Bill and Hillary Clinton have released their tax returns for 2000-2006, as well as preliminary figures for 2007. TaxProf has the breakdown. Since the end of 1999, the Clintons' combined income has topped $109,000,000.
What caught my eye was this graph he made from the data. For every year, the Clintons' charitable contributions have been multiples more, percentage-wise, than the average American's. Generous Giving states, Percentage Given: “The IRS reports that those who itemize deductions on their income tax returns have claimed, since 1975, that between 1.6 percent and 2.16 percent of their income went to charitable concerns. Gallup polls taken every two years for the organization Independent Sector have found charitable donations to run between 1.5 percent and 2 percent of income. Giving USA, a definitive report published by American Association of Fund-Raising Counsel, says that giving has ranged between 1.7 percent and 1.95 percent of personal income over the last 20 years.”11So, except for 2002, the Clinton's charitable giving has been roughly twice to seven times as great, proportionally, as the average American.
So I say good on them!
But wait, there's more!
What about Hillary's arch-rival, Barack Obama? Arthur Brooks:
After Mr. and Mrs. Obama released their tax returns, the press quickly noticed that, between 2000 and 2004, they gave less than one percent of their income to charity, far lower than the national average. Their giving rose to a laudable five percent in 2005 and six percent in 2006, with the explosion of their annual income to near $1 million, and the advent of Mr. Obama’s national political aspirations (representing a rare case in which political ambition apparently led to social benefit). According to an Obama spokesman, the couple’s miserly charity until 2005 “was as generous as they could be at the time,” given their personal expenses. In other words, despite an annual average income over the period of about $244,000, they simply could not afford to give anything meaningful.TaxProf has that graph, too: Mr. Brooks notes also(make of it what you will in relation to these sets of figures):
In 1996, the General Social Survey asked a large sample of Americans whether they agreed that, “The government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality.” Those who “disagreed strongly” with this statement gave an amazing twelve times more money to charity per year, on average, than those who “agreed strongly.” People disagreeing strongly also gave nine times more to secular causes than those agreeing strongly, and even gave more to traditionally progressive causes, such as the environment and the arts.TaxProf also notes that during the years of Bill Clinton's presidency, they gave half their income to charity during 1996 and 1997.
BTW, it's been well known for decades among economists that the more money people make, the less they give away proportional to their income. The Clintons, whatever else you may think of them, buck this trend and seem plenty generous. So I say for this matter, give credit where credit is due.
We could really slap them on the back if we knew where this money was. I spent some time looking at the forms and the only charity I could find listed was The Clinton Family Foundation, which was the sole recipient of the entire 1,580,503 that they donated in 2006. (The 2007 donations are not itemized, as they have filed for a tax extension, and at an even 3,000,000 appear to be an estimate.)
Hillary helpfully provides a link to foundation.org for more info on where the 2006 money went from there, but you have to search for it yourself, which gives you this.
Looking at their financial date, you can see that like many charities the CFF finds it more blessed to receive than to give, but presumably they intend to give that money away someday, or Scrooge McDuck's money vault would be a charity. Down at the bottom is a .pdf that lists who received money from CFF in 2006.
You'll see that the Ivy League and the ballet schools did okay, and while I don't object to that I don't think it's the first thing that pops into an average person's mind when they think of charity. There are nice donations to children's hospitals - now that's more like it.
But donations to stuff like Wellstone Action FLAT-OUT DON'T COUNT. Even if Wellstone Action is planning to cure breast cancer or something, you have to remember that - apart from the tax deduction - the Clintons reap political profit by keeping outfits like this greased up. Our appreciation of their charitable instincts should be deducted from accordingly.
What I object to, Donald, is your characterization of the Clinton's as more generous than "average Americans". Which average Americans? As average millionaires (and a multimillionaire finds it quite easy to donate a million bucks that he would otherwise fork over in taxes) they are better than the Obamas, but they're bums compared to Bill Gates.
Many other average Americans give to charity the only thing they have to give, which is some of their spare time. They get no tax write-off for that. Give the Clintons all the credit you want, but let's not make them the example of American charity.
