Daniel J. Mitchell
I actually have a perverse fondness for Bill
Clinton.
This is both because we got better policy
while he was President (whether he deserves
credit is a separate question) and because he
single-handedly generated a lot of quality
political humor.
But that doesn’t mean he isn’t a typical
politician. And the same is true for his wife.
Indeed, they are strong candidates for the
Hypocrisy-in-Government Award.
That’s because they want to subject other
people to the death tax , but they’re taking
aggressive steps to make sure
they aren’t subject to this punitive and
immoral form of double taxation.
Here’s some of what Bloomberg is
reportingon the issue.
Bill and Hillary Clinton have long
supported an estate tax… That doesn’t
mean they want to pay it. To reduce the
tax pinch, the Clintons are using financial
planning strategies befitting the top 1
percent of U.S. households in wealth.
These moves, common among
multimillionaires, will help shield some of
their estate from the tax that now tops out
at 40 percent of assets upon death. The
Clintons created residence trusts in 2010
and shifted ownership of their New York
house into them in 2011, according to
federal financial disclosures and local
property records.
But you have to give the Clintons credit for
chutzpah.
They have tens of millions of dollars in assets,
but Hillary said they were “dead broke.”
The Clintons’ finances are receiving
attention as Hillary Clinton tours the
country promoting her book, “Hard
Choices.” She said in an interview on ABC
television that the couple was “dead
broke” and in debt when they left the
White House in early 2001. …The Clintons’
finances are receiving attention as Hillary
Clinton tours the country promoting her
book, “Hard Choices.” She said in an
interview on ABC television that the
couple was “dead broke” and in debt when
they left the White House in early 2001. …
Since she left the government last year,
Hillary Clinton, 66, has been giving
speeches for hundreds of thousands of
dollars each. Bill Clinton, 67, also makes
paid speeches and appearances, receiving
$200,000 each in October 2012 from
Vanguard Group Inc. and Deutsche Bank
AG, according to Hillary Clinton’s
disclosures.
Geesh, I wish I was “dead broke” the same
way.
Political cartoonists certainly aren’t
impressed. Here’s Gary Varvel’s take on the
topic.
Michael Ramirez, winner of my cartoon
contest, also is unimpressed.
By the way, Hillary was quoted in the
Bloomberg story as being in favor of a
meritocracy.
Which makes you wonder whether she
opposed the special sweetheart dealthat her
daughter received to work at NBC News.
Chelsea Clinton earned an annual salary of
$600,000 at NBC News before switching to
a month-to-month contract earlier this
year, sources with knowledge of the
agreement told POLITICO. …As special
correspondent, Clinton worked on service-
related feature assignments for NBC’s
“Rock Center with Brian Williams” until
the show’s cancellation in June 2013.
Clinton has since worked on packages for
NBC Nightly News. …When Clinton joined
NBC, many media critics chafed at the
network’s decision to employ a former
first daughter with no experience in
journalism. The New York Post referred to
Clinton as “just another spoiled, aimless
child of rich, successful parents
chauffeured through adulthood by Mommy
and Daddy’s connections.”
I have nothing against parents helping their
kids and using their connections. I surely
would help my kids if I had any influence in
a hiring or pay decision.
But this smells of cronyism. Let’s not forget
that NBC is owned by General Electric, and
GE is infamous for getting in bad with
politicians in exchange for handouts and
subsidies.
In other words, it’s quite likely that Chelsea
was given an extremely lucrative contract
precisely because the company figured it was
a good way of earning some chits with the
then-Secretary of State and possible future
President.
I’m not aware of any smoking gun to confirm
my suspicion, but it would take heroic naiveté
to assume that Chelsea’s parents had nothing
to do with NBC’s decisions.
So, for their hypocrisy on both the death tax
and meritocracy, the Clinton’s could win the
Hypocrisy Award.
But there are plenty of other worthy
candidates.
Such as the Paris-based Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development,
which advocates higher tax for everyone else
while providing gold-plated tax-free salaries
and benefits to its own employees.
Such as the leftist political types who say tax
havens are bad and immoral while
simultaneously utilizing these low-tax
jurisdictions to protect and grow their own
wealth.
Such as the politicians and congressional
staffers who decided to coerce others into
Obamacare while seeking special exemptions
for themselves.
Such as the rich leftists who advocate higher
taxes for other people even though they
refuse to send more of their own money to
Washington.
Such as Prince Charles of the United
Kingdom, who preaches coerced sacrifice for
ordinary people even though his “carbon
footprint” would be in the top 1 percent.
Such as the statists who fight against school
choice for poor families while sending their
own kids to pricey private schools for the
elite.
Such as the Canadian politician who supports
government-run healthcare for his
constituents but comes to America for private
treatment when he’s sick.
As you can see, the Clintons face some very
tough competition.
No comments:
Post a Comment