We have been discussing the rather fascinating role of wealth in American politics rather Hillary Clinton’s repeated flubs in claiming to be “dead broke” after leaving the White House and struggling like other Americans to cover tuition and mortgage costs (here and here and here). Despite the fact that most of our leading candidates are fantastically rich, they still feel the need to show voters that they feel their pain. With the Clintons, the new pitch feel flat with even usually favorable media outlets mocking Hillary over her statements. Now Bill Clinton has tried his hand at reviving the new narrative of a working couple done good. Bill Clinton has insisted that the claim of being broke is “factually true” since they had legal debts. However, everyone in Washington knows that these debts to Democratic law firms is funny money and that these firms would have closed shop rather than pursue the Clintons for payment. The debts, as is always the case, was quickly paid off by Clinton supporters, lobbyists, and others interested in helping the powerful couple. It was debt on paper alone and both Clintons were looking at massive windfalls after leaving the White House. It comes down to the meaning of “debt” to paraphrase a certain president. In the meantime, Joe Biden has tried his hand at the “poorer than thou” pitch.
Bill Clinton insisted that Hillary is “not out of touch” when she claimed that they were “dead broke” and later told the Guardian that voters “don’t see me as part of the problem” with income inequality in the United States “because we pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off, not to name names; and we’ve done it through the dint of hard work.”
Bill Clinton returned to the claim that it is “factually true” that his family was several million dollars in debt. However, he did not claim that any of these law firms had taken any action to force payment of the debt or address the obvious intention for supporters to pay off the debt. CNN documented that Clinton earned $106 million by making speeches from the end of his presidency through January 2013. Hillary Clinton has pulled in $200,000 a speech and was criticized for receiving $500,000 in one week from Goldman Sachs .
Bill Clinton dug the hole deeper with this rather dubious comment: “Everybody now assumes that what happened in the intervening years was automatic. I’m shocked that it’s happened. I’m shocked that people still want me to come give talks. And so I’m grateful.” The “shocked, shocked” claim was even less convincing than when uttered by Claude Rains. Everybody predicted Clinton would pull in massive bucks on the speaking trail and it was widely discussed before he left the White House. Moreover, he had already started to arrange for such work given the almost immediate speaking engagements.
It is becoming a snowballing disaster for the Clintons as they struggle to portray the image of “country done good.” I am not sure why wealth is so polarizing in American politics to the extent that these super rich candidates have to engage in such desperate re-invention. I do not believe that most people hold great animosity for the super rich while they harbor anger over any special deals or tax shelters. The Clintons have been famous for their army of speechwriters and political advisers shaping every word and gesture — as did candidates like Mitt Romney. However, the rollout of this new narrative has been a disaster. When Hillary later insisted that taking a quarter of a million dollars a speech was commendable thing as opposed to “getting connected with any one group or company,” it triggered analysis on recipts of half a million dollars from companies like Goldman Sachs and revived the scandal of over how a Tysons Food executive arranged for Hillary to invest $1000 to make $100,000 in roughly ten months. While most of us are cringing at the spin, the Clintons appear to see no alternative but to plow ahead on the narrative.
The new claim that Clinton was surprised that people would pay him so much for speeches entirely undermined the credibility of his defense. It played into the view of many voters that our leaders can no longer distinction spin from the truth or at least have little respect for voters to see the difference.
What I thought was equally fascinating was how, as Hillary was struggling with the “dead broke” narrative, Joe Biden (who also wants to be the next nominee), just coincidentally revealed that he does not even have a savings account and will have to live off his government pension. That claim was reviewed by the Pulitzer prize winning organization Politifact. Earlier, the nonpartisan Politifact found Hillary’s comments to be largely false and implausible. Biden fairly only slightly better with a finding that it is “half true” which may be a high for American politicians. The group noted that “Biden also holds four checking accounts, two of which he shares with his wife. In addition, he holds six life insurance policies with Mass Mutual. The Bidens reported an adjusted gross income of $407,099 last year, including his vice presidential salary of $230,700.” He will also receive a $5 million “transition budget” for moving expenses, security, and other incidentals upon leaving office.
