Regarding the Clinton Family Foundation - Hmmmm

[PBS Poll-435]

What an amazing and amazingly efficient foundation! They pay themselves nothing from the foundation.

In 2005, they gave 549,000 in Gifts/Grants/Contributions
They incurred $2,758 in taxes & accounting costs.

Total Administrative/Overhead Cost? One half of one percent (.005)

In 2006, they gave 1,274,990 in Gifts/Grants/Contributions
They incurred 3,669 in taxes & accounting costs.

Total Administrative/Overhead Cost? Less than one third of one percent (.0028)


Beneficiaries of the Foundation include:

WELLSTONE ACTION!
821 RAYMOND AVENUE, SUITE 260
SAINT PAUL, MN 55114

AMERICAN NURSES FOUNDATION
8515 GEORGIA AVENUE, SUITE 400
SILVER SPRING, MD 20910-3492

SHAKESPEARE THEATRE COMPANY
516 EIGHTH STREET SE
WASHINGTON, DC 20003-2834

THE SCHOOL OF AMERICAN BALLET
70 LINCOLN CENTER PLAZA
NEW YORK, NY 10023-6592

BUSH-CLINTON KATRINA FUND
1301 K STREET, NW EIGHTH FLOOR
EAST WASHINGTON, DC 20005

INTREPID FALLEN HEROES FUND
ONE INTREPID SQUARE, WEST 46TH STREET & 12TH AVE.
NEW YORK, NY 10036

CENTRAL ARKANSAS LIBRARY SYSTEM
MAIN LIBRARY, 100 ROCK STREET
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201

ELIZABETH GLASER PEDIATRIC AIDS FOUNDATION
1140 CONNECTICUT AVENUE NW, SUITE 200
WASHINGTON, DC 20036

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY
BOX 571253
WASHINGTON, DC 20057-1253

WELLESLEY COLLEGE
106 CENTRAL STREET
WELLESLEY, MA 02481

CHAPPAQUA SCHOOL FOUNDATION, INC.
P.O. BOX 202
CHAPPAQUA, NY 10514

MARIA FARERI CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL
WESTCHESTER MEDICAL CENTER
VALHALLA CAMPUS
VALHALLA, NY 10595

BLYTHEDALE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL
95 BRADHURST AVENUE
VALHALLA, NY 10595-1697

THE DESMOND TUTU PEACE FOUNDATION
205 EAST 64TH STREET, SUITE 404
NEW YORK, NY 10021

THE CHAPPAQUA VOLUNTEER AMBULANCE CORPS
P.O. BOX 453
CHAPPAQUA, NY 10514

CHAPPAQUA VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT
P.O. BOX 71
CHAPPAQUA, NY 10514

NATIONAL BREAST CANCER COALITION FUND
1101 17TH STREET, NW, SUITE 1300
WASHINGTON, DC 20036

ARKANSAS CANCER RESEARCH CENTER FOUNDATION FUND
4301 WEST MARKHAM, #623F
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72205-7199

TIGER WOODS FOUNDATION
4281 KATELLA AVE., SUITE 111
LOS ALAMITOS, CA 90720

Fresh Air Fund None
633 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017

US Fund for UNICEF Tsunammi
333 East 38th Street
New York, NY 10016

Jazz Musicians Emergency Fund
322 West 48th Street
New York, NY 10036


Way to go Hillary & Bill! Way to lead by example!



2005 :
http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org//990pf_pdf_archive/300/300048438/300048438_200512_990PF.pdf

2006
http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org//990pf_pdf_archive/300/300048438/300048438_200612_990PF.pdf

[MNDemNY]

1. More evidence that those Clintons will do anything.

[PBS Poll-435]

3. Haha -

Will they ever stop this behavior?

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[PBS Poll-435]

2. I forgot to add...

I can't find one public charity that has as low as an expense ratio - not even close.

[gateley]

4. They've contributed to some

very wonderful charities/foundations. Good for them! :thumbsup:

[Thepricebreaker]

51. That they own...

[PBS Poll-435]

55. And wisely distribute the money

As grants, charitable contributions, and other gifts. Every penny is accounted for.

They are truly remarkable.

[onenote]

146. name one charity that they "own" to which the Clinton Family Foundation has donated money

Go ahead, we're waiting.

[applegrove]

5. Good for them.

[MethuenProgressive]

6. k&r for their amazing generosity!

God BLESS them!

[PBS Poll-435]

60. Thanks for the Kick!

Yes. God Bless the Clintons!

[Milo_Bloom]

7. *SIGH*

Well, cute to only tell a tiny piece of the story, but they actually do pay salaries. These are not reported on form 990's


http://charityreports.bbb.org/public/Report.aspx?CharityID=655&bureauID=9999

Chief Executive : Bruce R. Lindsey, CEO
Compensation*: $276,200

Chair of the Board: Bruce R. Lindsey
Chair's Profession / Business Affiliation: Chief Executive Officer

Board Size: 4

Paid Staff Size: 310


Bruce Lindsey is also one of CLinton's maxed out Donation givers as well.

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search_hp.asp?txtName=Lindsey%2C+Bruce&NumOfThou=0&txt2008=Y&submit=Go%21

[bhikkhu]

9. Wrong foundation, I think

The link is to the William J Clinton Foundation, rather than the Clinton Family Foundation. If you read about both, they are quite distinct and separate.

[Milo_Bloom]

10. So they are vetting through two different organizations?

The Clinton Family Foundation (based in NY)

http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/ffindershow.cgi?id=CLIN040

has a surpluss of 3.1 million dollars (meaning this is money they were able to CLAIM as a charitable deduction without having to ACTUALLY give it a charity).

That is a classic tax dodge, one my accountant actually tried to encourage me to set up, but I refused.


It is actually quite easy to hide salaries in these types of organizations as well, which is one of the reasons people use them. Without giving all the paperwork to my accountant and paying him to look through it, I couldn't tell whether they are using this charity as more than just a 3.1 million dollar tax dodge or not.

[PBS Poll-435]

13. Do you know what a charitable lifetime-gift foundation is?

In 2006, Hillary & Bill donated 1,580,503 to the foundation. Interest earned was 111,845.

They distributed 1,274,900 to charitable organizations.

The money that is left over will earn interest. Match that with Hillary & Bill's 2007 contribution.

End result - much more money to give to charity.