My question is:
What is the source of that > $20M for 2007? Hillary's salary is just north of $100k. I remember that they were broke fighting the Whitewater and other assorted scandals. So now they make more than $20M per year? From where? Is Billy Boy that good of a speaker? That good of an investor? What does the CFF give it's money to?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Glen Wishard [#1] writes:
Nobody thinks Bill Gates is an average millionaire. Pretty much everybody is a bum compared to him (except maybe Warren Buffett) in terms of both percentage and absolute dollars. So forget that point.
Donald's post says that the average itemizing taxpayer (a lot better off than the average American) gives between 1.6 and 2.16 percent of income to charity. And that it is well-known to economists that the higher income goes, the lower proportion goes to charity (on average, presumably). Therefore, if the Clintons look good compared to the average American, they look even better compared to the (genuinely) average millionaire. (Quite possibly the Obamas do, too. I don't know the figures.) So forget that point, too.
Yes, some people give time, some of them lots of time. But since we are talking averages here, let's see some figures.
And while we're at it, how is your charitable giving coming? (Mine's fine, thanks.)
I looked into Colin Powell to speak at an event a little while ago and he was looking for $300k (plus expenses). Don't know what Bill's going rate is, but it's certainly not less than Powell's. And I'm sure the demand for Clinton across North America and Europe far outstrips what he's willing to supply.
At $300k a shot that's about 67 engagements a year. At, say, $500k (not impossible), 40 nights out of his life a year gives him a cool twenty million. Easy.
Boo
Top-tier speakers can make $50k per speech. Throw in some Board of Directors positions, consulting that gets stuff done with foreign leaders, et. al., and it's not impossible.
Al Gore actually earns even more than Bill Clinton.
Before we praise Clinton for his charity, I would point out :
1) Do we really kinow which charities it is going to? Are we sure it is not making a round trip via his speaking fees for an event for that charitable org?
2) They donate a lot, knowing full well that it will be scrutinized when Hillary runs, and they don't want to get any flak for that. Consider it a political necessity.
In other words, despite an annual average income over the period of about $244,000, they simply could not afford to give anything meaningful.
Yeah, I don't find much fault in this. Wanting to build up a nest egg, while having spend the 90s paying off Harvard Law debts, and having 2 young children which dramatically changed their spending patterns? I wouldn't be surprised at all if they were in substantial debt until 2002, or even till his 2nd book came out (2004?).
robohobo at 2
So now they make more than $20M per year? From where? Is Billy Boy that good of a speaker? That good of an investor?
Yes, he is that good of a speaker. He draws crowds, people like to hear him, and (aside from his campaigning follies this year) he's entertaining and likeable to millions. $51m/6 years is about $10m a year, which he could easily get with 50 nights, as BooPear said.
As for investing? Eh. When you're well known and connected, people give you easy investments. Take W's rate of return from the sale of the Rangers, Carlyle group, or Tiger Woods' pre-IPO Google shares.
What does the CFF give it's money to?
Here is there 501©(3) form Go to town, or use that website to find different years.
Wow, I am truly amazed how people look into tax returns, when there is something so more important happening to our country. First we are almost about toe nominate an Anti-American who has supported a varmit called Wright that hates America and American People. Who says God'D"America and who unites with another hater called Farrakhan to visit America's enemies. Obama shas supported Wright for Twenty years!!! does not show much for his character but much more important he supports an Anti-American and here we are scrutinizing tax returns..Are we Americans blind?? Many say we can not blame someone for the action of others but TWENTY YEARS SUPPORTING AN ANTI-AMERICAN MAKING HIM YOUR MENTOR IS VERY VERY CONCERNING. AND LET ME TELL YOU WHAT MY DEAR FATHER AND MOTHER WOULD SAY;
TELL ME WHO YOU SUPPORT AND ARE FRIENDS WITH AND WE WILL TELL YOU WHO AND WHAT YOU ARE -THE SAME!!
