Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

11-10-90 . . . Everyone has an analysis of what went right or wrong for the various political candidates this past Tuesday. It’s Monday-morning-quarterback time. The consensus is that Clayton Williams shot himself in the foot—that is, that had he not said and done certain things, he would have been elected governor of Texas. In particular, it is said that Williams should not have admitted to paying no income taxes in 1986, when he suffered business failures. Perhaps he should not have admitted it. What disturbs me is what was made of his admission. Shortly after Williams made the announcement, Ann Richards [1933-2006] issued a statement to the effect that “Williams didn’t pay his taxes in 1986”. This is extremely misleading, for it implies that Williams owed taxes, but didn’t pay them. That would surely be ground for dismissing a gubernatorial candidate. In fact, however, Williams didn’t owe any taxes that year. I assume that he abided by the Internal Revenue Code, which permits various writeoffs, deductions, and exemptions. Is there something wrong with this? Given that it’s legal to deduct this or that, how can it be held against Williams that he did it? Maybe those who held it against Williams were voicing a general complaint against a system that permits wealthy people to avoid paying income tax. If so, then they should have voted against the system, not Williams. There were plenty of good reasons to vote against Williams; this wasn’t one of them.