The only taxes avoided is on the interest that is being earned to .... Drumroll Please....

Give to charities!

[Milo_Bloom]

17. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzt

It is a classic tax dodge.

http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/ffindershow.cgi?id=CLIN040

Financial Data
(yr. ended 12/31/06)
Total Assets: $4,383,401
Total Giving: $1,274,900

And one of the little games in the tax code that should be done away with.

[PBS Poll-435]

19. What in the world are you talking about.

So give the money to the government instead of charities?

The only tax that isn't paid on that money is that of the interest earned.

It is for the benefit of the charities to recieve the interest, tax-free.

It doesn't benefit the Clinton's at all, except that they will have a lasting legacy of generosity.

They would have the same 1040 tax benefit if they just gave to the Red Cross instead of their foundation.

They don't pay themselves a salary, trustee fees, or anything like that.

The only entities that benefit are the City of Chappaqua, the State of NY, and the Accounting Firm that prepares the 990.

[stillcool]

84. A really good book...

available for free down-load because of it's copyright expiration is "The Rich and the Super-Rich, by Ferdinand Lunberg, that can be found here: http://www.soilandhealth.org/03sov/0303critic/0303socialcriticism.html
He devotes a chapter to Philanthropy and Foundations. Keep in mind this book was written in 1968

PHILANTHROPIC VISTAS:
THE TAX-EXEMPT
FOUNDATIONS

Puzzles of Philanthropy


According to The Nation, the Brown Foundation, Inc., of Houston, established by the late Herman Brown and brother George R. Brown of the big government contractors, Brown and Root, channeled money into at least one Central Intelligence Agency conduit foundation and into at least one organization partly supported by the CIA. Brown and Root, incidentally, is politically close to President Johnson.

In 1963 the Brown Foundation gave $150,000 to the Vernon Fund and in 1964 it gave $100,000, these being the latest available figures. It gave $50,000 in 1963 to the American Friends of the Middle East and $150,000 in 1964. By no kind of elastic interpretation can these donations be regarded as in the cause of sweet charity.

There are now at least seven CIA-conduit foundations known to be operating in oil-lush Texas; the others are the San Jacinto Foundation, the Marshall Foundation, the Anderson Foundation, the Hoblitzelle Foundation, the Jones-O'Donnell Foundation and the Hobby Foundation. The latter was set up by Oveta Culp Hobby, former Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare under Eisenhower, and by her son William Hobby, Jr., executive editor of the Houston Post. Both Hobbys are close to President Johnson.

"In the eight months that have elapsed since the CIA was discovered to have polluted the world of the foundations," said The Nation, "neither the IRS nor Patman has shown any interest in discovering just how deeply the spies have penetrated the supposedly charitable organizations. Patman's investigations into charity, like charity itself, should begin at home. He might even tell us what good works have been supported lately by the Lyndon Johnson Foundation, established a few years ago by the President."
---------------------------------------------------------
The Foundation Panorama

There are now so many tax-exempt foundations in the country that the number cannot be precisely ascertained.

The Foundation Directory, 1964, published by the Russell Sage Foundation, lists 15,000 foundations but says the number is increasing heavily year by year. 4 In this figure it challenges the total of 45,124 given by Representative Wright Patman, chairman of the Select Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives. Patman's figure, the Directory holds, included civic, educational, welfare and religious organizations as well as pure foundations. 5 But the Patman investigation of the foundations in the early

1960's is the most complete available and will be cited throughout this chapter. It was focused, moreover, on the 534 largest foundations (within the Russell Sage meaning of the term) with total book-value assets exceeding $10 billion at the end of 1960.

As of early 1967, a total of 6,803 foundations in the United States had total assets of $20.3 billion by market values (as distinct from book values), an increase of almost $6 billion in three years, according to the foundation-supported Foundation Library Center of New York, as reported in the New York Times, April 4, 1967 (32:3-4). These were record high figures, a measure of lush prosperity in Foundationland.

Total foundation assets in the period 1960-63, according to the Foundation Directory, were $14,510,765,000; so it is evident that Patman's inquiry covered most of the field. 6 Of these, $8.161 billion were concentrated in New York; Pennsylvania came next with $853 million; then Michigan with $752.9 million; and Texas with $744 million. New York is far in the lead here as in all other aspects of finance.

Prior to 1910 there were only eighteen American foundations, with just one exceeding $10 million. (Until 1913 there were no income taxes, until 1916 no estate taxes.) In the next decade 76 were launched, in the 1920's 173, in the 1930's 288, in the 1940's 1,638 and in the 1950's 2,839. Of 5,050 leading foundations, 32 per cent were launched in the 1940's and 56 per cent in the 1950's. 7 In their magnitude and pervasiveness, then, the foundations are something recent, a new thing. They are plainly a reflex to the tax laws which give them exemption.
-------------------

Protean Uses of Foundations

While the largest foundations and flotillas of foundations have been mentioned, size is not alone important. Smaller foundations act as conduits and control points, useful in all sorts of secret business affairs and especially in tax evasions. Nearly every large corporation and many of the large banks now have their own foundations. And small foundations often suddenly flower into huge growths.

-Among other things, as Patman found, foundations can become tax-free receptacles for capital gains. An individual or corporation may have an investment it wishes to liquidate but which stands to incur a huge capital gain on large long-term appreciation. Payment of a capital gains tax may be avoided by turning the investment over to a foundation (no gift tax) and then having the foundation sell the investment (no capital gains tax). The foundation may now lend the entire liquid sum back to the donor at a nominal interest rate (no law requires that the foundations seek maximum earnings), or it may with the untaxed money obtain a controlling block of stock in some company the original donor wishes to control. With this control he can raise or lower the company's dividend rate, obtain power over its possibly large cash funds and management and perhaps even obtain for himself some further low-interest loans.

With low-interest loans received, a donor can make lucrative investments. He could, for example, with a loan on which he paid 1 per cent, itself tax deductible, go out and buy tax-free local government bonds paying him a tax-exempt 3 per cent.