Its become very sad that we are wasting our time with tax returns for that matter why don't we put out all the congress', governors' McCains and his wifes tax returns? This is just such a waste of time and energy! Specially when our country is in trouble, we are about to elect an Anti-American Supporter, we are in the beginning of a recession. people are loosing their jobs, homes, we are in the begining of racial manipulation of speech which Obama has brought upon us! People are desparate becasue its becoming harder to feed thier families and we are at war..Sad day guys when we are worried about things that are really not important to the future of our country and the quality of our future!
[Please consider this your first warning. You, who I don't recall seeing post before, have just posted here under the name "VoteResponsibly08" and also under the name "Joseph Pap". You're welcome to pick one or the other, and establish a reputation. --NM, Marshal]
[Duplicate post. Deleted. --NM]
[New posters should pick one identity and stick to one ID, please; and we encourage substance over repetition. Combining relatively insubstantial (HOWEVER DEEPLY FELT) repetition with a name change is considered "sock puppetry" and is generally deprecated. Deleted. --NM]
While I agree with Wishard that the devil is in the details, it never hurts the public good to promote charitable giving, if said giving is done wisely.
So while the Clintons' idea of "wisdom" might be self serving, how about someone posting a list of links to smart/effective charities.
From what I've read, the Salvation Army does yeoman's work, even if they do have some scary Santa's out there.
It's not hard to find worthwhile charities. Most people start with local institutions where they can see exactly what their money goes for.
What's hard to find is the charity in a system where politicians create their own 501 foundations - by the dozen - and give money to other politician's foundations, which is used to fund institutes that employ ex-congressmen, lawyers, and journalists, who trade speakers and speaker's fees between themselves. That looks more like business than charity.
Glen, that sounds like an excellent article for Reason, or some other magazine that doesn't mind skewering whomever it may.
Sad that I can't think of many magazines that fit that bill...
Joe,
Just a small correction to your comment #5... top tier speakers start at $100k plus, at least. The real A listers are getting $250k plus these days (think ex-presidents, Lance Armstrong, those types of folks). I know... I'm a professional fund raiser and every now and again I have cause to hire people just like them (just passed on Lance a couple of weeks ago at $300k, in fact).
A couple of years ago I booked Christopher Reeves for an event. He was a popular speaker at the time, sure, but nowhere near the top of the food chain. Fee was $75k plus charter jet plus expenses for a small retinue. Those were not unusual additional fees. Unfortunately, in that case Reeves passed away about 2 months before the event (which we had to cancel).
The low-range people-- folks you may have heard of but don't necessarily know much about... so, say, mid-tier golfers, NASCAR drivers, etc., etc., will run you $30k - $50k easy. Just booked Patch Adams the other day... can't tell you the amount we got him for, but I will say he gave us a big discount because our event was something he was personally aligned with... and we're still paying a healthy fee.
So, yeah, Clinton at $300k - $500k per engagement, not even a question. There's big money in the speakers circuit, if you manage to acquire yourself a name for it.
Boo
Oh, also, on the Clinton's giving...
You know... I work with a lot of rich people from a philanthropic perspective. VERY rich people. People who've made a LOT more than the Clintons and, percentage-wise, are giving a lot less. Charity is kind of a challenging thing for some people, particularly if they had to make their money rather than inherit it. People who are still doing their best to earn money aren't always so very generous when it comes to giving it away, so I'd say cut them some slack, personally. They have nothing to be ashamed of here.
Boo
The Clintons, generous donors to genuine selfless charity? That is a very tough one to believe. Doesn't anybody around here remember a recent story about the Canadian mining entrepreneur who took Bill Clinton with him to Kazakhstan on his private jet? The mining man landed a lucrative uranium (!) mining concession in the run-by-a-despot-with-an-iron-fist ex-Soviet republic and subsequently donated $31 million to the William J. Clinton Foundation. You can read all about it in this account from that notorious right-wing Clinton-hating organ The New York Times:
After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton
Kudos to Glen Wishard and CJ.
The things they pointed out are the reasons the Clintons have been frauds from the beginning.
Frauds, eh? At $100,000 each to two children's hospitals and a cancer foundation, that's a pretty expensive fraud. Sure, maybe they are donating to some charitable organizations you wouldn't support, but it's their money, not yours, right? (Follow the link in #7.)
