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
Interesting points raised here:
But wait. National Review Online reported just a few days ago that in October 2010, (squarely during the time frame of the lost emails),
“[the IRS] sent a database on 501(c)(4) social-welfare groups containing confidential taxpayer information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, according to documents obtained by a House panel. The information was transmitted in advance of former IRS official Lois Lerner’s meeting the same month with Justice Department officials about the possibility of using campaign-finance laws to prosecute certain nonprofit groups. E-mails between Lerner and Richard Pilger, the director of the Justice Department’s election-crimes branch, obtained through a subpoena to Attorney General Eric Holder, show Lerner asking about the format in which the FBI preferred the data to be sent”.
Emails. Between Lerner and an outside agency. In 2010.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/irs-loses-lerner-emails-but-what-about-the-tigta-report
I think the House needs to subpoena every single person and entity Lerner had contact with to rebuild the database the IRS claims to be lost.
It really bothers me that the IRS is claiming it can’t find the emails. Just because they aren’t on her computer, doesn’t mean they aren’t on someone else’s or, more likely, on the server that passes the emails from sender to receiver. I would also expect the servers to have back ups. If the government can save all of my phone calls and all my emails and all my fb posts, surely it can save the emails from its own agencies.
However, the server that my ISP uses crashed recently. Apparently everything was lost. At least nothing was recovered and made available to the users. Actually, what my ISP used to use.
Paul,
What was the question? What did she leak?
Got a link?
I must have missed this.
Bob, Esq. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/05/17/exclusive-woman-who-asked-irss-lois-lerner-scandal-breaking-question-details-plant
The white house is going to resist a special prosecutor no matter what.
The screws need to be turned.
George Will summed it up like this:
WILL: We can no more expect Mr. Holder to investigate this White House than we could have expected John Mitchell to investigate the Nixon White House. Here’s — we know six things, Chris:
“We know first the targeting occurred
Therefore, second, we know that this is worse than article two of the Nixon impeachment count, which said Nixon endeavored to use the IRS. The IRS back then resisted.
Third, we know that this became public in an act of deceit when Lois Lerner planted a question with a friend in an audience to try and get this out on her own terms.
Fourth, we know that she has taken the Fifth Amendment because she has a right to do this when she has a reasonable suspicion that there might be criminal activity involved.
Fifth, we know that from the timeline you put up today, that there has been 13 months of stonewalling on this.
And sixth, now we know that not only her hard drive, but six other people intimately involved in this suddenly crashed in an amazing miraculous coincidence – religions have been founded on less – ten days after the investigation started. That’s why we need a special prosecutor.”
I’m not sure about point 3.
Is Will referring to the connection between Lerner and Cummings?
Could someone clarify?
What’s amazing or disappointing is how it doesn’t even look like they are trying to hide the conspiracy. Has America been dumbed down that much that they think they can do this and walk away?
A friendly reporter asked Lerner a question in a q and a and she leaked the info. The reporter has admitted getting the question from Lerner in advance.
Darren, phew! no cigar. We know what he does with those.
Jim22
bettykath, Regulations only help the large established business’ that have bought the politicians and help right the regs in their favor. I seriously doubt you will find the majority of small business’ asking, “Please regulate me more and save me from my own greed”. Regulations also set up a system primed for crony capitalism.
—————–
No business, large or small, asks for regulations. Regulations are for the protection of the people and the environment. I know of at least one small businessperson who couldn’t afford compliance. He understood the reason for the budget busting reg, his and his employee’s health, and he decided that he wouldn’t be out of compliance and he couldn’t afford to be in compliance. He ultimately went to work for a bigger company that could afford compliance. Would the bigger company have provided the changes that the regs required without the regs? No.
==================
Greed is why you bother to get up in the morning. I wish more people would act on their greed so they would stop doing things like having babies they can’t afford or asking the govt. to steal more of my property to give to them.
—————–
There are a number of people who don’t act on the basis of greed. I don’t. I quit a very well-paying job because I could see greed creeping in. Since I didn’t want to put myself in the position of doing hurtful things just to keep the paycheck coming in, I left the job within the year of knowing this truth. I’ve done fine since then. I’m not rich, never will be. There are a lot of people who don’t operate on the basis of greed.
