McCain Tax Returns: Latest News

UPDATE: Howard Dean has issued the following statement:

John McCain's lack of transparency is troubling and raises questions about what he's hiding. From his willingness to skirt FEC law to releasing less information about his tax returns than any other candidate since Ronald Reagan, John McCain continues a troubling pattern of thinking the rules don't apply to him. McCain should hold himself to the same standard set by past presidential candidates, both Republican and Democrat, and the example already set by both Democratic candidates.

---
John McCain has released his tax returns for 2006 and 2007 today, his first release of such information in 25 years. However, unlike the Democratic candidates who released information for themselves and their spouses, McCain will not release information on his wife's estimated $100 million fortune.

The Associated Press reports on John McCain's tax returns:

McCain's individual return was released Friday. It shows that McCain paid $84,000 in taxes in 2007. He gave $105,000 to charity and also donated $177,000 in royalties from five of his books, including the biographical "Faith of My Fathers" and "Worth the Fighting For."

His income included his Senate salary of $161,708, a Navy pension of $58,358 and Social Security income of $23,157.

30 YEARS OF PRECEDENT
Candidates have historically released copies of their past tax returns. The Democratic National Committee points out that every candidate -- on both sides of the aisle -- dating back to Carter and Ford have released past returns.

PRIVATE LIVES
During the 2004 election, Republicans criticized Theresa Heinz Kerry for not disclosing her personal tax returns (she eventually released a copy of her 1040). RNC Chairman Ed Gillepsie claimed then:

"Throughout history, presidential candidates have disclosed income tax information prior to Election Day. We believe Americans value disclosure and transparency in campaigns. During the 2003 filing year, Sen. Kerry made a $6 million loan to his campaign based on the value of a home jointly owned with his wife."

The McCain camp has suggested that Cindy McCain's fortune has no bearing on her husband. However Cindy McCain's fortune and business connections have played a huge part in her husband's political career:

The McCains' marriage has mixed business and politics from the beginning, according to an expansive review by The Associated Press of thousands of pages of campaign, personal finance, real estate and property records nationwide. The paperwork chronicles the McCains' ascent from Arizona newlyweds to political power couple on the national stage.

As heiress to her father's stake in Hensley & Co. of Phoenix, Cindy McCain is an executive whose worth may exceed $100 million. Her beer earnings have afforded the GOP presidential nominee a wealthy lifestyle with a private jet and vacation homes at his disposal, and her connections helped him launch his political career -- even if the millions remain in her name alone. Yet the arm's-length distance between McCain and his wife's assets also has helped shield him from conflict-of-interest problems.

THINK OF THE CHILDREN
The National Review pointed out in 2004 about Heinz Kerry's tax returns:

Disclose the full form, Teresa. Privacy? Oh, come off it. How can disclosure of any part of Mrs. Kerry's personal 1040 relate to her children, all of whom are now in their thirties?

Meanwhile, from the McCain camp:

Aides say Cindy McCain will not release her tax returns to protect the privacy of her four children; details of their wealth are included in her filing.

Still waiting for similar outrage from the National Review.

Comments

[psfurlong356]

How do you pay $650,000 in taxes on $250,000 in income? I'm confused.

[sebocd]

You just pay it and wait by the mail box for that nice fat income tax return. I guess.

[TXfemmom]

McCain should not be given a free ride on this. His wife's fortune, and how she makes her money is very, very pertinent to whether he should ever be considered for the Presidency.

[RSU]

I don't suppose reading to find your answers helped much. Here, let me help you . . . "As heiress to her father's stake in Hensley & Co. of Phoenix, Cindy McCain is an executive whose worth may exceed $100 million."

Which part don't you seem to grasp? That she is heiress to a fortune through her fathers stake in a company or that she's an executive and has been earning a living separate from her husbands?

I'm betting that most of her wealth is on paper anyway.

I do have one question though . . . before Paris Hilton's grandfather gave away his fortune, were you as concerned at how she got her money as you seem to be over McCain's wife?

[sebocd]

There seems to be a trend here. Last presidendial race it was Kerry and the Heiress. This time around it.s McCain an the Heiress. Vote for an American Giggalo.
At least Bonnie & Clyde Clinton earned their fortune the hard way Well, sort of.

[JulieSA]

She makes her money selling beer.

Anyone who has a problem with that must be some kind of elitist out-of-touch Hyde Park denizen.

I'm sure there are all kinds of other investments, too, because once you accumulate some money, you have to diversify. It's insane to keep it all in one basket. What kind of investment could disqualify her husband from the presidency?

[Toonadude]

She is also charitable ---- she supplies free brew for the keggers at Liberty University.

[Gilda]

Heinz ketshup is too thick and sweet.