I get the notion that you guys don't like the Clintons, and nobody says you have to. So go ahead and campaign for other people.
But debasing the truth in order to make them look bad gives me the impression that you don't have valid arguments to make. Also, if you stick to the truth, and admit it even when someone you don't like does something good, it gives people the impression that you have principles.
It's worth a try, anyway.
Nobody is basing the truth, but you seem to be dismissing some truths. And if you're going to trot out the "You Guys Just Hate the Clintons" orchestra, you should play that one to Daily Kos, because elsewhere it's so 1995.
The Clintons have not, to date, donated $10,000,000 to charity. They have only transferred this amount to 501 accounts still under their sole control. The CFF has exactly three officers: Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea.
Some portion of this amount (about 20%, I would estimate) has been donated. Some of this has gone to good causes, as I pointed out before you did. Some of it has gone to organizations that are not charities, merely non-profits.
Since this is all about giving credit where credit is due, let's give credit where credit is due. They'll get credit for giving $10 million dollars away when they actually give $10 million dollars away. Until then they get credit for the lesser amount, whatever that is, minus the money they give to organizations that are not charities by anybody's definition.
Glen,
I don't think "You guys just hate the Clintons". As far as I can tell, there's lots of other people too, particularly if they are "liberals".
The law on these foundations is pretty tight. They have to give their money to certain sorts of recipients, and they have to give a certain fraction of their capital each year. One of the purposes of these tax filings is to enforce that. Once the Clintons give that money to the CFF, yes they continue to control which charitable cause they give it to, but they can't take it back and spend it on Hillary's campaign.
IANAL, but I don't believe the CFF can make donations to just any non-profit. I expect it has to be one entitled to receive tax-exempt donations. Like many organizations on the Right and on the Left, it turns out that Wellstone Action has several branches: one does explicit campaigning and donations are non-deductible, while the other does work within the IRS definition of "charitable" and donations are deductible. The IRS says you can take credit for a donation when you give money, irrevocably, to a suitably certified organization.
You don't like that, take it up with the IRS and then Congress. But think twice. Do you really want to prohibit that same trick for the Right? They use it just as much.
How about asking Richard Mellon Scaife about his "charitable" donations?
Beard -
I'm not accusing the Clintons of fraud - not in the same way that you seem to be accusing Richard Mellon Scaife.
But the ease with which the Clintons are gathering an over-abundance of kudos here doesn't reassure me that proper scrutiny is taking place. The Clintons seem to be accustomed to skirting the law and excusing themselves by saying things like "Richard Mellon Scaife". And their defenders resort too often to the claim that everybody does it. And yes, if everybody is doing it, I'm all for getting everybody.
But I'm not claiming that any of this is illegal. I'm claiming that the congratulations are premature and exaggerated, because ALL of this money is claimed as going to charity.
Giving to children's hospitals, good. Giving money to a ballet school is legally and morally unimpeachable, and tax deductable, but a ballet school is NOT A CHARITY. Unless they're trying to give ballet lessons to inner city gangs, in which case they are a very silly charity.
Breast Cancer Research, an indisputable charity. The George McGovern Library? Not a charity.
You see what I'm saying?
As a further example of what I'm saying, take a look at the other Clinton 501, The William J. Clinton Foundation, which has a whopping $200,000,000+ in undistributed funds.
If you look at their last 990 statement (page 31) you'll see that in 2006 they gave $17,000 to the Clinton AIDS Initiative, and the lordly sum of $15,000 to the Clinton-Bush Katrina Fund. (Which in turn was probably sent on to the Clinton-Bush Bottled Water and Bag of Cheetos Fund.)
Their only other gift that year was a hefty $172,000 to the Miller Center Foundation. Is this a charity? No, it's an asylum for washed-up Democrats like Bob Strauss and Tony Coelho, and washed-up journalists like Bob Woodward.
I should have added, it's probably soon to be a repository for the once-mighty Hillary herself. Which in a way is kind of sad, and in other ways, kind of funny. But she'll have plenty of time to figure out how to spend all of that charity largess, before any more of it piles up and threatens to become a fire hazard.
