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
Annie,
Your comment quoted below is also interesting because the persons who should be holding Dick and George to account are none other than Obama and Holder. Yet they have steadfastly refused to do so. Until you as a loyal Democrat will face this truth and demand accountability for your party leader’s actions, nothing will change. The same holds true for loyal Republicans. They need to hold their party leaders accountable. We need every party loyalist to have a higher goal than support of party leaders. We are a nation in a real state of crisis. That is what needs addressing, now, quickly, honestly and surely.
Will there be punishment for the torture the Cheney and Bush administration committed? Will the Republicans also investigate the Executive overreach by Bush and Cheney? TeaPublican Amnesia Sndrome. Where is Dredd with that Jon Stewart video?
Paul,
Thanks.
Let’s NOT ignore AMYONE’S wrongdoing. Do you have any idea of the hell that would break loose if Obama is charged with the VERY SAME thing Bush got away with? Do you think any Democrat would just roll over and play dead? Think again.
“That noise you hear is my smacking my forehead on the table.”
Karen,
That’s the Jodi Arias vibe!
The “Jesus H. Christ how can anyone lie with such a straight face?” vibe.
It’s like watching a movie in the Thriller genre.
I’m so glad someone gets the Jodi reference.
Karen,
There needs to be an independent prosecutor.
Did you read that Op Ed piece from the Chicago Tribune I posted?
And that Nixon comparison was a direct quote of George Will; another person I never thought I’d be in complete agreement with.
Bob:
“you’ve submitted correspondence showing that the IRS did everything in their power to recover the lost emails before destroying the hard drive—so why didn’t you recover the emails from the tape backup within the six month window?”
That noise you hear is my smacking my forehead on the table.
What did Koskinen say??? What about the fact that servers don’t work that way? Or the contract stating that email data needs to be held for 3 years after the END of the contract? Did he just plug his ears and say, “lalalalala?”
And cue the “it’s the Republican’s fault” or “they are much worse so let’s just ignore anything Democrats do.”
Wrong is wrong.
I have stated repeatedly that presidents have tried before to break the law, weaken the separation of powers, lie to the American people, or create an imperial presidency. President Nixon rightly earned an impeachment for breaking into the Democratic election headquarters to bug it, and asking the IRS to do his bidding.
As Professor Turley has pointed out, Obama has gone farther than any president before him to create an Imperial Presidency and flout the law.
Are we going to just sit on our hands and let him do it???
Nick,
Like I said, I must have missed that.
Karen,
One of the Jodi Arias level of unbelievable responses came when the committee asked Koskinen something like
“you’ve submitted correspondence showing that the IRS did everything in their power to recover the lost emails before destroying the hard drive—so why didn’t you recover the emails from the tape backup within the six month window?”
When Koskinen opened his mouth I could swear I heard the voice of Jodi Arias.
Bob, Esq. – Did Jodi Arias testify on her own behalf?
Bob:
The Planted Question:
There was an audit in May 2013 verifying targeting occurred that was going to be made public.
IRS Commissioner Steven Miller testified before Congress that he planned with Lois Lerner how to get in front of the scandal. He used a planted question at an American Bar Association meeting, where Lois revealed the targeting and apologized.
She had just been in front of the House Ways & Means Committee a couple of days prior with no mention of it.
This part I am not sure about, but it is my understand that this is when they started the proven false narrative that it was a couple of rogue agents in Cincinnati.
There has been a string of proven false statements and abuse of power of the IRS. They need to be treated as hostile to the investigation and treated accordingly. And since several high-ranking Democratic senators have already been implicated, I think that Democrats need to be kept out of any investigating committee. Otherwise there is the appearance of conflict of interest and covering for the party. To be fair, it needs to be run by non-Democrats. Otherwise, it’s like Nixon investigating himself for Watergate.
And you are spot on – this is much worse than the articles of impeachment against Nixon. Nixon only tried to get the IRS to do his bidding. They refused. In this case, they cooperated and brought the power of the IRS against the American people.
At least Bob displays some honesty here.
Karen,
I meant impeachment of Holder.
And I’d like to add to your list a prosecution of members of the Bush administration for defrauding the country into war.
Will there be punishment for the torture the Cheney and Bush administration committed? Will the Republicans also investigate the Executive overreach by Bush and Cheney? TeaPublican Amnesia Sndrome. Where is Dredd with that Jon Stewart video?
IRS – miraculously, 7 people who are under investigation experienced computer crashes. This includes someone who had multiple meetings at the White House just before this policy of targeting conservatives was enacted. Lois Lerner experienced a crash 10 days after the IRS received a letter asking for an investigation of targeting.