Biden is still more credible on this subject as one of the least wealthiest members of the Senate when he represented Delaware. However, it is a narrative that will sit poorly with many citizens regardless of the party. Ironically, conservative figures like Clarence Thomas has a real and compelling story of growing up in poverty. In the end however there is a difference between powerful Americans claiming to be sympathetic with the poor and going even further to having been one of the working stiffs. Ironically, both Clintons have an admirable commitment to the poor and a demonstrated history of working on their behalf. They have street cred on the issue. That is what is so bizarre because this continued effort to claiming to have been dead broke has only alienated voters in an area where the Clintons should rightfully be given great credit.
And the campaign season has not even officially begun . . .
Source: USA Today
Nick,
The mosaic of guilt just keeps growing.
“House Republican lawmakers said a retired Internal Revenue Service official, Lois Lerner, raised the possibility of auditing GOP Sen. Charles Grassley, a senior lawmaker and former chairman of the powerful Finance Committee, over a group’s offer to pay for his wife in connection with a speaking engagement.
The allegation is likely to heighten congressional interest in Ms. Lerner’s emails, which have been important to an investigation into IRS treatment of politically active nonprofit groups, particularly since it emerged that emails from 2009 through mid-2011 were lost in a computer crash.
Lawmakers said a new email, from 2012, shows that Ms. Lerner, who retired last year, considered initiating an audit into the Iowa lawmaker after inadvertently receiving his invitation to an event to which both were invited.”
http://online.wsj.com/articles/retired-irs-official-sought-audit-of-sen-grassley-lawmakers-say-1403729355
Like I said, I’m disturbed by the fact that Paul Ryan of all people expressed what I’ve been thinking all along…
“We don’t believe you.”
Completely off topic; only because it’s not getting enough attention.
Does anyone remember the Jodi Arias trial? That woman who killed her ex-boyfriend and took the stand in a capital murder trial after changing her story THREE times?
The stories being offered by the IRS to explain Lois Lerner’s missing emails is quickly approaching a Jodi Arias level of implausibility.
Not only did the IRS have an obligation under records law to preserve the emails, but they also had an obligation under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to preserve them and report their loss due to a lawsuit regarding the same topic Congress was investigating.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/irs-lost-email-jeopardy-1403653430
Jodi Arias, meet the IRS.
Karen S wrote “Everyone complains about manufacturing being outsourced to China, but how many of them are willing to pay far higher prices for something made in America? I buy made in America when I can, especially with toys, but for more expensive items, it’s sometimes prohibitive”
On the contrary, the cost is not prohibitive. You have simply made a conscious decision to live a certain lifestyle and you, like most Americans, will not be honest about that.
Twenty years ago people had smaller expectations. They did not demand a 50″ flat-screen TV, smart phones for the entire family not to mention the hundreds of dollars paid for monthly access, the large SUV which starts at $50,000 and cars for everyone else in the family (and all of those vehicles must have electric windows and a really nice stereo), a house with vaulted ceilings everywhere (and they whine about utility costs to heat/cool it), etc.
People today only have one means of determining which product to buy: the price. It does not seem to matter that cell phones are disposable, in contrast to Western Electric telephones which were designed to last 40 years. People do not seem to notice that a men’s Nike XL t-shirt from 20 years ago is bigger than an XXL today — and the old one fits better too.
And they ignore the fact that many large cities, e.g. Detroit and Gary, look like scenes from a post-apocalyptic vision.
Bob Esq., I learned that IRS weasel Koskinen was the guy tapped by Bubba to fix the Y2K problem. Interesting he then gets the IRS debacle.
40% of the people of Detroit are having their water turned off right now. They are lodging a protest with the UN.
I would like to see Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton get in there and support that resolution and the people of Detroit pronto.
Credibility comes from action on behalf of the people, not lame statements.
SWM, It’s going to be a LOOOONG 2 years defending Queen Hillary. I hope you’re down to your fighting weight!
Completely off topic; only because it’s not getting enough attention.
Does anyone remember the Jodi Arias trial? That woman who killed her ex-boyfriend and took the stand in a capital murder trial after changing her story THREE
DC is now the wealthiest city in the US! So, the Clintons probably aren’t in the 1% in DC circles. Try and get your hear around a city, w/ a large poor, black, population, is now the wealthiest city in the US. The city produces NOTHING but laws and regulations.
Unless Washington was just tongue in cheek mark, I might agree with you.
“Biden’s right, though, that his good salary helps. On their income tax forms, the couple reported $407,009 in taxable income for the year. Included in that is rental income of $26,400 for a property in Delaware (meaning that someone is paying Joe and Jill Biden $2,200 a month in rent). They paid $96,378 in taxes — 23.7 percent of their income. And, if you’re curious, about 41.8 percent of the $230,700 salary Biden earns.” Washington Post. I don’t even know that the Biden’s are the top 1 percent in DC.
