I Hate Agreeing With Her
Though she professes that she is just about to, maybe, release her tax returns, though she is quite busy now (like she has to root through the closet to find them), I know she doesn’t want to; and, I agree with her.
Anyone but an idiot knows she and Bill have made a bunch of money. When you can loan your campaign $5 Mil, you are quite comfortable.
That established, what’s the point? If she played fast and loose with her payments, I’m sure the IRS has already looked at it and blessed it.
Bill has been paid a lot of money by a lot of corporations, foreign and domestic. We already know that. Does the publication of the 1099’s naming the payers change her qualifications to be the President? I don’t think so.
I don’t want her to be the President; but, it has nothing to do with the fact that she’s rich.
If Obama, and God forbid, McCain in a general election, want to tar her with her and her husband’s big money connections, there’s plenty of public record out there to base the attack upon. The oriental guy from a few years ago. Whitewater.
Go further, maybe she, Obama and McCain should give sworn depositions about their pasts, hooked up to a polygraph machine. Interesting, but not relevant to the matters that should matter to voters. How many of you could pass those tests? I couldn’t.
In conclusion, I hate agreeing with her.
4 comments:
Yeah, I'm with you on this one, Dave. Why do we really need to know how much money anyone else -regardless of WHO it is -earns or earned in a given year? What does all of what type of income someone has have to do with the "price of tea in China" -as that old tack on saying goes? Other than to generally just stir up a bunch of bad vibes from the majority of the people who don't have a snowball's prayer in Hell of even come close to a quarter of what some of these individuals (not just her) earn per year.
I disagree. She is the one wanting candidates to be "vetted" so I think it is fair game to ask for this information.
Her position in this matter is quite different from the one she espoused in 2000 when she was running for the senate. Back then, she demanded that her opponent, Rick Lazio, release his tax returns. Why the double standard?
And even if she is "too busy" to provide 2007 returns (which may not have been prepared yet, as mine are not), releasing prior years ought to be easy - aren't copies just sitting in a file in their house? It would take me less than 15 minutes to produce 20 years' worth of my own tax returns.
She might find it harder to appeal to rank and file workers if they knew exactly how rich she and Bill really are. Some tax shelters, while quite legal, might also not look so good.
A list of donors to the Clinton Foundation might also be more revealing than they would wish.
If there is nothing to hide, why not just do it and put this to rest?
Fermi, I'm glad you wrote your comment. As Jeni says, "[w]hy do we really need to know how much money anyone...earns....?"
Why I agree with her is that all of your points, well taken, and among many reasons not to vote for her, have nothing to do with how much money she has. Her duplicity does speak to her character.
I don't think foundation donors are part of tax returns and maybe there are some people out there that don't know that she's rich or the source of her riches; but, I have to go the other way on "if there's nothing to hide...."
Maybe there's a quid pro quo here. I want to be a public official. In return, I have to bare my soul and my life history. If that's the case, so be it. But I wouldn't accept the bargain; and, I wouldn't hold any candidate to such a bargain.
As a story to illustrate my view: drug testing is all the rage today. There are situations where it makes sense public transit drivers, pilots, operators of crucial machinery and equipment. But, I think we've gone to far in the reach of invasion of privacy for "public good."
I don't use drugs; but, I would not submit to a test to confirm that in exchange for a job. Both I and my prospective employer have the right to say no.
I think we subject our potential leaders to too much invasive questioning. Taxes, drugs, etc.
Because of that, in part, we do not get the best leaders.
There isn't a candidate that I've paid any attention to that I can't draw an informed conclusion about without that kind of information.
Tell me all I ask, what do you have to hide? Huh? Sounds like a certain incumbant President.
I feel better now. Probably should have written this comment as the post, as it's what I was thinking about when I wrote the post.
I favor more openness when it comes to public officials, or those wanting to be. There is a line between the personal and the private. We need to keep the revelations to what is relevant. Drug use or infidelities from twenty years ago don't make my cut, unless they were covered up way back then for political reasons. But recent personal financial information does matter - especially when you are currently an elected official, have loaned your campaign $5M, and/or your spouse is an ex-president and may have been paid "consulting fees" or other income by people he has pardoned while in office, or by people who are major donors to the spouse's senate or presidential campaigns, or major donations to your charitable foundation.
A list of foundation donors would not be in the tax returns. That donor list has been requested separately, but has not yet been released. (Why not?) But certain donors might be present as income providers in the tax returns.
You say you would not submit to a drug test to take a job. That is your right. I have in fact submitted to just such a test and it was my choice because I wanted a certain job. I could have refused, but would not have been considered by that particular employer. Running for the highest office in the land is a choice, and it is reasonable to assume that a lot of scrutiny would be involved. If you have skeletons in the closet that you would like to keep secret, you can choose NOT to run.
Post a Comment