Miraculously, the company contracted to retain server records either did not, or won’t turn them over. Their contract states that they must retain this information for at least 3 years after the end of their contract.
Amazingly, when the IRS supposedly knew about these convenient crashes, the commissioner was promising all emails, without a mention of the “technical difficulties.”
It doesn’t matter if Lois Lerner’s computer fell into the sea. The emails are on the server. Unless they were deleted off the server.
All we need to do is appoint a special investigator with an IT forensic analyst and we’ll find them. We should also subpoena anyone’s emails from the WH that these people could reasonably be assumed to have emailed.
Using the IRS to target political enemies is one of the worst abuses of power the government can do. Turning on its own people because of politics smacks of a banana republic.
We will either accept it or we won’t. Unless you want the IRS doing this to other parties when Democrats are no longer in power, then I suggest you write to your representative and demand a thorough investigation.
Bob, The “leak” was actually how this came into the media. It was when we first heard of Lois Lerner. It was a staged question and Lerner put the blame on the Cincy office. So, our first introduction to this political dirty trickster, Lerner, was a fraud interview. Lerner was a political operative w/ the FEC prior to the IRS. She played an integral role influencing an Illinois US Senator race, helping defeat a Republican candidate.
Darren – no . . . you did not go to the cigar! You don’t know where it’s been!
Bob – Holder should have been fired, and possibly in jail, by now. He lied to the American public and to Congress, and yet, as is typical, was not held accountable.
I do not favor impeachment because it would just put Biden in the White House. But I do favor this lawsuit against Obama for not following the law. We’ll see what happens.
One of the reasons that I want a non-Democrat to win (besides repealing Obamacare) is that I want there to be an in-depth investigation on wrongdoing that the Democrats just don’t seem to have the stomach for.
-IRS
-NSA
-Pigford
-Fast and Furious
-Benghazi
-Obamacare lies
etc. There is a determined pattern of fraud in this administration. Many presidents have pushed how far they could go. I want to know the extent of the fraud and I want to punish the wrongdoers.
That is the only way to keep politicians honest, is to actually hold them accountable for lies and wrongdoing.
Jim:
People also for some reason associate “capitalism” with “devoid of regulation and lawlessness” a la The Jungle. That is not how modern capitalism operates. We have laws that protect consumers and employees. I think we also need to address Golden Parachutes. But I do not believe that every regulation is in our best interest.
For instance, there is a lawsuit industry here in CA where people make a living going after small businesses for minor ADA violations. For example, there are no real tolerances in the height you have to hang a mirror. If it’s off by 1/2 an inch, you get successfully sued. And the courts don’t just give you a chance to fix it.
There was a campground operator, again here in Liberal CA, which moved out of state. He was tired of the regulations. In order to park a concessions truck on his property, he had to DRILL A HOLE in his parking lot and submit soil samples from UNDERNEATH the blacktop. There was a rotting dock he wanted to replace, but it took years to get through the permit process for the work to be done. Meanwhile, it was unsafe all those years. It was like he was stuck in a Monty Python skit.
And then there was the scandal about a regulation against crumbs being on tables at bagel shops.
It sounds too obvious to have to say it, but I want regulations to make sense and provide an important benefit to the consumer or the environment. If they don’t make sense, then update or remove them.
There is something fundamentally wrong when decent, reverent, intelligent, ambitious and successful people with leadership skills are rejected, and envious, community organizers, without ambition or the capacity to lead a group to success, are ensconced in positions of power.
Who in their right mind would grant an audience to either Bill or Hillary Clinton except dependent, unmotivated, envious and parasitic collectivists?
There is abundant capacity in a free society for compassion and empathy in the private charity industry. The Clinton ilk need not concern itself with the right, capacity and desire of Americans to be charitable, compassionate and empathetic. They have no constitutional basis for compelling taxpayers to shoulder the burden of parasites.
Under the Constitution, charity, compassion and empathy are not burdens of the taxpayer.
The Clintons exemplify governmental control of the economy and redistribution of wealth as prescribed in the Communist Manifesto, the ideological domain of the dependent, sick, lame and lazy.
The Founders obtained freedom and expected self-reliance.
What the hell happened to America?
The Clintons and their ilk, that’s what.
Damn!
John, I retrieved your comment at 4:03.
Looks like I’ve hijacked a thread.
Oh well.
Lost a post.
Here’s the shorter version. The opinion of the Chicago Tribune…
More smoke at the IRS — and not only from the hard drives
This 13-month refusal to name a special prosecutor has become its own curiosity
June 22, 2014
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-06-22/opinion/ct-irs-scandal-emails-edit-0622-20140622_1_conservative-groups-irs-officials-lois-lerner