Sam Stein

BIO

Sam Stein

The Huffington Post

Obama Tax Returns: Low On Story Lines And Charity Donations

Obama Tax Returns: Low On Story Lines And Charity Donations

March 25, 2008 03:14 PM


stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

Sen. Barack Obama released seven years of prior tax return documents on Tuesday. And a review of the records reveals several newsworthy, albeit minor, disclosures.

Up until recent years when their income increased sharply from book revenues and a Senate salary, Obama's family donated a relatively minor amount of its earnings to charity. From 2000 through 2004, the senator and his wife never gave more than $3,500 a year in charitable donations -- about 1 percent of their annual earnings. In 2005, however, that total jumped to $77,315 (4.7 percent of annual earnings), and to $60,307 in 2006 (6.1 percent).

The money went to several organizations. More than $27,000 total was given to Obama's church, Trinity United Church of Christ, whose former pastor Jeremiah Wright has dominated recent news coverage. Other charity gifts included: Muntu Dance Theater, a Chicago-based company that performs contemporary and classic African dance, which received a $5,000 donation; The Rochelle Lee Fund, a literacy organization, which received a $20,000 donation; the Illinois Reading Council, which received a $25,000 donation, and CARE, the poverty fighting organization, which received a total of $31,000 in donations.

Obama also classified a $13,107 contribution to the Congressional Black Caucus as a charity gift.

Taken as a whole, these disbursements made up a small portion of Obama's annual income. According to TaxProf Blog, the Illinois senator gave "well short of the biblical 10% tithe for all seven years."

"As new parents who were paying off their large student loans, giving $10,000 to charity [from 2000 to 2004] was as generous as they could be at the time," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.

The release of Obama's tax returns represents another step in the campaign's effort to push the issue of transparency in the nomination battle against Sen. Hillary Clinton. The New York Democrat has not released her tax return information from the years following her departure from the White House (she has released returns corresponding to the 20 years prior). Her campaign promised to make her tax information public at least three days prior to the Pennsylvania primary on April 20.

While political observers are eager to see how former president Bill Clinton's profited off his post-White House fame, the Obama disclosures underscore the story of a relatively obscure and unknown state senator rising rapidly to national prominence.

Indeed, perhaps the only other of interesting news to be gleamed from a review of the Obama tax returns is that Michelle Obama made $12,000 more than previously known from the organization Treehouse Foods.

Why is that significant? Treehouse, an Illinois food-processing company on which Michelle Obama served as a board member, is one of the biggest suppliers of pickles and peppers to WalMart, the retail giant that is often loathed in progressive circles.

According to Obama's 2007 tax returns, Michelle earned $51,200 from the company and 7,500 Treehouse stock options. This is relatively minor stuff considering the degree of separation from WalMart itself (Sen. Hillary Clinton, for one, served on WalMart's board while she was first lady of Arkansas), but already Obama's critics have used it against him.

"The Obamas would have us believe that, when it comes to money and ethics and compassion, he is a different kind of politician," Chicago political consultant Joe Novak said in a May 2007 article in the London Telegraph. "[But] defending Treehouse while attacking Wal-Mart is a blatant example of personal hypocrisy."


 
 

Comments
106
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)

This exactly why putting your tax records up for everyone who knows much about nothing, is a problem.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:35 AM on 03/26/2008

How lame. My wife and I give a higher percentage of our income to charity, on substantially less income. And that is just tax-deductible, which requires documentation. We donate out-of-pocket to numerous charity events, bazaars, fund-raising events of all kinds.

Every year, 10% of our tax refund goes to charity. Whenever we get a "windfall," such as from the sale of stock, 10% goes to charity.

Yet, here are the Obamas: they financed their $1.6 million mansion, but they "couldn't afford" to donate more than 6% of their income to charity. What part of "hypocrite" don't you understand?

Thanks.

mp

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:28 AM on 03/26/2008

Naugie Writes:

"How lame. My wife and I give a higher percentage of our income to charity, on substantially less income. And that is just tax-deductible, which requires documentation. We donate out-of-pocket to numerous charity events, bazaars, fund-raising events of all kinds"

How great of you Naugie! I'm sure there will be a special place in heaven for you both.

As for your second sentence what exactly makes you so presumptuous to assume that you and your wife are the only people who donate to organizations without claiming it on your tax return and why do you automatically come to the conclusion that Senator Obama doesn't do the same thing?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:37 AM on 03/29/2008

I don't care about Wallmart or Treehouse. Frankly, every person posting here probably has similar stocks in their own portfolio if they are part of a 401K plan at all.

But I am very fed up with the Obama tactics. He wanted the dayplanner. She gave it to him. How does this help voters? Not one whit. It's just scandal-mongering. Ditto for her tax returns. I've watched every single year as politicians gets smeared over stupid stuff on their tax returns that, in reality, do not amount to a hill of beans.

ThiHe owes America an answer to why he dismissed Hillary during the debate over Rezko. He lied right to the camera, saying that his only involvement was 4 or 5 hours of legal work. What a farce! Then like George Washington, "AMerica, I cannot tell a lie. I really did have more to do with Rezko. BUT I trusted him." What a completely unbelievable fairy tale THAT is.