Glen,
Sorry for the confusion. Perhaps unfairly, I was lumping you in with Robert M, who is explicitly accusing the Clintons of fraud. And, to be accurate, I have not accused Richard Mellon Scaife of anything in this thread, except by putting scare-quotes around "charitable". (I'm certainly willing to believe that RMS is guilty of any number of scurrilous things, I would be happy to work on that on some other occasion, but I didn't say that this time.)
What it really comes down to, it seems to me, is that you don't like the Clintons' choice of charities, or at least some of them. I've heard impassioned arguments for why teaching Latin to inner-city kids will end discrimination and poverty. This may or may not be silly, but if the IRS gives these folks the ability to accept tax-deductible donations, then let the marketplace decide.
So the WJCF has $200M+ in undistributed funds. So? The Gates Foundation has tens of billions in undistributed funds. The question is, are they making annual distributions at the level required by the law? If not, prosecute. If so, leave it go.
If they are laundering money through their foundation, to funnel it into campaign funds, then that is flat-out illegal. But that kind of accusation requires evidence, not just scorn.
However, perhaps you believe that charitable foundations should not be allowed to achieve a size above some limit. (I could actually get behind this, with substantial caveats, but I seriously doubt you are willing to get this radical, even though I believe it follows from what you are saying.)
Or maybe it's just charitable foundations that support liberal causes, or that support things that Chardonnay-drinkers enjoy.
Beard:
I'm not speaking for Glen, but the impression I get is that the majority of the Clinton's tax-deductible donations have gone to a) political purposes or b) organizations that the Clintons' control. For example, I saw that one of their big donations was to name a college library after some politically influential person.
This does not mean they've defrauded anyone, just that (at least so far) the donations have not been, strictly speaking, charitable donations. There's nothing wrong with this as far as the tax code goes, or even generally - it was their money after all. It's just that they don't deserve acclaim for having given $10 million to charity. The actual true charitable (def: Concerned with human welfare and the alleviation of suffering) giving has been a fairly small amount.
Yep, you finally figured it out, Beard. I'm really only worried about people who stink of Roquefort and Chardonnay. Everyone else should have complete license to loot and kill, and deduct the cost of the ammunition from their taxes. I say we get a start on Turner's cannibalism right now, before it gets too hot to chase people. Maybe they taste like fish in white wine sauce.
We pay our senators a million dollars each? Thats insane.
My bad- over 8 years. 125K per year. Thats more reasonable.
and what the hell's the Human Fund?
An outreach organization to save at-risk British synthpop/new wave bands ?
"Maybe they taste like fish in white wine sauce."
The literature suggest pork.
SG [#25],
You sound like a reasonably thoughtful person. But your message sounds like you are reaching these conclusions based on the way other people write about what they say the Clintons have donated. And those conclusions are, in general, false.
Follow the link in the second line of Donald Sensing's original post. It quickly gets you to a list of the actual donations. Then you can evaluate people's claims.
This kind of sniping sounds like a bunch of meat-eaters criticizing a vegetarian for not being a vegan.
Beard:
I readily admit this is not a topic that I've spent much time researching. I've seen a report on CNN and that's about it (also I didn't find anything relevant to the Clintons giving at the second link. Can you give a more direct link to what you had in mind?). But what I have seen reinforces my opinion that the Clinton's giving has been charitable as per the tax code, but not (yet, at least) charitable in the sense of helping others.
According to the CNN report the majority of their donations have been to the Clinton Foundation (Bill, Hillary and Chelsea being the only officers) and the Clinton Foundation has not disbursed most of that money. The report did highlight the library donation (in South Carolina, I believe).
But as I said, I don't call this fraud or even anything pejorative. I'm inclined to view it favorably, but until the money actually gets disbursed and we can see what purposes it goes to, I'm withholding moral accolades.
And that said, I don't feel any need to convince someone who does wish to praise the Clinton's giving that they're wrong. Certainly I haven't given 10% of my income to charities, arguable or otherwise.