[savory1]

I am a hard core Dem. I love Obama and as much as I hate to admit it will vote for Hillery if I have to and it will be hard because I can't stand the way she has campaigned. With all of that said, I do not care about Cindy McCain's tax returns. She is rich beyond the everyday person's comprehension, we all know that by now. It makes no difference to me. Now lets get to some real issues......

[psfurlong356]

what? you'll vote for Hillary in the General? or vote for her even though you like Obama? oh and you spelled Hillary wrong...

[cathye]

Real Democrats will hold their noses and vote for the Democratic candidate, no matter who wins. I'll hold my nose and vote for Hillary, but I honestly hope and pray that Obama wins because he's the most gifted orator we've had running for president in decades, and while Hillary speaks well, she lacks the raw oratorical prowess that Obama has been gifted with.

Any Democrat who says that they will vote for McCain out of spite is being a childish crybaby. On the other hand, if McCain wins, I think Canada will see an upswing in work visa applications from the US.

[solarenergy]

"The McCain camp maintains that Cindy McCain's fortune has no bearing on the candidate."

Oh. They must be talking to Republicans. Because apparently the McCain camp thinks its audience is STUPID.

[ptarantino]

McCain got 23K from Social Security this year! Wowzers

[Boboday555]

No kidding.
All the neo-cons are against Social Security until they start getting their checks.

Now, I know the repressives aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer but, come on!!!

[ThePodiumIsMine]

And libs wet their pants if anyone suggest some control on social security. Something like, oh, a means test?

[Irons]

I'm liberal and I think it should means tested. No way should McCain be collecting SS.

[Bluebloodsbastardson]

It would have been helpful if that were $23k were in the VA budget, multiply that by all the old rich dickheads that get it and don't need it and you could build a Taj Mahal of a hospital to replace Walter Reed and build several smaller ones across the country. Wowsers, you run into some really dumb MF'ers here on this site........

[Boboday555]

Another hyper-rich republican who avoids paying their taxes...
Gosh, what were the chances?

[Leppy311]

Americans are pretty generous. Three-quarters of American families give to charity -- and those who do, give an average of $1,800. Of course that means one-quarter of us don't give at all. What distinguishes those who give from those who don't? It turns out there are many myths about that.
To test them, ABC's "20/20" went to Sioux Falls, S.D., and San Francisco. We asked the Salvation Army to set up buckets at their busiest locations in both cities. Which bucket would get more money? I'll get to that in a minute.

San Francisco and Sioux Falls are different in some important ways. Sioux Falls is small and rural, and more than half the people go to church every week.
San Francisco is a much bigger and richer city, and relatively few people attend church. It is also known as a very liberal place, and since liberals are said to "care more" about the poor, you might assume people in San Francisco would give a lot.
But the idea that liberals give more is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above-average percentage of their income, all but one (Maryland) were red -- conservative -- states in the last presidential election.
"When you look at the data," says Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks, "it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

[baylaw73]

The most obvious problem with the example you cite is that The Salvation Army is a religious organization. I won't give to them because I abhor religion. I do , however, give to charity. Also, it is entirely possible that liverals give more, in spite of the data. See, if the average income of a conservative is $10,000, and the average income of a liberal is $20,000, the liberal can give more net dollars and still give a smaller percentage of their income. Also, please cite the source of your data. I am not saying you are wrong, conservatives may indeed give more. Also, the median gift would be a far better measure than the $1,800 average you cite. If Bill and Melinda Gates, and Warren Buffet, each give a billion, that alone will skew the data. I'd also like to know what the definition of charity is. Is church included? If so, then that's a big factor, as I suspect conservatives go to chruch more, and tithe more. That's obligation, not generosity. I'd also like to know who volunteers to actually help people more. Time is more valuable than money in my estimation. Lastly, I question the reliability of slef-reported donation data. Conservatives are bound to lie more often, period. That is beyond doubt.

[GeoLee]

Go to Generousgiving.org if you want some actual statistics on givin. It shows patterns of giving as does a study done by the Center on Wealth and Philanthrophy in boston that ranks state by state giving as recorded on IRS tax forms. In general Protestants give more both to church and to other agencies than do Catholics. Baby boomers are more generaous than the baby busters in monetary terms, but baby busters do donate time and in other ways than money. OVerall, the 150,000-300,000 group give 1.9 %, those making over 300,000 give 4.4%, those making 40,000-100,000 give the least 1.2-1.4%, The folks making less than 20,000 are as good as the group making over 300,000. Interestingly, however, the very wealthiest have a potential of giving far more with absolutely no interruption in their life style. Obviously the same cannot be said fo rthose under 20,000. As for age variables, give it to the retired set.

[timothyi]

Completely, utterly unscientific, but I guess conservatives don't hold with science--we shouldn't confuse their beliefs with facts or evidence. How about this for an alternate explanation? People who work for large corporations typically have charitable giving plans that allow pre-tax contributions. I research charities carefully and then give roughly 10% of my yearly income to them in this way, so I don't feel the need to throw dollar bills in buckets. Did you ever consider that more people in San Francisco have access to corporate plans than those in Sioux Falls?

