John McCain released his tax returns a couple weeks ago, which don't show the full picture of his wealth because it's his wife who has the money - she inherited a beer distributorship, and she's worth over $100 million - and the McCain's don't file jointly. So virtually all the couple's cash, as well as their real estate holdings (they have 9 houses), are in his wife's name, and hidden from public view.

McCain says they won't release her return to "protect their children."

Should McCain's wife also release her tax returns? In 2004, the Washington Post editorial board, the Wall Street Journal editorial board, writers from the National Review, and others, all demanded that Teresa Heinz Kerry release her returns. Some scoffed at the notion the same explanation McCain is using today. Here's the National Review:

"When it comes to talking about her taxes, however, the voluble — and supposedly fearless — Mrs. Heinz Kerry has been uncharacteristically tongue-tied, preferring instead to hide behind her children. Citing their privacy (thanks to the Heinz trusts, her finances are deeply intertwined with those of her sons) she has held out against full disclosure of her 2003 tax records."

Under this pressure, Heinz Kerry eventually released a summary of her tax return, without releasing the actual return.

Yet no such pressure from any of these same editorial boards has been applied to McCain.

Should Cindy McCain release her tax returns? Why the double standard?

My hot button: Who needs NINE HOUSES????

Sell seven of them and give every penny to people who desperately need it. I honestly don't see what the sacrifice would be. You can only stand in one house at a time.

I got grossed out when I saw that Brad Pitt and Jen Aniston had 7 mansions around the country, five of them empty year round... at a value of something like $50 million.

While some kids go to school hungry. How does that make sense to anybody?

Yowza.

1 house is more than enough to keep up with. Which means they've got "people" looking after theirs.

Does McCain now have appeal to the highly coveted "Ballin-ass, mtv, vote-or-die, bling-face" demographic?

Do we really need these kind of records released to the public to verify how "out of touch" candidates truly are with most Americans?

>>I got grossed out when I saw that Brad Pitt and Jen Aniston had 7 mansions around the country, five of them empty year round... at a value of something like $50 million. While some kids go to school hungry. How does that make sense to anybody?>>

I am not a fan nor a non-fan of either (although I do get a 'thrill up my leg' when I see Angelina Jolie), but I do give her and Pitt credit for putting money where their mouth is. They walk that talk.

Despite what they might or might not do with the rest of their time, I give them a lot of credit for the work they do and the sincerity than is involved with those efforts.

Teresa Heinz Kerry's Taxes
Wednesday, May 5, 2004; Page A28

"IT WON'T DO." That was our bottom line in 1984 when Rep. Geraldine Ferraro of New York, the Democratic vice presidential candidate, balked at releasing her husband's income tax returns. "Though Rep. Ferraro says she will release her own tax return, she cannot treat her spouse as a separate entity for this purpose and still claim to be providing complete data," we wrote. Ms. Ferraro eventually relented, providing five years' worth of tax returns from her husband, John Zaccaro.

Twenty years later, in the midst of a similar controversy, we feel much the same way. Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of the putative Democratic presidential nominee, should make her tax returns public. Ms. Heinz Kerry has been reluctant to do so; campaign spokesman Michael Meehan now says she is preparing to make summary information available, though not necessarily her return itself. That's an improvement over no disclosure, but it is short of what ought to be done.

Presidential candidates aren't legally required to release their tax returns, but such disclosure has become an expected part of seeking the office, and rightly so. The wrinkle for the Kerrys is that, unlike most political couples, the candidate and his wife, who inherited a fortune from her first husband, the late Sen. John Heinz (R-Pa.), file separate returns (as did the Ferraro-Zaccaros.) Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) has made his returns public for years, but his wife has been reluctant to follow suit. "What I have and what I receive is not just mine, it is also my children's, and I don't know that I have the right to make public what is theirs," she said. "If I could separate it, I would have no problem."

It's true that even in the absence of tax returns, there is ample information available about the holdings of Mr. Kerry and his wife. Candidates for president and vice president, like other federal office-seekers, are required to file detailed reports listing their assets, liabilities and income, and those of their spouse as well. The Kerrys' most recent disclosure lists, within broad ranges, the assets contained in numerous Heinz family trusts. Mr. Kerry argues that this "very, very, very intrusive" disclosure ought to be sufficient.

We're sympathetic to the feeling of intrusion that releasing tax returns entails, but candidates for president -- and their spouses -- necessarily relinquish a significant measure of privacy. Meanwhile, tax returns provide information not contained in financial disclosure forms, such as charitable contributions and the use of tax shelters. Questions about the Clintons' Whitewater investment, for example, came up in part because of information contained in their tax returns.

There may well be nothing of great note in Ms. Heinz Kerry's tax returns other than the scope of her wealth. But with her husband seeking the presidency, her financial dealings, as well as his, ought to be as open as possible. Keeping her returns private would set a bad precedent. Imagine a future presidential candidate whose spouse has complicated business dealings or federal contracts, chooses to file a separate tax return, and refuses to make it public. Ms. Heinz Kerry's movement on this issue is welcome; we hope she'll see the wisdom, and the benefit, of doing more.

That's the WaPo editorial from 2004. There's a WSJ one just like it.

Why doesn't this hold for Cindy McCain?

quote:

They walk that talk.

That's Brangelina. This was Brad and Jen, but they definitely played the "nice" card. There's nothing nice about owning 7 homes... and Leg is right about the staffs.

When it came out, it created a mini-buzz. I have no solution, just an observation: The gap between the haves and have nots is just too freakishly, cartoonishly big.

If the top 1% who have more than they could ever need just "half tithed" 5% to food, healthcare, and scholarships for the bottom 20%, that would be enough "redistribution" for this Commie.

oh noes...other people have more than me....

we should take it away and give it to people who haven't done a damn thing to earn it.

theres still no reason to punish those that work for what they have....no matter how much it is.