What is hiding in Mitt Romney's tax returns?

That question is being asked more and more often these days, after Romney insisted he would be the first modern presidential candidate not to release his tax returns to the public (read: to the media). John McCain got a pass (by the so-called "liberal" media) when he only released selected portions of his own tax returns -- but at least he released something. So the question immediately follows: if Mitt's not willing to release his taxes, then what exactly is he afraid of the public finding out?

The "conventional wisdom" answer to this question seems to have now become: "Mitt would be embarrassed at the tax rate he actually pays, which would be far lower than your average cop or firefighter, since Mitt makes most of his income as capital gains." This is entirely possible. If Romney's tax returns showed he only paid something like 12 or 13 percent of his actual income in federal taxes, how would that make an average worker feel who pays a rate which is much higher? Perhaps this would lead to voter resentment, which would indeed be an excellent reason for Mitt not releasing such data to the public.

But there's another possible reason, which nobody so far seems to have brought up. Perhaps this is because the issue is a touchy one to even mention. Since it calls for rampant speculation about what Mitt does with his money, there is no factual basis for even bringing it up -- which will remain true if Mitt succeeds in keeping his tax forms secret.

The reason for the touchiness is that it involves Romney's religion. Latter-Day Saints (or "Mormons") have a strict requirement when it comes to the Biblical concept of "tithing." Mormons -- unlike most mainstream American Christian denominations these days -- still take this word very seriously and very literally. At its root, "tithe" means "one-tenth." And that is precisely what Mormons are expected to donate to their church each year -- a full one-tenth of their income.

Not knowing what Mitt's income actually is, we must pick random numbers to use as an example. Say, for instance, that over the past few years Mitt made 100 million dollars in income. He would have been expected, as a Mormon in good standing, to have given one-tenth of this amount to the L.D.S. church.

Now, imagine if this information were made public this week. Republican voters -- especially those who self-identify as "evangelical Christians" -- already have what the media calls a "Mormon problem" with supporting Romney. The percentage of such Republican voters in South Carolina (the next state to hold a primary) is quite high -- much higher than the last state, New Hampshire. Political scientists are already wondering what sort of effect this might have on such voters' willingness to vote for someone of the Mormon faith. The question is: would such voters -- who are already mulling over whether they could vote for any Mormon -- be more or less likely to vote for Romney if they had solid proof that he had donated $10 million to his church in the past few years?

It is hard to even ask such a question without sounding at least somewhat religiously bigoted. This is, no doubt, why the media haven't even asked it yet (at least that I am aware of). Because of this, I will briefly slip out of the "editorial" or "journalistic" voice, and discuss my own personal feelings and opinions, so no one will misconstrue what I am saying here.

I personally don't care how much money Mitt has given to any church. It's not going to change my opinion of him much, if at all. I might say to myself, "That's a lot of money to give to charity," or perhaps, "I'm glad Mitt is following the tenets of the religion he professes in such an admirable fashion." Either one, to put it another way, would actually raise my estimation of Romney as a human being -- but neither one would particularly change my mind about him as a political candidate, either for the better or for the worse. Mitt being a Mormon isn't a problem for me at all, because the only time I even notice a candidate's religion is when it intersects with his or her political life in some way -- as with the curiosity (no more) of Joe Lieberman not campaigning on the Sabbath, due to his strong Jewish faith. I didn't think any better or worse of Lieberman because of it, I merely brought it up (for instance) to explain why he wouldn't attend some political event scheduled on Saturday with his running mate. Religion is a very personal matter, and I place no emphasis on it in any politician, whether I agree with their political views or not. And to be crystal-clear: I can't see myself voting for Romney under any circumstance, so it's not like the issue is going to influence that in any way, shape or form.

But then, that's me. I lean Democratic. I'm one of those horrible, scary Lefties, according to pretty much anyone planning to vote in the South Carolina Republican primary, so my opinion isn't really worth a hill of beans one way or the other. Putting my own opinions aside, however, what I have to wonder is whether Romney's church donation figures would cause Republican primary voters to think differently about him, or not. Especially in states with high proportions of evangelical voters, such as South Carolina.

The whole thing is, indeed, the touchiest of subjects. Even suggesting that it could make a difference is, in a very real way, pondering the degree of religious bigotry in a whole segment of the voting public -- which could easily offend people who fall into the category I'm speculating about.

But even after saying all that, I do have to wonder. Maybe Mitt is trying to hide the tax rate he pays -- maybe that's the only reason he's adamantly refusing to publicly release his tax returns. Maybe. But maybe he's also just a tiny bit worried about how a big part of the Republican base -- to whom religion is a very important subject -- would react to what is bound to be a quite large amount of money going to a church that many of them already don't even see as "Christian."

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant