Sanders is suddenly insisting that the fundraising Hillary Clinton has been doing for congressional democratic candidates, including a recent $15 million event hosted by George Clooney, is merely being funneled back into the Clinton campaign itself. Strangely, while Sanders is filing this complaint of supposed “fundraising violations” with the Democratic National Committee, no such complaint has apparently been filed with the Federal Election Commission, which would be protocol for any actual violations.

The move, which comes off as obvious grandstanding and an attempt at distracting from the fact that Sanders has done virtually no congressional fundraising of his own (apart from three fringe candidates who endorsed him), has prompted the Clinton campaign to fire back publicly: “As Senator Sanders faces nearly insurmountable odds, he is resorting to baseless accusations of illegal actions and poisoning the well for Democratic candidates up and down the ticket. It is shameful that Senator Sanders has resorted to irresponsible and misleading attacks just to raise money for himself.”

Bernie Sanders warned everyone that when he releases his tax returns, it was going to be "very boring".

He was being modest at best.

According to the tax returns Bernie Sanders released on Friday - which are his and his wife's returns from 2014 (not 2015, as he promised) - from an income of over $205,000, Sen. and Mrs. Sanders paid roughly $27,000 in federal income taxes. That's a roughly 13% federal income tax rate, about a full point below Mitt Romney's tax rate of 14% that everyone went crazy over.

But the Sanders made a lot less than Mitt Romney! Sure, but for a progressive who pines for people to pay more taxes, Sen. and Mrs. Sanders aren't shy about taking all the deductions they possibly can, just as Gov. and Mrs. Romney did to get their tax rates down to an abysmally low level. The average effective income tax rate for people in Bernie's tax bracket is a full 2-percentage point higher than what Bernie and Jane Sanders paid.

A more interesting observation is how Bernie and Jane Sanders lowered their tax rates so much, besides for being able to report a smaller wage income of roughly $156,000 even though Sen. Sanders' senate salary of $174,000 due to an array of excellent pre-tax putaways courtesy of the US taxpayer. Just a 2-point drop may not seem like much, but consider the fact that many at that income level are paying off student loans from not just college but also law school, medical school and other professional degrees. Neither Jane nor Bernie is paying student loans.

There are two primary breaks the Sanderses take advantage of: deductions for state and property taxes, and the home mortgage interest deduction. Bernie Sanders and his wife claim nearly $23,000 in mortgage interest deduction, and another $15,000 in property tax deductions.

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/530becede4b093256168fba5/t/5715022501dbaebb76cbce0b/1460994607629/?format=1000w

So what? You say. Everyone who can takes advantage of these! Here's the problem: Bernie's deductions are much, much higher than the average person - both for the home mortgage interest deduction as well as his property tax deduction. For example, the average home mortgage deduction claimed by filers in Vermont is about $8,500. Bernie and Jane Sanders claimed almost 3 times this amount.

To see why, look at the line above...

In part, Sanders’s support among independent leaners is a product of the demographics of his coalition generally. Among Democrats and independents who lean Democratic, the independent leaners are more likely to be male, white and higher-income — and at the same time, they have less positive views of President Obama.3 In short, the demographics and attitudes that tend to predict being an independent who leans Democratic are those that predict Sanders support.

It’s critical not to confuse “independents” with “moderates.” Sanders’s career itself underscores that point: He long called himself an independent, even while compiling a very liberal voting record. Sanders has demonstrated a real outsider appeal that does better among people with a similar profile, people who lean left but are wary of calling themselves Democrats. But appealing to people who are especially disaffected politically is a double-edged sword: It wins votes disproportionately among people less likely to be registered as Democrats, putting Sanders at a disadvantage in closed primaries such as New York’s and Pennsylvania’s. We should also avoid reading too much into Sanders’s support among independent leaners in terms of how he’d fare in November: The independents who vote in party primaries are in no way representative of independents generally.

First, I researched. I went to his website, I went to yougov, I went to other sites examining his record to see how it squared up with his rhetoric. I tried to find unbiased articles assessing his tax policy, looking at how he would fund single payer (and what he meant by that) as well as “free college” and other promises he made. I looked at analyses on left-leaning blogs that have long advocated for universal health care to see what they thought, sites I respect and whose authors I have relied on for years for their basic objectivity within their admitted points of view. And I could find none who believed Sanders’ numbers added up.