Let its suppose that an original investment of $10 million was now valued at $100 million. If it were sold it would incur a capital gains tax of approximately $22.5 million. But if it were all given to a foundation the foundation could sell it and pay no gains tax. Now if the foundation lends the whole sum back to the donor at 1 per cent he pays it $1 million a year. And if he makes $3 million on a tax-free investment in government bonds he keeps $2 million annually, tax free. But if he had sold the original amount he would have had only $77.5 million after-tax capital which, invested at 5 per cent, would have brought him $3,875,000. After payment of about $2,712,500 (or 70 per cent) income tax, he would have remaining $1,162,500 annually or almost a half less than by the first procedure. It was clearly financially advantageous to filter the money through the "charitable" foundation.

If he so desires he can in fifty years build the original sum in his personal name back, all tax free. After fifty years he or his family can possess, in fee simple, $100 million in free new assets and also control the disposition of the original $100 million in the foundation, which may satisfy legal requirements by using its small income to assist crippled newsboys or homeless dogs.

But this is only a minimal sort of deal that can be arranged either once or preferably in a confusing series through the handy medium of a foundation. Patman showed that foundations can do anything that is financially possible, without any sort of public supervision or regulation. In the sphere of finance, name it and they can do it, tax free.

It is mainly because of the Protean utility of the foundation, particularly in the evasion of taxes, that nearly everyone in the community of wealth has come now to share the original insight of only a few such as the pioneering Carnegie and Rockefeller. Actually, the Rockefeller foundations appear to be the most efficiently run of the foundations, although their major function is definitely not the simple allocation of money to various, worthy causes.
-----------------------------------
Tax-free ostensible charitable funds had been used (Mr. Lefkowitz discovered tardily) for business purposes, to buy expensive paintings and sculpture for the donors' own homes, to pay salaries to relatives and for a variety of other personal accommodations-facts which anyone could have ascertained in 1937 by reading America's Sixty Families. Most of the New York foundations funded at more than $1 million--and this the authorities now thought suspicious--were set up to make distributions for charitable purposes "to be selected by the directors."

[PBS Poll-435]

96. And the income tax code as we know it was created in

1986.

I agree with your concerns, however, the Clintons Foundation has not in 6 years it has operated, given us any reason to doubt its intent and its authenticity.

[stillcool]

140. I am not saying the Clinton Foundation..

is guilty or innocent of anything. What I was trying to do was provide a link to a book that I found very helpful in understanding the architecture of our Government. The revision of the tax code certainly has no bearing on the tax benefits, and private investment opportunities inherent in Foundations.

[PBS Poll-435]

141. I appreciate your candor, I do

But the IRC of '86 has a lot to do with the subject at hand.

[lumberjack_jeff]

21. How clever.

So, if the Clintons give away $10 million, they save $2m in tax? How brilliant!

I wonder if they bought a boat with the $2m they saved by giving away $10m? What evil brilliance!

:sarcasm: for the math challenged.

I find it not at all surprising that foundations, including this one, retain some money to give away next year.

[PBS Poll-435]

22. The money earns interest tax-free

Which means more money is available to donate next year.

[Milo_Bloom]

25. They haven't given it away yet.

They have just stored it in an account they control.

[PBS Poll-435]

29. They give away a portion of it every year.

In 2006 the interest alone earned 111,000 which ends up in the hands of the charities.

The Clinton's have received NO tax benefit and no financial benefit from this foundation.

They could have just as easily given to the Red Cross what they donate each year to the foundation and their taxable income would not have changed. At all.

[bhikkhu]

23. That is how foundations are typically run: to be perpetual.

In many cases they only distribute from the interest earned on capital. That is how we have foundations still supporting PBS programming, for instance, started by people who are long dead.

[Milo_Bloom]

27. Many things established for good reason are used improperly.

This is a classic tax dodge that should be taken out of the IRS code.

http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/ffindershow.cgi?id=CLIN040

Financial Data
(yr. ended 12/31/06)
Total Assets: $4,383,401
Total Giving: $1,274,900

[PBS Poll-435]

30. Who benefited ? Except the charities of course...

[Milo_Bloom]

73. The Clintons to the tune of 1 million dollars.

In taxes they didn't have to pay while remaing in control of their assets.

[PBS Poll-435]

75. Please,

Just accuse them of something and move along. You have made a very nice thread very ugly with your bullshit.

[Milo_Bloom]

81. What is the "bullshit"?!

The fact that they saved 1 million in taxes by using a classic tax dodge while remaining in control of the vast majority of the money they supposedly donated to charity?!

How is that untrue?

[PBS Poll-435]

86. If they were just going to take it out later,

Then they didn't save shit. They will actually pay 43% more tax on every dollar.

Fortunately, they aren't ever going to touch one cent. They don't need to.

[Milo_Bloom]

88. So your entire argument is based on need?

The fact that you think the CLintons won't ever NEED the money, it is okay.

First, they saved 1 million in taxes by donating money to their own charity which they control.

Second, What about the fact that the money is now sheltered from bankrupcy claims, lawsuits or anything of that matter... is that okay with you too?

[PBS Poll-435]

95. The law is the law

You do not have to be stupid to be virtuous. They pay more than their fair share of taxes. And they donate way more money to charity then people in their tax bracket.

[Milo_Bloom]

98. Okay, as long as you are okay with tax dodges, at least I know where you stand.

[onenote]

103. its no more of a tax dodge than simply giving money directly to charity and getting a deduction

The only quesation is whether you get the deduction now or later.

[Milo_Bloom]

116. And the rate you get it at.

And the control you have the money

Just those two little things.


Are you really buying the BS you are shoveling right now?

[PBS Poll-435]

139. The same question needs to be asked of you.

[PBS Poll-435]

104. I guess you do

It is insane to think that the Clintons are gaming anything by having this Foundation.

[onenote]

89. they don't have "control" of it in the sense that you claim

They can only use it for charitable purposes or for management purposes that are very tightly regulated, especially for a relatively small family foundation (comparing the Clinton Family Foundation, with assets of $4 million to a foundation that has tens or hundreds of millions of dollars and thus has to have full time staff is absurd, and you know it.

[Milo_Bloom]

99. Its not NEARLY as regulated as you think.

I know because my accountant suggested I set up one of these and explained EXACTLY how it works in detail.

I am happy to say I resisted the urge.

[onenote]

105. you need a new accountant.

At least that's what the tax attorneys in my firm say.

[Milo_Bloom]

120. Sure...

The tax attorneys working in your firm decided to spend some time consulting with you on a saturday 10 days before tax day to resolve a message board dispute, because they had nothing better to do.

Congrats... that rediculous bit of fiction just got you into the ignore bin.

[onenote]

121. I'm in the office today. And so are they.

Better check your x-ray vision.

Oh, and it took them 30 seconds to respond to my email question to them about this.

ANd being put on ignore by the likes of you has me sobbing. Not.

[onenote]

35. so you think every charity should spend all of its money every year.

Interesting. I doubt any well run organization would agree.

[Milo_Bloom]

76. Distinguish between an individual and an organization.

The deal with this trick is that the Clinton's (the individuals) remain in control of their money, while getting the benefit (tax savings) from "giving it away". But they haven't really given it away, because they still remain in control of it. They can get access to that money at any time at a lower tax rate than their savings by simply writing themselves a salary or preforming 1099 work for the charity.

[PBS Poll-435]

143. Wrong, Absurd, and

You really should know better.

[bhikkhu]

38. Absolutely correct, on the first point

But foundations serve a large role in our society they can hardly be "taken out" of the tax code.

The main things that you look at in a foundation are expenditure vs distributions. I believe the law is that 5% of net capital needs to be distributed per year as charitable giving. The Clinton Family Foundation seems to balance distributions with building a capital base fairly well.

There is no law (I don't think) that limits the administrative expenses, however, and that is where abuse is normally found. In the case of the Clinton Family Foundation, administrative expenses are vanishingly small. If I say this seems to be a well-run foundation, that is why.

[Milo_Bloom]

107. They need to be changed in a fundamental way.

And the problem is that you (the candidate) lose standing to get these change when you play the game that is already stacked.

[bhikkhu]

14. Yes, two entirely different foundations.

If you read about the William J Clinton Foundation, it has a long list of big donors and supporters and a long list of big international projects. The Clintons are not listed as donors recently, that I have seen, but Bill is certainly a motive force behind it. And it does represent an entity bringing a diverse group of donors together into a large and effective organization, such as typically needs a well paid CEO.

The Clinton Family Foundation is small and pretty directly run by the Clintons, and is closer to the standard personal foundation of the wealthy. You can call it a tax dodge, and foundations are set up and run as tax dodges, but this one seems to be pretty admirable. There are no salaries and, extremely small administrative costs. I am no stranger to cynicism, but I see only the well-run foundation of a well-intentioned Democrat here.

For some overview, including previous RW accusations: http://mediamatters.org/items/200703010002

[PBS Poll-435]

16. Thanks for that link!

That is an awesome review!

[Milo_Bloom]

18. I realized after, they switched to the tax dodge...

Giving to the William Clinton foundation would have left the money out of their control and out of their reach...

They changed to the more controlable "Family Foundation", so they keep control of the money and can have access to it in the future, despite getting the tax savings now.


http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/ffindershow.cgi?id=CLIN040

Financial Data
(yr. ended 12/31/06)
Total Assets: $4,383,401
Total Giving: $1,274,900


This is a tax loophole that Democrats should be fighting AGAINST, not participating in.

[PBS Poll-435]

20. Give it up already

It is for the benefit of the charities to recieve the interest, tax-free.

It doesn't benefit the Clinton's at all, except that they will have a lasting legacy of generosity.

They would have the same 1040 tax benefit if they just gave to the Red Cross instead of their foundation.

They don't pay themselves a salary, trustee fees, or anything like that.

The only entities that benefit are the City of Chappaqua, the State of NY, and the Accounting Firm that prepares the 990.

[Milo_Bloom]

28. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt

How to avoid paying taxes on 3.1 million dollars while remaining in control of the money


http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/ffindershow.cgi?id=CLIN040


Financial Data
(yr. ended 12/31/06)
Total Assets: $4,383,401
Total Giving: $1,274,900

[PBS Poll-435]

33. It isn't correct now, and it hasn't been correct since you posted it the first time.

But thanks for the kicks!

[Milo_Bloom]

40. So I guess you love the Bush's then too?

They use the exact same Tax dodge.

http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/ffindershow.cgi?id=BUSH040

Financial Data
(yr. ended 12/31/06)
Total Assets: $4,076,129
Total Giving: $1,212,958

[PBS Poll-435]

45. Someone found a wild card!!!!

Give it up. If I did your quality of research, I wouldn't have a job.

[Milo_Bloom]

66. So is it okay for the bush's to use this same trick?

That's all I want to know.

[PBS Poll-435]

69. It is not a trick

It is the law. The Clintons use it to fund charities, and grow the endowment for tomorrows charities.

They have received NO financial benefit from this.

[Milo_Bloom]

71. Incorporating is the law too... but also a Trick.

AS for the benefit...


They haven't paid over 1 million dollars in taxes they would have otherwise paid without this trick, while remaining in control of their assets.

A benefit and a trick the middle class simply doesn't have access too...

It's nice to be rich, isn't it? You get all the benefits of the "laws", eh?

[PBS Poll-435]

74. So that is what your entire arguement is about

Class warfare based upon a ridiculous arguement.

Well...The Clintons are talking the talk and walking the walk. Deal with it

[Milo_Bloom]

79. Yes, it is about creating a fair tax code...

And not using the tricks in it to benefit personally, because when the time comes to FIX THE CODE you have no stanting to make the argument.

In short, they ain't taking the talk or walking the walk... they are PLAYING THE GAME.

[PBS Poll-435]

83. Get a grip.

[Milo_Bloom]

90. So the Clinton's using a classic tax dodge is okay with you...

That's fine.

I would just rather have a progressive candidate who is going to examine the tax code and all its little loopholes that benefit the wealthy and allow them to pay disproportionate amount of taxes.

[PBS Poll-435]

92. If you say so.

[onenote]

101. the "middle class" can do the same thing

I give over $10,000 to charity every year, doling it out in amounts that range from $50 to a couple thousand. If I wanted, I could set up a foundation, stick the $10K in it and only give a portion of it to specific charities that year and still get the same tax benefit I was getting before. In fact, here's an example of a couple that set up a family foundation with $10K, got the tax break on $10K that year, even though the foundation only doled out $250.
http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990pf_pdf_archive/331/331000119/331000119_200312_990PF.pdf
Pretty good deal for a small donor.

[Milo_Bloom]

113. If you don't mind paying the higher % costs

Which become much larger as a % to a 10,000 charity than to a 1 million dollar one.

Which is what this all about in the first place.

[onenote]

122. not following -- what higher costs?