Everyone acts on greed except those who have babies they can’t afford? I don’t think so. The best ways to limit family size:
* eliminate poverty. Middle class families tend to have smaller families. Exceptions are those families that follow the religions that prohibit the use of contraceptives of any kind and who believe “go forth and multiply” was directed at them personally.
* age appropriate sex education starting in elementary school; total birds and the bees completion by 6th or 7th grade
* free condoms, and other forms of contraception.
* affordable, or free, complete health care for women.
Paul, in one breath you say polls don’t count, in another breath you link to a poll, ho hum.
Annie – I didn’t say they didn’t count. What I said was that politicians should be run by them because it showed no moral compass. What these polls show is how the public feel about Obama and his policies.
President Clinton almost convinced people of the troubles he and Hillary faced but he failed; close, but no cigar.
Darren – I wonder if Clinton kept the Lewinsky cigars or if Hillary forced him to give them up?
What heartens me however is that regular folks see the double standard. Only the cultists don’t.
Nick – this is a poll that shows some hope for the future.
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/25/poll-huge-majorities-think-the-irs-destroyed-their-own-email-records/
jim, Holder knew he could violate the First Amendment rights of a Fox reporter. That is the sad state of affairs. if this IRS thing was Bush, it would be wall to wall coverage. Sickening.
Bob, Do you think Holder is the real problem or the AG position in general. I don’t think it matters who they put in there, if they are appointed by the sitting President, they will never go after anything or anybody that can hurt the hand that feeds them. I thought the Rosen incident was going to kill Holder, but that just got swept under the carpet like everything else.
Bob, Holder has been on my shit list since Marc Rich. He’s crooked and incompetent. A perfect fit w/ this WH.
Karen, I would love to imprison and disbar Lerner as well as the higher ups. That would be possible if they get the emails. But, I would grant her immunity in a minute to get to the big boys and girls.
Holder was asked about an earlier scandal in his administration in the handling of the “Fast and Furious” program where guns were allowed to be sold to criminal gangs. Holder insisted that Ronald C. Machen Jr., the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, was not told to decline the prosecution of Holder for contempt of Congress after refusing to turn over key documents and that “[Machen] made the determination about what he was going to do on his own.” However, Holder’s deputy, Cole, wrote to Machen to inform him (before the contempt citation even reached his office) that Main Justice “has determined that the Attorney General’s response to the subpoena . . . does not constitute a crime.”
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/05/29/fire-eric-holder/
Like I said, I would not be opposed to impeachment it Holder obstructs appointment of a special prosecutor for the IRS email investigation.
Karen, To your point. I always love when a Harley Davidson snob comes up to me and gives me crap about owning a Japanese bike. I enjoy the look I get when I have them check out the label on their “American” front shocks that reads “Showa”. I’ll let you guess where that company is from.
The thing that always gets me about people who seem to hate the free market is that they have this assumption that a business will do anything to make a profit even if that action is not beneficial to the business and kills the company. Profit does not trump survival. If it does, the market will remove that business leaving an opportunity for another to take its place.
Jim22 – the end is nigh. I heard Harley is making an electric bike.
FIRE ERIC HOLDER
By Jonathan Turley
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/05/29/fire-eric-holder/
Bob – it will be a mistake if the politicians exploit this to grandstand or monologue. I don’t care about political gains. I care about the truth.
Same thing with Benghazi. Make it about the facts and not politics.
Jim – I care more about the higher ups she can expose than I do about Lois Lerner serving jail time. But she had better never work in any government position again, including the post office.
We need accountability in government.
Karen,
Someone needs to tell Issa to stop the grandstanding. There’s something seriously wrong here; more than serious enough to warrant a special prosecutor.
If Holder balks at the idea, I’d say his loyalty to the president or the democratic party is trumping his loyalty to the constitution.
I wouldn’t be opposed to impeachment; considering how much he’s held congress in contempt.