When will Obama team go after Romney for carried interest lobbying?

[Likely Voter]

I think the attacks on Romney this summer are leading up to a bigger salvo. This summer we have seen the Obama team tie Romney to Bain outsourcing and attack on Romney on his taxes (and tax returns). They have established two things in the minds of swing voters: 1. Romney= Bain and 2. Romney has a low tax rate.

I think the next step will be to go after the tax loophole that allows Romney and others who earn income from private equity and hedge funds, but pay taxes on that income as a capital gain (aka "carried interest"). This loophole only benefits a handful of people in America, but costs the treasury about $2B/year. Ruport Murdoch famous called carried interest "a racket"
http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/20/news/economy/murdoch_carried_interest/index.htm
This WSJ article covers both sides of the argument
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304811304577370062392150338.html

In recent years Congress has tried to close the loophole (including some Republicans like Grassley) but Bain and other fund managers spent millions to halt any changes, usually by keeping it from leaving the Senate Finance Committee. Of course Obama has supported ending the loophole and Mitt Romney opposes ending it.

This issue came up in January after Romney's taxes were first released but none of his GOP opponents wanted to attack him on it. At the time Gingrich was his biggest foe but Newt wanted to cut cap gains to zero so he wasn't going to go after this loophole.

Now Mitt Romney likes to say that he plays by the rules and pays the legal tax rates, which is true. He can't be blamed for taking advantage of the rules that are in place. However most Americans will likely view the rule as one of those unfair tax loopholes for the rich, and in this case Romney's firm lobbied to help him keep his loophole, which is not going to play well either.

It is a complicated issue but it can be simplified down to something like "Mitt Romney's firm spent millions lobbying congress to prevent bipartisan effort to close a loophole that lets him and other Wall Street Financiers avoid paying their fair share in taxes"

The Daily Show also took a crack at explaining it:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-24-2012/indecision-2012---i-know-what-you-did-last-quarter
(I could see the clip of Grassley decrying the lobbyists hired to keep the loophole could end up in a commercial)

Anyone else think this attack on Romney lobbying for carried interest is coming? Or is it too complicated of an argument to make for the low information swing voters they are trying to go after?


EDIT: Carried Interest mentioned in recent ad
I hadn't seen this ad, but 3 weeks ago the Obama team released an ad on Romney's taxes where carried interest is mentioned along with his giant IRA and other things, but it made no mention of the lobbying to protect the loophole.
http://youtu.be/uMo5pykT4uw

I still think that the lobbying to protect the loophole is the more damaging thing here.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It might help rev the base some, but there's zilch here to suggest the law was violated, and it's fairly arcane, so I don't see it helping much with the middle.  About the most that might be made of it would be to press Romney in a debate if he thinks this is one of the loopholes that should be closed and then use his answer against him in 2012 if he says no or in 2016 if he says yes and is running for reelection with it still in place.

[Lincoln Republican]

This issue is not even known or understood by most Americans. 

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

This issue is not even known or understood by most Americans. 

Most don't know or care about Bain but it hasn't stopped Obama.

[Torie]

I think it has some potential to wound Mittens actually. He had better come out and say he is going to deep six that unjustified characterization of income as capital gain. Mittens in general needs a bit more focus than he has been displaying lately. And he needs to be more specific as to why his vision of getting here to the promise land is profoundly and compellingly better than Obama's, using numbers and so forth, with "experts" agreeing with him and so forth, as opposed to something that is subject to being characterized as undoable and unrealistic pie in the sky promises, with mostly painless gain.

Mittens in particular  needs to do that, because hey, with whom would you rather have a beer (well Mittens would drink a lemonade but whatever)?  Mittens is just not as likable as Obama, let's face it, even if Obama behind closed doors, and sometimes outside them, can be a bit prickly and show a thin skin.

I wish I could spend about two hours with Mittens alone. I think he might need me a bit. I suspect I might have a bit more talent than him on the "vision thing," and how to craft it in a creditable way, with creditable specifics. And I think I have more talent in showing empathy for those in the dumps at the moment, and about giving more real opportunity for those trapped in the underclass or close to it. I know that sounds arrogant, but hey, I have a license to be that way, so there.

[Likely Voter]

I admit it is a complex issue and I kind of doubt that "Carried Interest" will be a buzzword for the election. However if they can rebrand it as an "Unfair Wall Street Loophole" I think it could have legs. Last week Obama's team launched a new ad hitting Romney for his low tax rate, but it begged the question: Why is his tax rate so low? Even most of the Wall Street fatcats still pay the highest rate on their huge bonuses, this thing truly is just a gift to the hedge fund and private equity mangers of the world. They essentially bought themselves their own special tax rate. It is also interesting how other super-rich people, including Warren Buffett and Rupert Murdoch have called this thing out as a total scam.


And I think there is a kicker here in that Bain actively lobbied to keep their loophole. And Romney is on the record as being against the loophole being struck. This should be the kind of thing that independents could get riled up about. I imagine the original tea party types (before it was coopted) would fume at this kind of super rich guys buying influence to stay super rich, and right in the middle of an economic downturn that was caused by some of these same super rich.

[krazen1211]

Carried interest is Chuck Schumer's baby. As a result nobody will bring it up.