Then again, he pulled it with his earmarks. He slams her for not naming former years. Meanwhile, HIS earmark goes to his wife's company. She doubles her salary as soon as his "donation" comes through. What a crock of baloney to imply Hillary is dishonest.

Obama has virtually no room to crow here. It's gotten to the point that if he's slinging mud at her, you can nearly count on it that the REAL story is that he's blatantly doing something that is just shy of illegal.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:59 AM on 03/26/2008

Obama's tax returns reveal just why Michelle complains to women voters in Ohio about how hard it has been for them to scrape by with the "public service" jobs

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2ZhODdkMGFhYmEwMDEwM2UwMWMwMzU1ZWZjYTY0OWQ=

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:57 AM on 03/26/2008

Hello...Obama told us back in 2005 that he and his wife had just paid off their large student loans from graduate school, so why is it a mystery that his charitable donations went up after the loans were paid off?

Sheesh...this is such a non-story, it's pathetic.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:16 AM on 03/26/2008

At least Obama puts it out there, warts and all, compared to Hillary who keeps telling everyone - "oh, it's coming we just have to craft all our documents to hide vital information." But does the press put any pressure on her, does SNL write any skits highlighting these facts - NOOOOO. I'm sick of the press and the media making a mockery of providing "objective reporting."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:57 AM on 03/26/2008

They couldn't find anything nefarious in Obama's tax returns so they decide to pick on his charitable contributions. How juvenile is that?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:30 AM on 03/26/2008

Give me a break. So Obama only declared 70,000 of donations on his tax return. He may have given more or he may have given just this. 5% of ones income is a lot. Especially when you have to pay down your student loans and raise two kids. I hope this scrutiny comes up in Hillary's tax return. I bet she gave less than 1% of her income to charity.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:11 AM on 03/26/2008

Obama and the Clintons are not in the same league as far as wealth goes.

Multi millionaire Clintons have many more deductions and tax breaks.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:47 AM on 03/26/2008

Nothing at all wrong with those returns........in fact...I think they are likely more generous than most in the same income bracket.......and even those in higher income brackets. Considering their income was relatively modest for most of that time....they truly gave a lot.

Love the Obama's! Now Hillary where are your returns......McCain? What are you hiding? I also don't expect to see any blacked out returns..........disclose the whole truth!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:52 AM on 03/26/2008

Is the Congressional Black Caucus considered a charity?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:41 AM on 03/26/2008

I wonder how much they gave in political donations that aren't charitable deductions. I give 4-5 times as much to political donations as I do to tax deductible donations.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:12 AM on 03/26/2008

I thought I smelled a whiff of it recently, but it wasn't until this post by Sam Stein that I realized I had to accept the undeniable truth: HuffPo is becoming the Fox News for progressives and liberals.

When attentive focus is more on exaggerating details, sensationalizing trivial information, or aggressively attempting to craft a headline story from a complete non-story, writers guilty of such have no more credibility, nor does the publisher.

To Mr. Stein and everyone else at HuffPo, stop trying to be Fox. They'll win that game, and we'll all lose in the end.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:26 AM on 03/26/2008

Not much of a 'Tithe' at less than 1%...the Church of Christ requests 10%, I think...one might think those years of church attendance went for naught...or for what seemed on the southside of Daleytown like an appropriate appearance at the time. Funny how the 'appearances' game can come back to bite you where you sit, isn't it?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:32 AM on 03/26/2008

Isn't it funny how you are all quick to point out that since Obama attended the church with a pastor with questionable views he must share thesame view and then turn around to condemn him because he didn't do as the pastor preached and give 10% of his income to charity? Wow you are all so transparent it is disturbing. Damn if he does, damn if he doesn't!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:04 PM on 03/27/2008

And of course, there will always be the debate of gross or net in terms of tithing 10%. Personally, I can only afford to tithe based on what I bring home. Perhaps they are doing the same...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:15 PM on 03/28/2008

Time for everyone else to open up. Of course when they do it'll be all over for them.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:56 AM on 03/26/2008

Don't any of the hillary supporters wonder what's taking so long to release records that are years old?
It's funny that most of her records were cleaned, just like bush's military records.

Can't wait to see the tax returns and her earmarks!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:50 AM on 03/26/2008

I'm still waiting to see Obama's tax returns for his years in the ILL state senate. He is the one that claims those years in elective office as giving him more experience than Hillary. So, let's see those tax returns

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:59 AM on 03/26/2008

Guess ol' Barak ain't tithing like the pastor preaches....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:15 AM on 03/26/2008

More accurately I should say: Were it not for the barrier of my computer screen, I suspect that the stench of hypocrisy would be overpowering.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:36 AM on 03/26/2008

So, sklfcats -
Do YOU give 10% of your income to charity? Do YOU, Sam Stein? As I read these posts, the stench of hypocrisy is overpowering...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:33 AM on 03/26/2008

Yes I do and it has gotten me my own business and I own three houses. It works so try it brooklynindy instead of mouthing off...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:25 AM on 03/26/2008

Oh, a 'proserity preaching' believer! Question--is your 10% based on what you actually bring home, or your gross income?

