Odds, Ends and Outrage

Odds,  ends and outrage

        This morning's local (Orlando) news features several stories of interest which might make one say "huh?"

       Right off the bat, there is the tale of the, as yet unresolved, high speed car chase through a local residential neighborhood  which ended with a BMW sedan in the middle of a lake. Emergency rescue personnel found the occupant("s?") of the car were nowhere to be found as the car was towed back to shore. In  an inspired flash of  deductive reasoning worthy of  Sherlock Holmes, Orlando police have characterized the circumstances as "suspicious."  Really? When would  such an incident be anything but suspicious?  Can't fool those OPD guys and gals, huh?  

        Another day, another Republican't smear television ad. This time it's Mrs. Clinton making a speech in India where she speaks of the difficulties involved in legislating (in the US) against outsourcing. She isn't pro-outsourcing, she merely points out that  it is entrenched  and would be difficult to eliminate.  The implication, of course, is that outsourcing is bad and costs American jobs. Along with that is the fallacious attempt to create the impression that Mrs. Clinton is endorsing it. Of course she was speaking in India, home of Mumbai call centers and other electronic off shore data handling facilities which are used by a large majority of American corporations. These jobs are largely in the non-manufacturing sector.

        As might be expected,.  as a Senator and then Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton's  outlooks have evolved. On the other hand, someone with zero experience in actual government relations like Donald J. Trump, has no such frame of reference: Today, Donald J. Trump Collection shirts — as well as eye­glasses, perfume, cuff links and suits — are made in Bangladesh, China, Honduras and other low-wage countries. Even Trump's short lived (two years from unveiling to halting  production) Vodka label was foreign made.  Meanwhile, daughter Ivanka, a vice president at his company and frequent campaign surrogate, retails literally  hundreds of additional products under her own line of jewelry and clothing. Most  are made in China. This contradiction between Trump’s consistent business decisions and his stated political agenda illustrates the  failed attempts to  transform  an aggressive, profit-oriented huckster,  marketer and real estate mogul into a  champion of the struggling working class, which Trump is simply incapable of becoming.

        Finally, an article in the local rag is headlined "Tax returns From Clintons Show Millions in Income."  This is the local, ultra conservative  newspaper's headline appended to  an Associated Press article. One is, I suppose, to be outraged at the fact that an ex-president and former senator and secretary of state are in demand as speakers. What strikes me as truly indicative of  Far Right partisan insanity and loss of reason is that the Clintons are essentially blamed for the willingness of others to pay them large fees to speak. As a point I have made before, remember that the Clinton's average  between $200-250,000 per speech, while in 2006-7 Der Trump accepted fees of $1.5 million each for 17 speeches to just one organization!

        I believe the Clintons should be held to at least the same standard as Mr. Trump with regard to fair tax rates. Unfortunately, that is impossible as Trump consistently has refused to release this (or any other years')  tax returns. That being said, there are recent Republican public returns which can be compared to the Clinton's?  First, we need to understand that the Clintons file a joint return, while several candidates and former officials from the Right do not. This separate filing makes it far easier to obfuscate the non office holding spouse's income and tax rate. It would be extremely difficult to be more transparent regarding taxes than either the Clintons or the Obamas. OK, so here we go!

        To start with,   remember that for the last two tax years both Clintons have been private citizens, having no connection to government, ergo their income is from their position in the marketplace, with the exception of  Bill's Presidential pension and Hillary's as a Senator, which at age 62 she drew and continues to draw. Mrs. Clinton has released the previous 36 years worth of federal income tax returns, more than Bush, Romney and McCain combined! The Clintons declared a combined income of $10.6 million  which, if all was from speaking (it wasn't) , represents  about 40 speeches total.  Remember, Trump was paid more than twice that in 2006-7 for just 17 speeches!

        Of that total income, the Clinton's gave away about 10% to charity!  Even with that hefty deduction, The Clinton's marginal federal tax rate was 34.2%. Read it again - 34.2%. This makes them the only current political figures that I  can find, other than the Obamas, whose tax bill actually satisfies the "Buffet Rule" - Warren Buffett's proposal that  the 1%  should pay at least 30% in federal income tax. When all  taxes are factored in, the Clintons actually paid 45.87%  of their combined incomes to various state, local and federal taxing authorities.

        I know, "But don't others pay that kind of rate as well?" Well, since I have that kind of time, I dug up what public records I was able to find.  Before we start, Speaker Paul Ryan, a constant critic of the Clintons has seen his net worth increase by a factor of 4 (without speeches!) over the last ten years, nine of which has been in the US House, at $174,000 annual salary. (He got a raise as Speaker). But now on to those tax rates I promised:

Former VP Dick Cheney - 26%

Former President George W. Bush - 25.4%

Former VP candidate, TV personality , current moron - Sarah Palin  - 14.7%

Sen. John McCain - claimed 33%, but filed separately, not disclosing wife Cindy's taxes on more than $100 million in assets!  

Candidate Mitt Romney - (2012, last year available) - 14%!!

Candidate Barack Obama - 2012 - joint filing - 33.3%

        In summary,  of the last 16 years' worth of candidates, office holders or wannabees, the Clintons have paid the highest tax rate of  the lot, with the Obamas a close second. So when you are exposed to the ads criticizing Hillary's income from speeches, especially the Indian one referring to outsourcing, raise a middle finger, point it at the TV, and give a heartfelt raspberry.