[onenote]

93. don't mind it at all, in fact

my only complaint is that they seem to spend more on accounting fees than I think would be necesary for a foundation of that size. They also are a bit different that the Clinton Family Foundation in their purpose and in the fact that they operate programs rather than just make cash grants.

But otherwise, no problem with it at all.

[bhikkhu]

24. Good Lord....please get educated. And are you here supporting a candidate anyway?

[Milo_Bloom]

32. Just tired of progressives not understanding how the deck is stacked against them.

This is a classic tax dodge trick and if any GOP candidate were doing it (and probably are) people here would be RIGHTFULLY up in arms about them avoiding paying taxes on 3.1 million dollars.


However, b/c the Clinton's used it, it is fine and just "generosity" and a fine example of how we all should be.


The reality is that at any point in the future they can get that 3.1 million BACK by simply paying themselves a salary and/or consulting fees...

The real idea behind Charity is to GIVE THE MONEY AWAY, not to give it away CONDITIONALLY, which is what these "family foundations" do.

[PBS Poll-435]

36. They give it over time to those who ask for it

The money grows. People benefit. Would you have preferred that money ended up in some oil company corporate-welfare handout?

[Milo_Bloom]

42. I'd prefer them not use the same accounting tricks as the bushs

http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/ffindershow.cgi?id=BUSH040

Financial Data
(yr. ended 12/31/06)
Total Assets: $4,076,129
Total Giving: $1,212,958

[PBS Poll-435]

37. And you are not progressive.

You are a loudmouth who went 20 posts (pretty much the same post) with the wrong freaking information.

[onenote]

43. gee, the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation is doing it too,

Are you up in arms that Barack Obama gave $13,000 to the CBCF in 2006 and they ended up with $1 million in unspent funds that they added to their bank account, which now exceeds $4 million. Or do you recognize that charitable foundations don't spend every dime the moment it comes in the door.

[Milo_Bloom]

53. An organization is different than an individual

Barack gave up control of the money by giving to the CBCF.

The Clinton's remain in FULL CONTROL of the money in their privately run foundation.

They can get the money in their foundation back at any time.


The reason I know about this trick is b/c my accountant suggested I do this 2 years ago to shelter extra money. I maxed out my 401K contribution and had a lot of money left over... he suggested I start a "charitable foundation" as a way of storing money I may need in the future and getting the tax benefit today.

What is also "great" about it, is that the money is completely sheltered from any bankrupcy claim, lawsuit, etc... It is essentially an interest bearing bank account you can draw on at any time by writing youself a salary or "consulting" at some point in the future.


Democrats and progressives shouldn't be taking advantage of that type of blatant tax loophole, because when the time comes to close it, you have absolutely NO STANDING, because you used the damn trick.

[PBS Poll-435]

58. I don't get how you can defend being wrong?

[Milo_Bloom]

62. Because I am right and you know it.

[PBS Poll-435]

65. LOL

The law says they must distribute a percentage of the assets to charity every year.


If they, for some reason, took money out of the foundation. They would pay 50.3% tax on it.




So, your entire arguement is false.

[Milo_Bloom]

70. Nope... Not if they took it as salary.

Play with this one for a while...

http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/ffindershow.cgi?id=LIBR012

And see how the trick really works in practice.

[PBS Poll-435]

78. Um...yeah.

Who is going to pay the 941 taxes if it was salary or wages. The fairy freakin' godmother?

If it was just a 1099 draw, then you would pay SE tax at the end of the year.

[Milo_Bloom]

87. Bzzzzzzzzzzzt.

1099 income can be paid to a corporation and taken as a dividend, upon which ZERO self employment taxes are owed.

941 taxes are also tax deductable to the employer (which is why people incorporate, so they can get the full savings of paying 941 taxes).


Say Milo Bloom runs a business that makes 100,000 Milo might pay 40K in TAXES at the end of the year (this includes SE taxes as well as income).

However, if Milo Bloom has Milo Inc and has Milo Inc Pay Milo Bloom a SALARY, Milo Inc can deduct the payroll taxes AND pay Milo Bloom a dividend as well.. Milo Bloom wont have to SE taxes on the dividend AND the corporation got to deduct all the payroll taxes... which means the corporation will end up with a "loss" on paper... now watch how it really gets fun... Milo Bloom gets to DEDUCT that loss from Milo Bloom's income taxes. So instead of paying 40K, Milo Bloom will wind up paying only about 20K in taxes.

[PBS Poll-435]

102. Wrong Again, just so wrong, yuck

A foundation can not pay dividends. You see, Form 1099-MISC has all these cute little boxes that tell the IRS exactly what type of income it is paying. In this case it would be box 7, "non-employee compensation." Then Milo Bloom would report this on Schedule C (SE Tax triggered) or on the 1st page of the 1040 under "other income." (No business deductions available, except on Sch A, which is limited)

The only way the Milo Bloom could take a loss from Milo Bloom, Inc. on Milo's personal 1040 is if Milo Bloom, Inc was a subchapter 'S' Corporation. And then it would appear on Schedule E on the 1040. And that loss is limited.

[Milo_Bloom]

109. Please read more carefully...

The foundation can pay a corporation which can pay dividends.

And no, it doesn't have to be an S-Corp... It can also be an LLC and the loss isn't limited at all.

Please, if you don't know anything about accounting, please save yourself the embarassment.

[PBS Poll-435]

115. You are so wrong it is sad.

An unincorporated LLC will be reported on your 1040 on Sch C, and in that case it will appear as ordinary gross receipts. You must be an 'S' Corp to receive dividend treatment on a personal 1040.

[Milo_Bloom]

119. Bzzzzzzzzzt.

First LLC is incorporated.

Seocnd, you don't need to be an S corp to get dividends.

[PBS Poll-435]

123. Dupe

Posted twice, I guess.

[Milo_Bloom]

127. Like I said, it is obvious you are not an accountant...

LLC is incorporated. That is just a fact.

And no, it does't have to be an S corp

Look, these are just realities... Look them up.

You can whine about it all you want, I am not bothering answering you about LLCs and S corps any more... When you do your research you are free to post to your heart's content; however, until then, there is no point in dealing with you on these particular subjects anymore.

[PBS Poll-435]

130. You are smug

And wrong. You have been wrong all afternoon. You will probably be wrong all afternoon tomorrow. I pray that you didn't waste your entire weekend being wrong. That would suck.

