Hear the audio version here (segments older than 3 weeks may be unavailable)

So let me see if I understand: the giant hub bub about Romney releasing his income taxes was...what exactly?  I mean, what did we find out?  What was uncovered?  That he was rich and generous with his wealth?  And that was demanded by his opponents because...um, why?  You know, if I was Mitt, I'd be doing a big ol' "What Now?" dance.  Well, maybe not.  I guess you don't want to alienate people that you will need to support you if you end up with the nomination.  But I'll be honest, with all the screams about Mitt not releasing his records, I started thinking, "Well there must be something to this.  There must be something buried in his past that will be uncovered by this."  And, nothing.

In actuality, I think this works in his favor.  Sure, Obama's game is class warfare.  That was evident in his State of the Union Address.  He's interested in pitting those of us in the Middle Class against wealthy people like Mitt Romney.  I'll be honest, I admire Mitt's success.  He's an example for me - something to aspire towards.  Now, don't get me wrong.  I don't measure success in life solely on the basis of material possessions.  That's not what I mean.  In Mitt, I see a guy who has taken risks, launched ventures, some successful, some not, has managed his businesses well, has been an honest guy, and has produced an income for himself that allows him the opportunity to give generously.  I admire that.  That's what this country is all about - or should be.

If Obama wants to vilify that, I say bring it on.  I'm happy to have that argument.  Sure, Mitt is wealthy.  Is that now evil?  Of course not.  What would be bad would be to have wealth and to hoard it.  Did he?  Nope.  But you know who did?  Check this out:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and his wife Michelle gave $10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 through 2004 to charities, or less than 1 percent, according to tax returns for those years released today by his campaign.

 

The Obamas increased the amount they gave to charity when their income rose in 2005 and 2006 after the Illinois senator published a bestselling book. The $137,622 they gave over those two years amounted to more than 5 percent of their $2.6 million income.

 

 

Romney charitable contributions 

Tax year    Taxable income          Charitable donations Donations as % of income
2010           $21.7 million                 $2.98 million                13.73%
2011 (est)   $20.9 million                $4 million                     19.14%

That's what we learned from this Romney document release.  And that's why I say to Mr. Obama, bring this one on.  Mitt gives between 13 and 20 percent of his income to charity, Obama gave 1%.  Who's greedy?  Who has the right to talk about the plight of those less fortunate?  Who, when given the opportunity, actually did "care for the least of these?" 

Not that Obama's 1% is as bad as it gets.  That title might be reserved for his Vice President:

The Bidens gave an average of $369 to charity a year for the decade before he moved to the Naval Observatory - about 0.3 percent of their income. Back in 1997, then veep Al Gore and his then wife Tipper gave $353.

 

Since becoming veep, Biden hasn't become much more generous. In 2010, he gave $5,350, about 1.4 percent of income. That same year, Romney gave some $3 million. The national average is about three percent.

So here's what we know: Mitt Romney is rich, honest and charitable.  Obama/Biden are rich and stingy.  And this was supposed to be a "hit" to Romney how?