Friday, April 4, 2008

Obama and charity

Not quite Gore-like but not all that impressive either (hat tip: Peter Heck at Veritas Rex)...

Here's the story from Yahoo News...
-From 1998-2004, the Obamas gave about 1%.
-In 2005-2006, they gave about 5%.
-Interestingly, in 2007, they dramatically increased their giving-- as his presidential run began-- giving more in one year than in the previous decade.

My favorite example of this again involves Al Gore. Al and Tipper gave $353 to charity in 1997-- with an AGI of nearly $200K.

My favorite quote from Gore's spokesman:
"Contributing financially to charitable organizations is certainly noble and should be encouraged and is something that the Gores have done when the resources were there..."

Heck makes the important and obvious point that it is hypocritical to vote to take your money to give to poor people-- while failing to give their own for the same purpose.

Given this, it's funny and a bit odd that Obama has been pushing Clinton so hard to release her own tax returns. Either he is blissfully unaware or unconcerned about his own returns-- or has good reason to suspect more embarrassing material in hers.


At April 4, 2008 at 10:08 AM , Blogger Bryce Raley said...


Mr. Gore seems to lack congruency in many of his beliefs and actions.

Obama thinks so highly of him that he's going to have him in the cabinet.

There could be some unprecedented regulations in the next 4-8 years.

I've heard builder grumblings about all the new energy regs in home building.

At April 5, 2008 at 10:38 AM , Blogger dudevf1 said...

So does this mean that they believe in the saying "Charity begins with taxation."

regarding the regulations, just look at CA today and you'll see where the rest of the country will be forced to go. I

At April 5, 2008 at 10:54 AM , Blogger Eric Schansberg said...

Maybe Obama wants the Clinton tax returns to be made public-- and to be publicized-- because they made so much money. Especially in Democratic circles, merely making a lot of money is often an unattractive characteristic. (Is this especially true among Hillary's voters.) If attached to political power, it might be even less attractive.

At April 5, 2008 at 6:15 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At April 5, 2008 at 6:15 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At April 6, 2008 at 11:58 AM , Blogger dudevf1 said...

I saw the income blurb for the Clintons the other day and I think it was $190 million in income since President Clinton left office?

I think President Clinton has been spearheading efforts to address poverty worldwide, a noble effort, so I wouldn't rush to make any claims about their use of income nor am I implying that you are. My point is that President Clinton has likely done far more to directly address poverty but still that's alot of money and I agree with you that Obama's camp must know something or else they just want to underscore the total amount of income. The latter strategy, if taken, is particularly disturbing.

It doesn't bother me how much money the Clintons have made, good for them, but it will be interesting to see how that field of the political spectrum responds to it.

I was at a conference last week where a speaker, as an aside, was asked to handicap the dem. election and he thought that Clinton was still going to win. His take was that they will do everything within the law to get the super delegates and should not be under estimated in their chance for success.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home