For several weeks, the Clinton campaign has been under pressure to release the senator’s tax returns. The more she resisted, and declined to explain the delay, the greater the anticipation. For that matter, announcing that the tax records would be released late on a Friday afternoon only reinforced the notion that these returns were of unique political significance.
But now that the records have been disclosed, I’m not sure what the big deal is. In fact, I don’t know why they didn’t just end the scuttlebutt by releasing the returns earlier.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and former President Bill Clinton released tax data Friday showing they earned $109 million over the last eight years, an ascent into the uppermost tier of American taxpayers that seemed unimaginable in 2001, when they left the White House with little money and facing millions in legal bills.
The bulk of their wealth has come from speaking and book-writing, which together account for almost $92 million, including a $15 million advance — larger than previously thought — from Mr. Clinton’s 2004 autobiography, “My Life.” The former president’s vigorous lecture schedule, where his speeches command upwards of $250,000, brought in almost $52 million.
During that time, the Clintons paid $33.8 million in federal taxes and claimed deductions for $10.2 million in charitable contributions. The contributions went to a family foundation run by the Clintons that has given away only about half of the money they put into it, and most of that was last year, after Mrs. Clinton declared her candidacy.
Mrs. Clinton’s campaign released the eight years of income tax information late Friday, following a rising clamor on the campaign trail for her to follow the lead of her opponent, Senator Barack Obama, who had previously disclosed his tax returns for the same period. In what proved to be an awkward juxtaposition, the disclosure of the records — which revealed the Clintons to be in the top one-hundredth of 1 percent, or roughly 14,500, of all taxpayers — came on the day that Mrs. Clinton called for the creation of a cabinet-level post to tackle poverty.
That last point seems to be the politically salient one. There are some questions about various deductions, but the overarching media narrative this morning seems to be, “The Clintons have made a lot of money.”
I’m just not sure why anyone cares.
The NYT notes that it’s an “awkward juxtaposition” to have Clinton talking about tackling poverty the same day we learn that she and her husband have gone from having huge debts to having considerable wealth. But why is that awkward? Both of the Clintons come from modest means, they worked hard, achieved enormous success, and have been able to do well for themselves over the last eight years.
Are millionaires necessarily unable to care about the poor? From FDR to Bobby Kennedy to John Edwards, we’ve seen plenty of political leaders of means make a commitment to low-income families. The media seems to want to create a disconnect here, but I don’t see it.
The NYT story also hints that the Clintons have not always been charitable enough, and that their donations to charity have “not always kept up with their income.” That seems like a fair question, and it’s up to the Clintons and the campaign to respond, though I think the work of the Clinton Global Initiative speaks very highly of the couple’s commitment to charitable work in the U.S. and around the world.
But it’s the speculation about political implications that seems less fair.
In revealing that she and her husband are millionaires many times over, she may trigger a backlash from her political base — households earning less than $75,000 a year.
In about two weeks she faces a must-win primary in Pennsylvania, where recent census data list the median income as about $44,000. That sum is less than what the Clintons claimed in expenses for “cleaning and maintenance” on their homes.
“We’re heading toward the economic doldrums,” said Democratic strategist Bill Carrick. “It’s a pretty inconvenient time for this to come out.”
Look, if Hillary Clinton were running on a conservative, trickle-down economic platform that benefited the wealthy at the expense of everyone else, I could see why this would be embarrassing. Critics would say, “She’s a millionaire looking out for other millionaires.”
But the reality is the opposite. Yes, the Clintons have amassed considerable wealth, but the senator’s economic plan is premised in part on raising her own taxes quite a bit. Her millions haven’t made her policies less progressive.
So why is this a big deal?