[Milo_Bloom]

131. Just educate yourself better in the future.

[PBS Poll-435]

134. LOL

You are so arrogant. You think are factual and well-researched; only it's in your head.

You are the first person that I have ever considered putting on ignore.

[PBS Poll-435]

132. You are just a little sad

I have spent enough time with you.

And for your information, I am free to post whenever the fuck I want. I do not need your permission. You have been wrong about so many things today, it is just a wonder that you are even still here.

And by the way: Bill & Hillary Clinton are good people with good hearts.

[Milo_Bloom]

133. And yet you haven't used a single actual fact

To dispute the facts and realities I have posted.

Don't worry, you don't have to bother with me anymore... you can join your friend in the ignore bin, you know the one who has the army of tax attorneys wanting to spend time 10 days before tax day to answer his/her message board questions.

And finally, this is not about whether the CLinton's are good people or not, this is about them using a classic tax dodge that if any other republican used, you and everyone here would be RIGHTFULLY raking them over the coals for.

The reason the country is in the shape it is in today is because of the loopholes in tax system for corporations and individuals with money to take advantage of... there are 1000's of them and most of them were created for good reasons and are now being abused.

The Clintons will almost certainly NOT abuse it. However, their standing to argue against this particularly insidious loophole is now gone, because they took advantage of it.

[PBS Poll-435]

135. And remember....

Until 90 minutes ago, you didn't think that Salaries/Wages/Other Compensation appeared on a 990!!!

[PBS Poll-435]

126. BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZt

This coming from the person who was quoting the wrong 990 for 20 minutes.

No...LLC is not incorporated. LLC is a distinction of the state. You can also be incorporated with the state. The two, however are not the same (thats why there is two! ) We are talking about federal income tax. The 's' corp in 's' corporations is in the Internal Revenue Code of '86.

To personally report dividend income from a corporation to a corporation and receive dividend treatement, yes, it would need to be a pass-through entity, an 's' corp.

[Milo_Bloom]

128. See post 127 and educate yourself.

[PBS Poll-435]

59. And....LOL

If they paid themselves a Salary/Wages. They would be in the 35% tax bracket for the wages. And another 15.3% for the SE Tax. Some tax benefit!

50.3% Tax Rate. Big Savings!

[onenote]

80. they cannot "get the money back" -- once its given its not theirs anymore

Its the foundation's and there are strict rules about how the foundation must operate. Quit making up stuff.

And if you had followed your accountant's advice you'd be paying some mighty big fines.

Under the law, someone who sets up or gives to a charitable foundation such as the one created by the Clintons is a "disqualified person" and self-dealing payments to disqualified persons are strictly regulated.

And these self-dealing rules aren't limited to foundations set up by individuals -- they apply to foundations like the CBCF as well.

[bhikkhu]

47. You are right, they can get it back that way.

And I would be happy to promise merciless criticism in the future if they do. At the moment, however, they just seem to be Democrats turning their good intentions into good works, in the manner that this is typically done.

[PBS Poll-435]

50. If they took it back, it would be taxed

[Milo_Bloom]

54. At a completely different rate.

[PBS Poll-435]

57. AT THE HIGHEST RATE

The Clintons are in THE HIGHEST TAX BRACKET. 35%

Salaries/Wages/Director Fees/Whatever would be ordinary income to them and taxed like the rest of their income.

[Milo_Bloom]

63. *SIGH*

They are getting the TAX SAVINGS at the highest tax bracket.

So when they give 1,000,000 to their family foundation, they shave 350,000 off their taxes.


HOWEVER.. if they want to take it out in the future and they aren't "earning" the same type of money, they can draw it out as a 50K per year salary and only get taxed at a 15% rate.


That is why it is called a Tax Dodge.

[PBS Poll-435]

67. They would pay

Ordinary Income + 15.3% tax. In todays IRC, that would be 50.3% tax.

It would take a catastrophe for them to not be in the highest tax bracket the rest of their lives.

[Milo_Bloom]

68. NOPE.

Only if they took it as a direct withdrawl... not if they take it as salary.

[PBS Poll-435]

82. You haven't the slightest clue do you.

You (the employee) pay 6.2% in FICA and 1.45% in Medicare taxes on every paycheck.
Your employer would match that.

If it is your money all along, as you say. Then you have paid a total of 15.3% in 941 taxes.
And don't even get me started on FUTA & SUTA taxes.

[Milo_Bloom]

94. Nay...

Okay, we have established you are not an accountant... Now let's get to the brass tax.

Fica is only paid up to about 90K.

Second, if you have a good accountant, you aren't going to pay SE taxes on about 50% of your income, because you are going to take it as a dividend, instead of salary... this is why you pay 1099 to a corporation and then the corporation pays you a "salary" (which the corporation can then claim as a deduction and report a loss, which you can also take as a deduction just for fun).

[PBS Poll-435]

111. Wrong Wrong Wrong

Please get a clue soon.

Fica is up to 102,500. Medicare is paid into infinity.

Corporate losses are only deductable if they are an 'S' corp. And even then the loss is limited.

[Milo_Bloom]

124. Are you done making stuff up yet?

"Corporate losses are only deductable if they are an 'S' corp. And even then the loss is limited."

This is just so completely wrong... LLC's and S corps can BOTH distribute losses and the losses aren't particular limited in any fundamental way, unless you are trying to get EIC out of it.


Dividends are STILL not subject to Fica OR medicare (which is the point you love to not address.)

[PBS Poll-435]

136. Dividends sure aren't!

I would love to see a charitable gift trust attempt to issue dividends!
Do you even know what a dividend is? Tell me how a non-profit is going to pay dividends!

Losses are limited to several tests. Passive activity being one...

And finally...just what 1040-related form would you use to report income from an LLC that is not recognized as a corporation federally?

[onenote]

85. actually, they don't get as big a benefit as you claim

Again, reflecting your lack of familiarity with how taxes are calculate. WHen you get up in the range that the Clintons are in, you hit limits on how much you can deduct. So when they give $1 million they get to deduct less than that amount. I don't recall which of their tax forms showed it, but I believe in one of the recent returns, it shows that they had to reduce the amount that they could deduct by almost $600,000.

[Milo_Bloom]

97. I haven't vetted their tax forms, just their tax dodge...

You can only deduct up to a certain % of your overall income.

