper to nag Mitt Romney for not releasing 12 years of income tax information, wrongfully claiming Romney to be a “tax evader” for not doing so.

Let’s consider the legal difference between “tax evasion” and “tax avoidance.”

“Tax evasion” is neglecting to pay or refusing to pay taxes you are legally required to pay. Timothy Geithner was guilty of this when he didn’t pay $49,847 of taxes from 2001-04, plus other improper tax deductions taken in previous years. These abuses didn’t stop Harry Reid’s Democrat-controlled Senate from confirming Geithner as Obama’s Secretary of the Treasury on Jan. 6, 2009. Yet, Reid has accused Romney as a “felon tax evader” for doing some banking overseas, perfectly legal under provisions of the IRS code.

Tax avoidance is studying the tax law and paying only what the law requires you to pay. Mitt Romney never served in Congress, has not written U.S. tax laws, but, like all of us, must comply with them. Like all taxpayers, he isn’t required to pay more than the tax laws specify. After taxes are paid as prescribed by law, he is free to do what he wants with his money. So, what is Romney “guilty” of?

If Romney is pressured into releasing what is legally-protected information, then turnabout is fair play. Let the nation inspect any three or four of the following Obama items, which the Obama campaign has spent an estimated 4 million dollars to keep from public eyes:
• Occidental College records—sealed
• Columbia College records—sealed
• Columbia thesis paper—sealed
• Harvard College records—sealed
• Selective Service registration—sealed
• Medical records—sealed (remember when the Democrats wanted Bush’s medical records?)
• Record of passport used to visit Pakistan in 1981—sealed (U.S. citizens were not allowed to visit Pakistan in 1981, so how did he get there?)

I can hear the left screaming, “That invades Obama’s right to privacy.”

Ask Jack Ryan, who ran against Obama for the Illinois U.S. Senate seat in 2004, about having a “right to privacy” when you dare to run against Barack Obama.

Jack Ryan and actress wife Jeri divorced in 1999 in California. Both agreed to seal their divorce and child custody records. In 2004, as the campaign began, the Chicago Tribune and WLS-TV sought to have those records opened. Enter David Axelrod, Democrat political operative since 1972, intern, reporter and political writer for the Tribune from 1974 to 1984, and Obama collaborator since 1992, now working in Obama’s Senate race in 2003. Did his long-time ties to the Tribune influence that paper’s decision to pry into the Ryan divorce records? I believe that is a certainty. Judge Robert Schneider quickly ordered the Ryans’ divorce records unsealed and made public.

Witnessing the hypocrisy of the news media to inspection of Romney’s income tax returns vs. Obama’s sealed records, we see the following media rules are in effect:
• Rule No. 1—Everyone is innocent until proven guilty … unless he’s a Republican
• Rule No. 2—Everyone has the Right to Privacy … unless he’s a Republican
• Rule No. 3—Everyone is justified in defending himself … unless he’s a Republican

Let’s push aside this Democrat-invented distraction and get back to the real issue of this election: Obama’s failed economy, and the Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan plan to get this nation back on the road to jobs, prosperity and government fiscal responsibility.

Dennis C. Ryan


  1. RM

    September 6, 2012 at 4:42 PM

    Preferential treatment?? Obama has been abused and obstructed by the Tea Party and Republicans since he’s been in office. We’re still hearing nonsense about where Obama was born. He’s constantly called a Socialist by people who don’t the first thing about what it even means. Who do you think you’re kidding Dennis? Don’t know where you’ve been the past few years but we ARE back on track despite the non-efforts of the House majority to work to move things forward. Stock market is back, 401Ks have regained value, auto industry has been saved, jobs are slowly being created. Was the Great Depression fixed in 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 years?

    It’s laughable that anyone would actually believe that Romney will create a job. He’s a master of job destruction and he’s made millions leaving a wake of bankruptcy. Semantically, there may be a difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion and legally Romney is doing what he is required to do. However, morally, the man has no scruples and he’s a total schmuck. Read the story in the latest issue of Rolling Stone and tell us if you still think he’s fit for any public office.

  2. rak40

    September 7, 2012 at 10:13 AM

    Well written letter by Mr. Ryan. On the other hand, RM references Rolling Stone as a source. What else would one expect from a liberal magazine?

    Don’t kid yourself. Mr. Obama follows the philosophy of ..from those according to their means, to those according to their needs.

  3. elburn skeptic

    September 7, 2012 at 12:41 PM

    BRAVO…. the best letter published this cycle. The double standard is blatant and embarrassing. This election is about jobs, and the economy and the utter failure of Obama. By almost every metric the economy has NOT recovered and won’t if we spend four more years punishing the successful, demagogueing the rich and squelching the oil and gas industry that could singled handedly bring us back.

  4. RM

    September 7, 2012 at 4:33 PM

    The article in Rolling Stone is well written and carefully researched but you’ll never know if you refuse to look at it because you’re afraid of what it says. We know the election is about jobs. Government doesn’t create jobs except by expanding government. How can Republicans complain about big government and cry about lost government jobs at the same time? How can you honestly call Obama an utter failure when the country IS better off than it was 4 years ago. The mess he started with wasn’t created overnight. Amusing how clowns support Romney paying half what he should in taxes because he could “legally” avoid taxes by setting aside his income and pay only a 15% capital gains tax. How can the rest of us get a ride on that band wagon? Let’s see, first I have to come up with a couple million, get a loan for millions more, do a leveraged buyout, steal all the assets, pay myself a hefty consulting fee, move all the money offshore and leave the business to declare bankruptcy and fire all the employees. Oh, almost forgot, have to payoff the management too. Technically, it’s all legal. But is this the kind of President you people want?