When I saw that the estimates were based on the assumption that the U.S. economy would have an average growth at a 5% rate over his term, that was it for me. And the reason is this: when Jeb! announced he was running for President, he declared that his plan would result in a 4% economic growth rate — and the other GOP presidential contenders quickly followed suit. The Republican candidates’ claims that they “would” do this had been derided on all the same left-leaning blog sites I was now looking at to help assess Sanders. The 4% assertion had been dismissed as “magical thinking” — or in more straightforward terms, “pulled out of Bush’s ass.” There was no precedent for a sustained growth rate that high; commentators pointed out that Reagan had achieved 4% twice in eight years, and Bill Clinton, five times, but 4% growth four years running? Never happened — and that was in better economic environments. Sanders’ 5% number was even more magical than Jeb!’s. And so the entire basis of Sanders’ promises for (promises I wanted to believe) was a historically unprecedented assumption. You can’t base a radical re-imagination of the U.S. economy and the imposition of the largest tax increases in U.S. history on made-up numbers. Sanders was able to find a single economist to weigh in positively on his plan, but that analysis was ripped to shreds by most others, who showed that Sanders’ plan doesn’t add up on its own terms (estimates are something like a $1–2 trillion shortfall even at the 5% growth assumption). So I concluded that the backbone of Sanders’ plan is founded on, functionally, a lie.

CLINTON: When I got to the Senate in 2001, one of the first big votes there was on a version of the bankruptcy bill and I was deluged by women’s groups and children’s advocates groups to do everything I could to make sure that child support and women’s precarious financial situation in case of divorce or not being able to get the kind of funding they needed from a partner or a spouse in bankruptcy would not be endangered. And it was. The current — that bill was making it a very low priority. So I did go to work on behalf of all these women’s groups and children’s groups because they needed a champion. And I got that bill changed. And in return, it had nothing to do with any money whatsoever — and I resent deeply any effort by the Sanders campaign to so imply. It had to do with trying to get a deal…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But that’s not what…

CLINTON: — that would protect women. But now let me finish, George, because this has been bandied about and I just want to set the record straight. And so then three years later, part of the — part of what Senator — Senator Warren said, you played. You didn’t play the whole thing, because we’ve been allies. I faced a tough decision and I stood up for women and children. I went to the Senate floor, said that was exactly what I was doing. Then the bill did not pass. It never became law. And then when the next bill came up, 2005, women’s issues were taken care of because I had made that a point back in 2001. And so then I was against that bill. I didn’t get a chance to actually vote against it because Bill was in the hospital having a heart procedure. But I put a statement out. I was against it. So I’m happy to set this record straight. And I really want to, once again, call out the Sanders campaign, which claims they like to run a positive campaign. But they have been quite artful in raising questions and trying to cast doubts about my record.

And I really am not going to sit and take it anymore —

STEPHANOPOULOS: But Senator —

CLINTON: I have a public record. I have never, ever been influenced in a view or a vote by anyone who has given me any kind of money. So I’m just going to keep setting the record straight.

...As an organizer, I’ve attended those conferences (to work) and dealt with those speakers. Depending on how famous they are, you dealt with their team — not with them directly. They stick to their allotted time — a half hour, an hour, sometimes fifteen minutes. They shake hands afterwards, and either linger to eat at the “honors” table or simply leave. Their speeches are general — they thank the host, list their personal achievements, share their visions or experiences, break the ice with a few jokes, make some conference-related general remarks and thank everyone for listening. Done deal.

And that’s the short of it. It is neither unusual or untoward that a person who lived a life in public service — who was First Lady in Arkansas, First Lady of the United States, Senator, Presidential candidate and Secretary of State — would be offered $225K (or even more) to speak.

Despite the innocuousness of these events I can honestly say that were I in Secretary Clinton’s shoes, I would not release those transcripts unless every candidate released the transcripts for every single speech or public talk they ever gave. And here’s why.

First and foremost, transcripts are notoriously monotonous. There are no voice inflections in the written word — except what the reader puts there. There is no speaker’s face to watch, no body language to read. There is no narrative text that would explain the ensuing dialogue. Consequently, what was a joke, or even sarcasm, can come across as dead serious.

Second, and let’s be honest, not only would Senator Sanders’ campaign folks and the GOP pounce on those pages like a pack of starving sharks on a school of minnows, but the media would tear apart every single word. Pundits would have an entire summer of words to read and spin and regurgitate and debate ad nauseum. And it’s a fairly sure bet that very little of any regurgitation would give Secretary Clinton the benefit of the doubt.

Third, there’s the not insignificant matter of baseless accusations, innuendo and the artful smear. If a professional acquaintance called me a liar, or accused me of being corrupt for no other reason — and with no proof or basis — than I, as a private citizen, spoke at an event they did not attend is it really, TRULY, up to me to prove that I’m not? Should not my accuser be required to present something other than theory to blacken my name? Especially if my accuser and I are competing for the same promotion? Or should my record speak for itself?

Fourth, one would have to suppose that among all those speeches with all those attendees at all those events there would be someone, somewhere, that is not a Clinton supporter. There would be someone, somewhere, who would approach a candidate — Cruz, Trump, Sanders — or a media outlet, or a newspaper, with a six-inch-headline-worthy scandal about her saying something untoward — like the Romney 47% disaster which occurred — and was filmed — WHILE he was running for President.