Romney Should be Proud

· Friday, January 27, 2012

It's as predictable as vultures at a carcass. When a wealthy Republican is running for office, the press will make his wealth a handicap. Recall that when George H. W. Bush was running in 1988, he was derided as a "preppy." George W. Bush was the undeserving scion of the ruling class. We were told never mind that he had succeeded in business on his own. Though John McCain had been a fixture on the national stage since 1980, no one had paid much attention to his wealth until he was the Republican nominee, at which point his many houses suddenly became a matter of profound national importance.

Democrats, of course, are permitted to be rich without fear of undue scrutiny. John F. Kennedy was wealthier than Mitt Romney, or would have been had he lived to collect his inheritance. Lyndon B. Johnson was born poor and died very rich. He didn't earn his money in the private sector. He used political influence to first purchase and then maintain monopolistic radio licenses in his wife's name.

There wasn't much fuss about John Kerry's great wealth in 2004. Kerry didn't earn his fortune either but secured it through two advantageous marriages. Teresa Heinz Kerry is rumored to be in the billionaires' club. Good for her. Though, she didn't earn it either, but rather married the heir of the ketchup fortune. John Kerry was an advocate of raising taxes on the rich, but he, like Warren Buffett, declined to contribute more than required to Uncle Sam. In fact, he was caught mooring his yacht in Rhode Island so as to avoid Massachusetts' taxes. Oh, and before he married Teresa Heinz, there were a number of years when Sen. Kerry donated nothing at all to charity.

Now it's Romney's turn, thanks not just to the press but to Newt Gingrich, who gleefully mouths every left-wing jibe that proves handy. In Florida, he disparaged Romney as a Swiss-bank-account-holding, "automatic $20 million a year" guy. Gingrich, who earned his own not inconsiderable fortune (Tiffany's account anyone?) by selling influence, is joined in his dismay at Romney's larger fortune by other exceedingly wealthy men. NBCs Brian Williams (annual salary: $13 million) shared the news about Romney's tax returns this way: "He did it to help stop the questions about his wealth, but in releasing his taxes, he reveals what most Americans will regard as unimaginable wealth...."

Oh, "unimaginable wealth" -- how shocking. The amount that Brian Williams contributes to charity is not public knowledge. But Newt Gingrich's contributions are available. Though his adjusted gross income was $3.1 million in 2010 (is that "imaginable wealth"?), Gingrich donated only $81,133 to charity, or 2.6 percent of his income -- below the average rate for his income group.

Gingrich and the liberals seem to think that paying taxes is "patriotism" -- to quote Joe Biden, who gave a grand total of $368 annually to charity in the decade before 2008. By their own standard, their patriotism is a little rusty. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was only the most prominent, but far from the only Obama appointee to acknowledge that he hadn't paid the taxes he owed. And the IRS recently announced that 36 members of President Obama's executive office staff owe the government $833,970 in back taxes.

Conservatives think people should obey the law, and that includes paying taxes. But we don't worship the state or its "Greedy Hand" (see Amity Shlaes).

Far from being embarrassed about his wealth, Romney has every reason to be "unimaginably" proud. He didn't inherit his money (He gave away his inheritance), and he didn't earn it by parlaying his government post into contracts for services as a "historian." He earned every penny through his own talents in the private sector. He then paid all the taxes he was required to pay.

Beyond that, Romney's tax returns reveal the most generous charitable donor in recent history. The Romneys donated about 14 percent to charity in 2010 and about 19 percent in 2011. The average donation for people at the Romneys' level of income is 6 percent.

Would Romney's money have done more good if he'd forked those extra millions to the IRS rather than to the Mormon Church and the other charities they selected? Well, that would certainly have provided a few more bucks for Solyndra and the urgently necessary high-speed rail stretch from Fresno to Bakersfield. But, on balance, private charities are probably a better bet for improving the world.

You'd think Gingrich would understand that.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM


Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.


Comments

Howard Last

More proof that the political class is the aristocracy. Standards for us peasants but not for them.

Posted January 27, 2012 at 10:41:09 AM


wjmccrindle

What is the standard Tythe for the Mormon Faith. I have heard it is 10 percent, but don't know for shure. If it is 10% then Romneys "Charity" was 4% in 2010 and 9% in 2011, averages out to close the the 6% of those in his income bracket. Who really cares about this? Idiot liberal class warfare envios dolts, thats who.

Posted January 27, 2012 at 12:26:51 PM


Steve

I'm a RON PAUL man all the way. Newt's neocon ways have always been a turn off, but in the last few weeks it has become more obvious there are many reasons NOT to like Newt as the GOP nominee.

You can't trust Newt. Newt won't look people in the eye when he's criticizing them. At least Romney will. As was attributed to Bob Dole, no one who worked with Newt in Congress has endorsed him. That speaks for itself. Newt is about enhancing his own power and is willing to sacrifice any principle to that.

Anyone who rises to Speaker of the House knows how to twist arms and be a wheeler-dealer. Newt knows a little too much about such tactics would be tempted to use them as President. He's too arrogant and his mouth often gets ahead of his knowledge.

Though I view Romney as Obama Lite and a more-of-the-same establishment candidate, I'd prefer him over Newt. Again, if Republicans want a candidate who is TRULY for smaller government and the Constitution, it would nominate RON PAUL.

But alas, the Republicans have too many owners in the military industrial complex... and they just don't believe we can cut military spending even though the US outspends the next 10 armies combined and spends about one half of the total for the World.

Posted January 27, 2012 at 4:03:49 PM


Post a Comment

Please keep comments civil and brief. Obscene, profane, abusive and off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.

(required, displayed)
(required, not displayed)
Facebook Twitter YouTube RSS Connect with The Patriot Post






Our Mission

To Support and Defend -- Read The Patriot Post -- It's Right. It's Free. -- www.patriotpost.us

"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher


The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!

Support The 2012 Patriot Fund