When Mitt Romney ran for governor of Massachusetts, there was concern about whether he was a resident of the state. His opponents at the time said they would let the issue rest if he simply produced his tax returns to prove he filed his state taxes as a resident of Massachusetts.

Romney kept telling the public he filed his taxes as a resident of Massachusetts and we should trust him. His opponents pushed the matter, and finally, he admitted he had lied -- his original return was filed as a resident of Utah. He amended his state returns and filed them as a resident of Massachusetts.

Now, Romney is promising he paid federal income tax and his tax rate was never below 13 percent. Democrats are demanding to see his tax returns. But no, Romney's response is we should just trust him. Sound familiar?

He lied about his taxes before; should we really trust him again?

When Romney was picking his vice-presidential nominee, his campaign demanded to see five years of the candidates' tax returns before he would decide whom he wanted to select for the job of his running mate. Why shouldn't the American people see five years' worth of his taxes when we're trying to decide whom we want to select for the job of our president?

And, last, it is worth noting that Romney's father, George Romney, began the practice of presidential candidates releasing their tax returns. He said, "Any politician who will not show multiple-year taxes may be hiding something."

Lucy Brink

Birmingham