Just kidding--I don't really expect an answer. My point is that 'tithing' is viewed differently by most people.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:17 PM on 03/28/2008

It is useful to note by way of comparison that according to JustGive.org ---

"The average American gives about 3.1% of their income (before taxes) to charity, an increase from previous years but still well below the traditional 10% "tithe" for charity recommended by religious institutions."

So, as they have acquired income and paid off debts - they contribute more than the average American, especially in 2006 where they were more than double.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:56 PM on 03/25/2008

And?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:59 PM on 03/25/2008

And the percentage of charitable donations the Clintons made for the last 7 years? Oh, that's right. No tax returns.....yet. Let me know if they make the mythical 10% requirement. (For that matter, why don't you report how many average Americans making equivalent salaries tithe 10% of their income to charity....besides Mormons.)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:43 PM on 03/25/2008

So Wal-Mart equals Treehouse? No, sorry, but this is a ridiculous comparison.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:40 PM on 03/25/2008

GEE - ya mean that the Obamas don't have big family compounds and ranches???? HUH? You mean that do not come from monied families who grow up giving lots of money (and in some cases NOT) HUH???
I'm embarrassed for you - deplorable that you should judge things in this way. I have some money now - but you know what? I had nothing once. But as I started to accumulate some money - I began to give more to charity. But it was scary to give money away at first - even to the best of causes.
And when I grew my money - it was then more that I gave away.
This article is horrid! As people accumulate, they give more - and that is exactly what this indicates.
Furthermore, anyone who belongs to a church feels the pressure and the necessity to "tithe".
GROW UP Sam Stein! Has your list of contributions grown during the years as your salary increased.
It's difficult to acclimate to new monetary situations when you've come from nothing and subsequent
student loans. Shame on you I say!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:02 PM on 03/25/2008

I am with you 100%!!! Shame on Sam Stein!

When people are living pay check to pay check, paying off student loans while not being very sure of how long you will be able to expect to get paid as a community organizer - a job that can end overnight, it's incredibly difficult to justify donating to anything. If you're making $30,000 per year, giving away $3,000 is ridiculous and foolish. When you're making over $100,000 per year, giving away $10,000 is a little more reasonable, especially when you have a guaranteed minimum income. I know because that's been my experience. When I didn't know how much I could expect to make in a year, I kept all my money. As soon as I was more secure and stabile, I started donating, and I donate a lot.

One more thing. Sitting on a board of a company that sells a product to companies - one of which happens to be Wal-Mart - is a world away from sitting on the board OF Wal-Mart. Even my 6 year old knows that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:13 AM on 03/26/2008

of course there is only 1% chrity REPORTED... After Michelle had her salary doubled , dubiously (it is Cook County) they may have had to reimburse someone

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:01 PM on 03/25/2008

The University of Chicago hospitals is not affiliated with the government of Chicago or Cook County Hospitals. what's your point here? Oh, you don't have one.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:55 PM on 03/25/2008

I am so tired of seeing this same lie repeated about Michelle Obama's salary being doubled after Barack Obama was elected senator. One, yes it increased substantially but it was not doubled, and two, her salary increased because she got a major promotion and was made a vice president at one of the largest and most prestigious hospitals in the nation...and fyi, a VP is a very high level posiiton in a hospital (v. just a title in a lot of businesses) and the salary in not out of the norm...nothing dubious about it...and it was a promotion in the works for a long time before Barack won the election. This is a brilliant woman, who went to Princeton *and* Harvard, she deserved the promotion, and the salary is in line with the role. Get over it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:53 PM on 03/25/2008

"Why is that significant? Treehouse, an Illinois food-processing company on which Michelle Obama served as a board member, is one of the biggest suppliers of pickles and peppers to WalMart, the retail giant that is often loathed in progressive circles." ----------------- UMM...THIS IS NOT SIGNIFICANT!!! Whether you like it or not, Wal-Mart is the largest grocery retailer in the United States. If you're going to be critical, please do your research.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:40 PM on 03/25/2008

Seriously, WalMart is a retail giant with a bad history toward its employees. A RETAILER sells many different products---from big and small companies, from all over the nation. Treehouse pickles are one of the things WalMart stocks? Yawn. A big "So what?"

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:27 PM on 03/25/2008

The pickle and pepper comment is really grasping -

seriously, people don't hate companies that sell to Wal-Mart or people who shop at Wal-Mart - they hate WAL-MART for its business practices, which include using illegal immigrant labor, locking in employees, excessive union busting, substandard wages and benefits, destroying small towns by sucking up all the business and then relocating . . .

none of that has anything to do with where Wal-Mart buys their goods. Well, other than buying stuff from China, but that's a different issue entirely than selling pickles.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:36 PM on 03/25/2008

So the charitable contributions where less than they could have been according to those people whose life consists of counting other people's money. Point is that there is nothing to hide so the tax returns are out there for public consumption.

And then there is Hillary......

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:34 PM on 03/25/2008
Page: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in