[PBS Poll-435]

106. LOL -

In this case 30%

[onenote]

108. heck, it took you more than 20 posts to even figure out which tax forms you should be looking at

To say that your "vetting" doesn't interest me in the slightest would be an understatement.

[Milo_Bloom]

61. Yeah, but don't you see the big picture?!?!

This is WHY the tax code is so unfair to the middle class...

Middle class people can't afford to start a "family foundation" and shave millions of dollars off their tax liability and remain in control of the money just incase they need it in the future.

If I write a 10,000 check to the red cross, I pay 3,500 less in taxes and the Red Cross gets 10,000... However, if 2 years from now I suddenly need the money, the red cross ain't givin it back.

However, if I can afford to set up one of these foundations... I write the foundation 100,000 check... I get a 35,000 reduction in my taxes... The Foundation pays 10K to the Red Cross... then my business turns and in 2 years I need the money back... Soooo I draw a 30K per year salary from my charitable foundation.

I get taxed at a much lower rate (35% of the 100K vs 15% of the 30K). I get the money back, at a lower tax rate and the red cross winds up with the same 10K

[PBS Poll-435]

72. Problem with your strawman is -

The foundation is required to distribute a percentage of the assets every year to charity. Plus...you would have to pay 15.3% tax on top of your marginal rate.

[Milo_Bloom]

112. It was wrong the first time you said it and it is still wrong now.

First, The % is VERY small, so small as to be insignificant. 5% I believe.

Second, I have already explained how those in the know avoid the 15.3 tax you think they pay.

[PBS Poll-435]

117. I pray to god you don't give people this kind of advise.

The prisons are full as it is.

[Milo_Bloom]

118. Unfortunately, not with people using these classic tax dodges

[PBS Poll-435]

125. So more rich people should go to jail?

Simply for setting up a lifetime charitable gift trust?

[Milo_Bloom]

129. According to you they should.

Are you changing that position now?

[PBS Poll-435]

137. What?

No, if you follow the law, you should not go to jail. You think otherwise it appears.

[onenote]

110. why don't you set up a family foundation?

If you want to do so, what's stopping you?

[onenote]

41. access to it? to direct it to charitable entities, yes. that's it.

At this point you're just flailing around like a drowning man. Give it up.

[Milo_Bloom]

46. Sorry to tell you...

But they can write themselves salaries at any point in the future and/or pay themselves consulting fees at ANY time.

They remain in full control of the money, which is what makes it a tax dodge.

This is why the bush's use it as well

http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/ffindershow.cgi?id=BUSH040


Here is a fun one as well

http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/ffindershow.cgi?id=LIBR012

[PBS Poll-435]

49. And if they paid ANY money to themselves,

It would be taxed at ordinary income rates. The Clintons are in the highest 1040 MFJ tax bracket.

[Milo_Bloom]

64. At the moment...

Which is why there is no reason to take a salary.

However, If Chelsea (who is listed as a non paid trustee) needs a job in the future, they can pay her at a lower rate and she will get taxed at a lower rate.


That is why it is called a tax dodge... you get maximum benefit for putting the money in, but you can be taxed at a lower rate for taking it out.

[PBS Poll-435]

138. The foundation still

has to pay employment taxes. Fica, Medicare, Futa, Suta, and depending on the state, workers compensation insurance.

[onenote]

77. and you could grow a brain

chances are you won't. And chances are the Clinton's won't be paying themselves anything out of their family foundation. In fact, as I recall, there are limitations on such self-dealing that, given the facts, would significantly limit, if not completely prohibit, payment of compensation to the CLintons out of the Foundation's assets. If it was a bigger foundation, one that required full time attention, they could justify paying a reasonable amount as compensation for reasonable and necesary management activities. But most small family foundation do not and cannot justify payment of such compensation and would be subject to IRS penalties if they did.

[onenote]

39. and yet more crazy talk from the know nothings

the William J. Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Family Foundation are totally separate entities. Totally. The Clinton Family Foundation gets all of its revenues from the Clintons and from interest earned on the foundation balance. Not one cent of the Clinton Family Foundation's money has ever been donated to the William J. Clinton Foundation. Nothing. Nada.

Sad and pathetic.

[PBS Poll-435]

11. Please take this incorrect junk off of my thread. Thx!

:-)

[bhikkhu]

8. K&R - for admirable good works!

The admirable good works and intentions of pillar of the Democratic party. Not my candidate, but fair is fair.

[PBS Poll-435]

52. Thanks for the common sense.

This should not be a subject needing defense. Alas...

[MasonJar]

12. Last year they gave $10 million, according to Young Turks video..

[PBS Poll-435]

15. They are wrong.

It sucks to be wrong, but it doesn't change the end result.

The Clintons have given 10.2 million dollars since 2000 to various charities and their private foundation, which in in turn donates to various charities.

[Evergreen Emerald]

26. What is so funny to me is the scrutiny Clinton is getting for every dotted I and crossed T

And yet, Obama can change his story about how much money Rezko gave him again and again with no one even paying attention.

What a bunch of hypocritical bullshit.

[PBS Poll-435]

31. Well...Thanks for the Kick (and R if ya did)

Lets keep this positive. The Clintons are more generous than I could have possibly imagined.

[hfojvt]

34. big deal

:puffpiece:

Consider my own meager charitable donations
sponsored child - 384
DU - 35
Kiwanis - 580
magazine subscriptions - 65
DFA candidates - 100
salvation army - 50
total $1214

Now if I did this the Clinton way, I would instead donate $5,000 to the hfojvt's ego foundation, where I am the treasurer and my spouse and children are board members. Then, as treasurer, I would write the checks to those people and take the postage and costs of the checks and envelopes as tax deductions as well. I would also make a generous donation to this beneficial charity:

"The foundation has also paid considerable attention to Arkansas, providing the bulk of the support for the Clinton Birthplace Foundation, which maintains the former president's boyhood home in Hope, Ark."

The best part is, of course, that I get a $5,000 tax deduction while only giving $1214, plus I pile up assets which I control, and I can probably even legally pay myself a salary or provide a cushy job for one of my buddies or family members. Hillary's foundation made $111,845 in investment income in 2006. Just a minor tax-free addition to the family fortune.

[PBS Poll-435]

44. So cynical it is ugly.

The Clintons have distributed 2.5 million dollars to charitable causes in the last 5 years out of the Foundation.