@Jim22
“looking at the over paid union wages”
Ah, yes, the statement ignorant righties always use. Hint: companies like Apple, Intel, and Microsoft do not have unions.
As for “the red tape you have to go through due to being over regulated,” Warren Buffet, a much smarter person than you, said last year:
“A thought for my fellow CEOs: Of course, the immediate future is uncertain; America has faced the unknown since 1776. It’s just that sometimes people focus on the myriad of uncertainties that always exist while at other times they ignore them (usually because the recent past has been uneventful).”
“If you are a CEO who has some large, profitable project you are shelving because of short-term worries, call Berkshire. Let us unburden you.”
“Opportunities abound in America.”
He who expects both candor and empathy from one’s national politicians expects what never was and never will be.
Everyone complains about manufacturing being outsourced to China, but how many of them are willing to pay far higher prices for something made in America? I buy made in America when I can, especially with toys, but for more expensive items, it’s sometimes prohibitive. How many complainers will pay double or triple for furniture? Why did American-made solar panel manufacturers go out of business? Because not enough people bought their products. They paid half and bought made-in-China. Do you only buy American cars? Kitchen tools? Art supplies? Cell phones? Do none of these people have an iPhone?
It’s easy to complain about outsourcing; I do it all the time. But it’s a sobering reality how few items we buy that are made or grown here in the US.
Karen.”They’re the 1%, but they’ve fostered such animosity towards the successful that now they find themselves in a fix.” Never heard that the Clinton’s fostered animosity towards the rich before. How did they do that? Most think that they are too cozy with the rich.
Bill H. I don’t know where you got the quote from but Bush had town hall meetings, where it was only invited guests so he didn’t get asked anything he wasn’t expecting or be embarrassed by some of his known gaffes with the language and facts.
I am tired of people ignoring history and saying well Obama is doing this and its bad (but heck doesn’t matter that GOP does it and often worse and to a higher level) or that the Clintons are awful because they do what every politician is and has done.
To take him to task for “factually true” esp the professor, is to say well heck the facts don’t matter.
I think Sec”t Clinton made a mistake when she said it but the media and the professor and others jumped on it because I guess they don’t have important differences with her. That’s what you do when you want to go after someone but don’t have anything of substance to work with.
(And of course I am sure there are substantial issues but that is what it has come down to, going after politicians, and celebrities, and those of note for idiocies rather then looking into the things that really matter.
(btw I had seen a long time back the entire conversation with the ‘depends on what is” means. In context President Clinton was right. It could be parsed in more then one way. That is what lawyers do. They take apart every sindle word and look for other possible meanings trying to not get caught answering one thing when the question related to something else.)
Why not just admit they got filthy rich in politics, and are blessed that they have more luxuries and opportunities than most people? Why go farther and try to portray themselves as “better” than other rich people who earned their wealth through industry? Or identify themselves as financially struggling, and the working poor after they got out of the White House?
Biden has made almost half a million dollars a year and has no savings account, and will have to live off of his pension. Well, if he hasn’t saved any money in all this time, then perhaps he should not be in charge of our country.
And the Clintons . . . I think they must have been surrounded by sycophants and an obedient, fawning media for far too long for such politically savvy people to keep rolling with such an idiotic claim. They’re the 1%, but they’ve fostered such animosity towards the successful that now they find themselves in a fix. How to hate OTHER rich people? You know, those who succeeded running businesses vs those who got filthy rich on taxpayer money and currying favor. Hmmmmm. What to do? Oh, I know! Let’s claim that we worked harder than those rich people actually running businesses. Giving a speech at half a million dollars is HARD work, I tell ya! We can really identify with those in the coal mines of Appalachia. We really struggled, stuck with only 2 mansions in NY and DC at the lowest point . . .
nick, I think Sarah Palin taps into the unrest on right very successfully.
Wealth is a figment of ones imagination. You may have status and privilege, but in reality paper is worth as much as the market says its worth, based on an abstract lie.
And Obama is on a tour where he will “spend a “day in the life” of an ordinary American and persuade voters that the White House understands their challenges.” He’s going to have lunch with a housewife and her two kids, then hild a town hall meeting “for invited guests,” and finally meet with the DNC at a private home. Does he really think that we take crop like this seriously?