Subscribe
RSS
Mobile
It's as predictable as vultures at a carcass. When a wealthy Republican is running for office, the press will make his wealth a handicap. Recall that when George H. W. Bush was running in 1988, he was derided as a "preppy." George W. Bush was the undeserving scion of the ruling class. We were told never mind that he had succeeded in business on his own. Though John McCain had been a fixture on the national stage since 1980, no one had paid much attention to his wealth until he was the Republican nominee, at which point his many houses suddenly became a matter of profound national importance.
Democrats, of course, are permitted to be rich without fear of undue scrutiny. John F. Kennedy was wealthier than Mitt Romney, or would have been had he lived to collect his inheritance. Lyndon B. Johnson was born poor and died very rich. He didn't earn his money in the private sector. He used political influence to first purchase and then maintain monopolistic radio licenses in his wife's name.
There wasn't much fuss about John Kerry's great wealth in 2004. Kerry didn't earn his fortune either but secured it through two advantageous marriages. Teresa Heinz Kerry is rumored to be in the billionaires' club. Good for her. Though, she didn't earn it either, but rather married the heir of the ketchup fortune. John Kerry was an advocate of raising taxes on the rich, but he, like Warren Buffett, declined to contribute more than required to Uncle Sam. In fact, he was caught mooring his yacht in Rhode Island so as to avoid Massachusetts' taxes. Oh, and before he married Teresa Heinz, there were a number of years when Sen. Kerry donated nothing at all to charity.
Now it's Romney's turn, thanks not just to the press but to Newt Gingrich, who gleefully mouths every left-wing jibe that proves handy. In Florida, he disparaged Romney as a Swiss-bank-account-holding, "automatic $20 million a year" guy. Gingrich, who earned his own not inconsiderable fortune (Tiffany's account anyone?) by selling influence, is joined in his dismay at Romney's larger fortune by other exceedingly wealthy men. NBCs Brian Williams (annual salary: $13 million) shared the news about Romney's tax returns this way: "He did it to help stop the questions about his wealth, but in releasing his taxes, he reveals what most Americans will regard as unimaginable wealth...."
Oh, "unimaginable wealth" -- how shocking. The amount that Brian Williams contributes to charity is not public knowledge. But Newt Gingrich's contributions are available. Though his adjusted gross income was $3.1 million in 2010 (is that "imaginable wealth"?), Gingrich donated only $81,133 to charity, or 2.6 percent of his income -- below the average rate for his income group.
Gingrich and the liberals seem to think that paying taxes is "patriotism" -- to quote Joe Biden, who gave a grand total of $368 annually to charity in the decade before 2008. By their own standard, their patriotism is a little rusty. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was only the most prominent, but far from the only Obama appointee to acknowledge that he hadn't paid the taxes he owed. And the IRS recently announced that 36 members of President Obama's executive office staff owe the government $833,970 in back taxes.
Conservatives think people should obey the law, and that includes paying taxes. But we don't worship the state or its "Greedy Hand" (see Amity Shlaes).
Far from being embarrassed about his wealth, Romney has every reason to be "unimaginably" proud. He didn't inherit his money (He gave away his inheritance), and he didn't earn it by parlaying his government post into contracts for services as a "historian." He earned every penny through his own talents in the private sector. He then paid all the taxes he was required to pay.
Beyond that, Romney's tax returns reveal the most generous charitable donor in recent history. The Romneys donated about 14 percent to charity in 2010 and about 19 percent in 2011. The average donation for people at the Romneys' level of income is 6 percent.
Would Romney's money have done more good if he'd forked those extra millions to the IRS rather than to the Mormon Church and the other charities they selected? Well, that would certainly have provided a few more bucks for Solyndra and the urgently necessary high-speed rail stretch from Fresno to Bakersfield. But, on balance, private charities are probably a better bet for improving the world.
You'd think Gingrich would understand that.
---
COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM
January 27, 2012 @ 10:20 am
“Romney should be proud?”
What should he be proud of except for becoming a better liar and hiring a professional debater to teach him some new tactics? In one of the other posts it was stated that Romney is becoming a better “performer” and that was apparent in last nights debate. However, as far as Romney being proud, it doesn’t appear that hubris in whatever form, is lacking in any of the candidates.
January 27, 2012 @ 10:38 am
I’ll be happy to answer that for you.
Romney should be proud of having made his own way in the private sector. He should be proud of being a financial success. He should be proud of his work at Bain Capital and of the businesses he helped to build which now support thousands of American jobs. Businesses, like Staples, Sports Authority and many others. He should be proud of his success in turning the Salt Lake City Olympics around from a failing effort to a great success.
Americans used to be proud of that kind of success also. Now, even conservatives condemn it because someone is ‘too’ rich, ‘too’ successful, doesn’t pay enough taxes to support the have nots or for some other socialistic reason. Some conservatives have reached the shameful depths of joining Obama in criticizing success.
Romney should be proud of his marriage of 42 years to the same woman. Together they have raised 5 sons who also seem to have successful marriages and families. This is not a small accomplishment and it should not be disparaged by conservatives.
As to disparaging him for improving his debate performance, well there you go again, running down someone who attempts to improve their situation. Americans used to applaud people who attempted to do better. Now they make fun of it. Everyone told Romney he didn’t debate well so he got someone to help him improve. Isn’t that the American way? Well, maybe not anymore but it used to be.
By the way, your hero’s latest performance fell flat in last night’s debate. People are catching on that Newt is attacking questions and moderators to avoid answering questions that don’t play well for him.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/27/us-usa-campaign-gingrich-media-idUSTRE80Q08V20120127
January 27, 2012 @ 12:25 pm
To be sure! All those things are something to be proud of, however, I was commenting on the article which centered on the “debate” of which the titled suggested he should be proud. When it comes to hypocrites, Leonidas, you are their KING considering all the garbage you’ve deposited about not only Gingrich but others as well.
P.S. Newt is not my “hero,” and this whole “thing” you have with Newt is really getting a bit psycho.
January 27, 2012 @ 2:59 pm
Newsjunky, you asked what Romney should be proud of and called him a liar in the process. I answered your question with facts that any candidate would be proud of. If you don’t want to know, don’t ask the question.
Btw, sticks and stones and all that.
January 27, 2012 @ 3:42 pm
I didn’t ASK any questions, I highlighted the title of the article and put a question mark after it suggesting I didn’t agree. The question was in answer to the article, period.
“Sticks and stones and all that” — now really Leonidas, give it a break.
January 27, 2012 @ 4:35 pm
Newsjunky, I responded to the following question copied directly from your post.
Question posted. Question answered.
January 27, 2012 @ 4:57 pm
Whatever.
January 27, 2012 @ 10:56 am
Do you suppose the GOP paid McCain not to run again so that he wouldn’t beat Romney again?
January 27, 2012 @ 1:41 pm
Love it!