All while keeping expense ratios below one half of one percent.

That investment income, lol, bank interest, belongs to the foundation. BTW any money distributed for Salaries/Director Fees/whatever would be taxed at the highest marginal rate applicable to the Clintons. In this case 35%. So how did they save any taxes?

Grow up.

[hfojvt]

100. Did I not explain how the "low administrative costs" is hardly a virtue?

Wow, look at the administrative costs for the checks I write. As far as cynicism, maybe it's cause I read about what Leavitt is actually doing with their foundation.

"Moreover, Solomon and Mosk ignored a more relevant comparison, based on the Post's own prior reporting -- Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt's family foundation. As reporter Jonathan Weisman noted in a February 27 Post online chat, Leavitt's family foundation, "in the first four years of its existence, never gave away 5 percent of its assets, as traditional foundations are required to do. Hillary's did." Weisman reported in a July 21, 2006, Post article that "Leavitt and his relatives have claimed millions of dollars in tax deductions" through a family foundation "that until recently paid out very little in actual charity." Weisman added, "Instead, much of the foundation's money has been invested or lent to the family's business interests and real estate holdings, or contributed to the Leavitt family genealogical society." According to Weisman, the Leavitt foundation "donated less than 1 percent of its assets in 2002, 2003 and 2004. The donations jumped to 6.3 percent of total assets last year <2005>, after the sale of family water interests that also allowed the foundation to increase its lending to Leavitt business interests." While a spokesman for Leavitt termed the foundation's activities "totally legal and proper," Weisman quoted Rick Cohen, executive director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, as saying that "the Leavitts are using the foundation as a personal piggy bank, and that's not what the public -- or Congress -- ought to tolerate.""

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703010002

That they are behaving well while they are under public scrutiny does not mean they will always do so. The bottom line is - if I write a $500,000 check to the Salvation Army, then it is gone, the money is out of my hands, out of my control. If, however, I write a $500,000 check to the Hfojvt Family Foundation, even though I get the same tax write-off, that money IS NOT out of my control.

And I am inspired by your example. The way you opened and closed with an ad hominem attack was so mature. I hope I grow up to be just like you.

[onenote]

56. except virtually everything you wrote is wrong

If you were doing it the "Clinton way" you would create a family foundation, give it $5k. The foundation would then write checks to the very same charities you listed in the very same amounts. The balance ($5000-$1214 = $3786) would be put in the bank where it would accrue interest which would be available for future giving and/or to offset any administrative costs (which would be minimal). It would not add to your family fortune in the least. You would not be writing any checks to your family members who are on the board of the foundation, at least not if you are doing it the "clinton way" == that's because the Clinton Family Foundation pays no compensation -- not a dime -- to its board members or officers and has no "employees" receiving compensation. In fact, apart from the checks to the charities listed above, the only other checks you would write would be to an accountant for filling out your tax return (although given the small size of your foundation, it would be no sweat to do that yourself; if you got an accountant to do it, it would cost no more than a couple of hundred bucks. And you might have to write a small check to the IRS, although again, based on the size of your foundation,that's unlikely.

So there you have it. Could you have been more wrong?

[hfojvt]

91. I did not say they DID pay salaries

I said they COULD in the future, and a big pile of money that I control, certainly would be part of my family fortune.

So you are a long way from showing how "virtually everything".

I simply pointed out that the low administrative costs don't seem like a big deal, considering it just a shell foundation for charitable giving, and further donating to their own pals and stuff doesn't seem like pure charity. There's a little bit of cronyism, self-promotion, and self-interest involved in their "generosity".

[onenote]

114. Some examples of this alleged cronyism? And you said "would' not "could"

Moreso than,say, Obama giving his biggest contribution to his own church? Or his third largest contribution to the CONgressional Black Caucus Foundation?

Give me an example of some of the contributions that the CLinton Family Foundation has made that smack of cronyism. They gave to their church, to their alma maters, to local charities (hey, I give to the volunteer fire department in my community which might save my ass some day -- is that cronyism?

PS - what you said was that if you did it the "Clinton way" you "would" (not "could") pay your family.

[hfojvt]

144. no, my phrase was "I CAN probably"

I just checked.

As for cronyism:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR2007022601542_2.html

"The foundation has also paid considerable attention to Arkansas, providing the bulk of the support for the Clinton Birthplace Foundation, which maintains the former president's boyhood home in Hope, Ark. They have donated $225,000 to the Little Rock Baptist church they attended, and to organizations devoted to the needs of children in the state.

One Arkansas recipient was the Diane Blair Foundation. Diane Blair is the late wife of James Blair, the businessman who helped Hillary Clinton with controversial commodities trades in the late 1970s that netted her about $100,000. There are two foundations in Diane Blair's name. One is a private family charity; the other funds a center for the study of Southern politics at the University of Arkansas.

The Clintons' tax form indicates the money went to the private charity, but James Blair said in an interview yesterday that the Clintons "miscoded" the entry. The check actually went to the university fund, he said.

"She was Hillary's closest friend," Blair said of his wife, who died in June 2000.

At least three beneficiaries were from the Middle East, where the former president worked to forge an elusive peace agreement during the 1990s. They include $50,000 to the King Hussein Foundation, named in honor of the late Jordanian king, who was a key player in Clinton peace talks; $50,000 to American Friends of Yitzhak Rabin, honoring the assassinated Israeli prime minister; and the American Friends of Peres Center, honoring former Israeli prime minister Shimon Peres."

[onenote]

145. so, I'll ask again: was it cronyism for Obama to give to his church and the CBCF?

Yes, the Clintons paid considerable attention to Arkansas and to Chappaqua NY -- my goodness, they gave money to the fire and ambulance companies, the local hospital and local charities. I had no idea that giving back to where you came from or live was such a bad thing thing. I must be sure not to give to my local hospitals and schools anymore. Wouldn't want to be accused of cronyism. Maybe I will just pick names out of a hat. That must be how you do it.

Hey, they gave to the Wellstone Action fund. I guess if Paul wasn't dead, that would be cronyism too, in your book.

Finally, have you bothered to check out any of these charities that you seem to regard as undeserving? You might be surprised.

[PBS Poll-435]

48. Kicking

for truth

[PBS Poll-435]

142. One Final Kick

For good people doing good things