Roger L. Simon: Money Talks

I'm not sure I agree with Captain Ed when he wrote yesterday (in response to a report that presidential candidates will no longer reveal their tax returns): Personal income had been considered a private affair before Watergate. After that scandal, which had nothing to do with tax evasion, candidates seized on the release of their 1040s as some sort of honesty test. It might be time to recognize that private income should remain private, and that tax returns give us little germane data about the candidates.

Sure we'd all like a little privacy on matters financial in this "snoopiest of all possible worlds." But in a globe seemingly driven by corruption large and small that may not be a smart thing, particularly in regards to those who lead us - or wish to. A case in point today is the revelation that Barack Obama's wife is "Wal-Mart friendly," at least from the perspective of personal gain. How important is that? I don't know, but the stench of hypocrisy is now around her husband who has engaged in the traditional liberal Wal-Mart bashing. This is all the more interesting because Obama's true views are essentially unknown to us. He is riding a crest of popularity based largely on charisma.

We live in a country, actually a world, where politicians tend to have immense personal wealth. Bloomberg is a billionaire, Romney is close. We all know about John Kerry who "wived it wealthily in Padua" and then some. And talk about serious bucks - how about Castro?

No, Captain Ed, in Dr. Pangloss's "best of all possible worlds" we perhaps should have a zone of privacy around politicians' money. But you don't have to be Voltaire to know we aren't there yet. Until then, we need every possible window into our leaders' finances - including IRS returns. If they can't stand that heat, as Mr. Truman wisely said, they should get out of the kitchen.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

Unfortunately, everyone does not live as if their actions could be reported on the front page of the newspaper.

While it may be nice to have a moat of privacy for public figures, it could foster an environment where even more questionable deals are done than exists today.

Of course a few of those questionable deals come to mind. Hillary turning $1,000 into $100,000 in commodities trading. And there is, of course, Whitewater (and no one knows what really happened, especially after Janet Reno fired ALL district attorneys - hmmmmm). Harry Reid did his real estate deal in Las Vegas. Obama recently came into money after being elected to the Senate, but there is that real estate deal with Tony Rezko, who is under indictment. There is Diane Feinstein, who appears to have directed federal funds to the benefit of her husbands companies. Let's not forget the esteemed Congressman from Louisiana, Mr. Jefferson. Mr. Murtha of Abscam fame is not above reproach. I saw something in the news about Nancy Pelosi recently that slips my mind. The Republican side if the aisle is not lilly white either. In fact, I am sure there are other reader's here with a better memory than mine.

I would argue this coerced "disclosure" is another beach landing to witch good qualified people are ultimately lost to.

The presumption engendered by the "disclosure" is one of dishonesty. There is nothing about it that says what kind of people we are (for the most part).

I agree we may not be there yet, but we sure are slowing if not stopping all progress by stripping naked peoples whose only guilt is wanting to serve.

Well, before anyone gets the wrong idea... I'm not pro-Obama, I don't plan on voting for Obama and I don't care for most of the Liberal agenda currently in play.

However, that Wal-Mart 'link' is downright silly. Mrs. Obama is apparently employed at a Food Manufacturing company as a "non-executive director and sits on the company's audit and nominating and corporate governance committees". Which, as far as I can tell basically deals with auditing and corporate governance. The link to Wal-Mart is that they buy lots of pickles and peppers from the company she works at.

So, she deals with internal bureaucracy at a company (salary of $51,000) which sells a lot of product to, Wal-Mart, the nations largest purchaser of consumer goods. Meanwhile her husband campaigns that he doesn't like Wal-Mart's internal practices.

I fail to see how that makes Sen. Obama a hypocrite in any way, shape or form. I think he's a vacuous politician, with no clearer direction on the future of our nation than any of the other befuddled candidates. I dislike his politics... but this sort of political BS is simply pathetic.

Also, I now have an image of Sen. Kerry bellowing "I've come to Wive it Wealthy in Padua" ala Howard Keel in Kiss Me Kate....

I hear that Obama is putting people to sleep. So, if his wife does have Wal-Mart stock they could say they are in the race to help millions of suffering insomniacs.

Kill two birds. Lower medicine for seniors by turning on the teeve purchased at Wal-Mart put on a timer, thereby getting some zzzz while investing in a good old American company.

Speaking of Wall-mart and money talking, I red the other day that Norway's retirement's nest egg sold its Wall-Mart shares (among about a dozen other American companies) out concern for what they called Wall-Mart's ethical failings.

As I red on it turn out that the nest egg is primarily made up of global warming, war making, big oil exports.

You know the kid that uncovered the Dix six here in NJ may have been onto something when his primary concern was will they say I'm a racist.

Well, I'm not a racist (as far as I know) But if I'm ever asked or made to watch Obama speak and I fall sleep would that make me a racist?

if I'm ever asked or made to watch Obama speak and I fall sleep would that make me a racist?

Heh, people will label you with whatever they dislike ;-)... Here I get branded a liberal when someone disagrees with me. On other forums I get labeled a conservative by people that disagree with me. On some boards, they label me multicultural and other they label me racist.

I've got a set of nice ink stamps at home so I can label myself with whatever words I feel like ;-)

And going to sleep during an Obama speech simply confirms that you are a living entity as opposed to a brain dead zombie.

It's worth remembering that one presidential candidate of recent years never has filed financial disclosure forms (to the best of my knowlege). And who might that be?

None other than Ralph Nader. Who knows why, but if anyone else, particularly a Republican, tried to get away with that, it would be all over the news.

If anyone has a correction to this, I would appreciate hearing about it. Until then, Ralph is off my Christmas card list.

Hans Trefousse states in his recent biography of Rutherford Hayes that, as party nominee in 1876, Hayes made public his property tax returns from 1874-76, to dispel rumors of corrupt dealings.

May 13, 2007: Money Talks

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post