Story #1 looks at the charity giving record of democrats and republicans. #2 relates a story of a hit piece by Reuters on Marco Rubio. And finally #3 looks at Elizabeth Warren and her claim not to be rich. It’s amazing how Democrats feel the need to hide their wealth.
1. Who is more generous?
Greed: Rich businessman Mitt Romney gave more than 16% of his income to charity last year. A few years back, Barack and Michelle Obama gave less than 1% of theirs. Aren't Republicans supposed to be the heartless ones?
According to their tax returns, the Obamas gave to charitable causes just $10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 through 2004. In 2005 and 2006, they boosted their giving a bit to 5%.
How about Vice President Joe Biden? Surely he could top the Obamas and save some face for the party that purports to be all about helping the poor. But no.
Biden and his wife gave an average of $369 a year to charity for the decade preceding his vice presidency, according to USA Today. That amounted to 0.3% of their income. They haven't been much more generous since Biden became veep. In 2010, they gave $5,350, or roughly 1.4%.
Maybe the Clintons, the last Democrats to hold the White House before the Obamas, can save the party's reputation. From 2000 to 2006, their donations averaged 8.26% of income, from a low of 1.21% in 2002 to a high of 12.57% two years later, says the Tax Foundation.
Better, but not exactly Romney territory. The former Massachusetts governor gave 13.73% of his income to charity in 2010 and an estimated 19.14% last year….
Actually this shouldn’t come as a surprise. Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. You can read about it here.
2. Reuters Hit Piece on Rubio backfires
The Reuters news service once again has made itself a laughingstock by publishing a mistake-riddled hit piece on Marco Rubio, all but ruling him out as a vice presidential nominee for the GOP because of alleged financial problems. Many of which turned out to be untrue. Five corrections were necessary.
Matt Lewis of the Daily Caller outlines a total of 7 falsehoods or exaggerations in the story. Dylan Byers of Politico spoke to Reuters staff who refused to go on the record (an interesting stance for a newsman), and writes:
One senior staffer at Reuters described the episode to me as a "fiasco," another as a "disgrace."
It was so bad, in fact, that the editors and writer involved have been asked not to talk about it. (I reached out to editors David Lindsey and Eric Walsh, but have not heard back.)
They won't even defend themselves! How bad must it be if you can't even fabricate a rationalization of the facts. The facts must themselves be damning. John Hinderake of Powerline calls it the "worst news story of 2012."…
Two things here. Dana Perino said that an article with one mistake is acceptable, two mistakes is unforgiveable, three is a firing offense. Now what does 7 equal? The second point is Hinderake calling this the “worst news story of 2012” is premature. It’s only January and the press going for Obama is likely to beat this.
3. Elizabeth Warren claims she’s not in the 1%
The rhetoric of class and inequality is back in force, and Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren -- the standard-bearer for a combative new progressivism -- made the case to MSNBC's Lawrence O’Donnell last night that members of the Senate shouldn't own stock.
“I realize there are some wealthy individuals – I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios" she told him.
“I realize there are some wealthy individuals – I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios" she told him.
Hard to see how Warren wouldn't be, by most standards, wealthy, according to the Personal Financial Disclosure form she filed to run for Senate shows that she's worth as much as $14.5 million. She earned more than $429,000 from Harvard last year alone for a total of about $700,000, and lives in a house worth $5 million.
She also has a portfolio of investments in stocks and bonds worth as as much as $8 million, according to the form, which lists value ranges for each investment. The bulk of it is in funds managed by TIAA-CREF.
Warren would not, of course, be particularly wealthy by the tony standards of the Senate. But she's also unlikely to draw the sort of popular identification with her financial status that might attach to Marco Rubio, whose home is underwater….
It should be interesting to see how much she gives to charity. Anyone want to comment on their guess? And it’s interesting to watch as Romney says he’s not ashamed of being rich while Warren seems quite embarrassed by it.
No comments:
Post a Comment