That's one alternate explanation, there are lots of others. But I'm sure you don't want to hear that, since the results of a flawed study are just wonderful if they support your views, where you would dismiss the results of a rigorous study if they went against your views.

[PopeRatzo]

Americans are pretty generous all right. Did you notice that John McCain collected $23,157 in Social Security payments last year? His wife rakes in $100 million a year, McCain gets $161,708 from his Senate gig that he never has the time for, and the government is paying him another $58k pension from the Navy.

That's a lot to be sucking from the government teat. He gets free health care for life paid for by the taxpayers, too, but he wants to make sure low-income Americans "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps". He seems to have done a pretty good job of pulling himself up by his wife's bra straps.

I wonder who wears the pants in that family. "Johnnie, could you fetch the pedicure kit? I'd like to wear my open-toed pumps to the Military Contractors' Ball tonight. Be a dear and get on your knees and start buffing my piggies."

[helonias]

So tell us about the divorce rate in the bible belt while your at it.

[Leppy311]

Researching his book, Brooks found that the conservative/liberal difference goes beyond money:
"The people who give one thing tend to be the people who give everything in America. You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away."
Conservatives are even 18 percent more likely to donate blood.
The second myth is that people with the most money are the most generous. But while the rich give more in total dollars, low-income people give almost 30 percent more as a share of their income.
Says Brooks: "The most charitable people in America today are the working poor."
We saw that in Sioux Falls, S.D. The workers at the meat packing plant make about $35,000, yet the Sioux Falls United Way says it gets more contributions of over $500 from employees there than anywhere else.
Note that Brooks said the "working" poor. The nonworking poor -- people on welfare -- are very different, even though they have the same income. The nonworking poor don't give much at all.
What about the middle class? Well, while middle-income Americans are generous compared to people in other countries, when compared to both the rich and working poor in America, Brooks says, "They give less."
When asked why, many say, "I don't have enough money to spare." But it's telling that the working poor manage to give.

[baylaw73]

The very same "working poor" that the republican throws under the bus with reckless abandon to further enrich their true base, the uber-rich? The blood data is questionable because, for example, some people are not allowed to donate blood. I suspect HIV positive people are liberal by a vast majority. Your whole point seems to be that conservatives are generous. Well, that may be true for the lower income levels, but that makes it all the more painful to me that those are the victims of the abhorrent social and fiscal policies of the Republican party. Shame on them!

[PopeRatzo]

I wonder how much the "compassionate conservatives" would give to charity if it wasn't all tax deductible?

While it's true that conservatives give more cash to charity (because they are generally richer), you will find that liberals are several times more likely to actually give of their time and energy to do something for the poor, like working in a food pantry or homeless shelter.

As someone who spends a fair amount of time volunteering at one of the biggest shelters here in Chicago, I can tell you that of the people I meet who work behind the scenes are much, much more likely to be Obama liberals than Bush/McCain right-wing turds. In fact, I'm trying to recall if I've ever met a single Republican in the last 10 years of volunteer work I've done...

[nhcracker]

I run a 501c3 for the benefit of the Homeless. It may surprise you how many people choose to forego the Proof & Value of Donation which allows them to write off their contributions.

Truly generous people do not need validation for their kindness.

[Leppy311]

And the rich? What about America's 400 billionaires? I'll report on them in next week's column.
Finally, Brooks says one thing stands out as the biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable: "their religious participation." Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money -- four times as much.
But doesn't that giving just stay within the religion?
"No," says Brooks, "Religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly nonreligious charities. Religious people give more blood; religious people give more to homeless people on the street."
And what happened in our little test? Well, even though people in Sioux Falls make, on average, half as much money as people in San Francisco, and even though the San Francisco location was much busier -- three times as many people were within reach of the bucket -- by the end of the second day, the Sioux Falls bucket held twice as much money.
Another myth bites the dust.

[Tommygun264]

Thank God for Cindy "husky eyes" McCain. After Mitt Romney and Rudy dropped out of the race I thought things were going to get boring, but now we have John and Cindy McCain, the Gomez and Morticia Addams of the Republican party. Hurry up and drop out, Hillary - I can't wait to see John McCain and Barack Obama face off in a debate!

[newunderground]

She's a demon. The secret's out!!

[cariintexas]

So is incorrect spelling. Get a life.

[john85msy]

This is B.S.! The (R)Republicans cried foul in 2004 that John Kerry's wife Theresa Heinz had to release her tax info. So why Cindy McCain concealed hers? Are the (R)Republicans affraid it may come across as being ELITIST! Out of touch with regular everyday Americans?

[Tommygun264]

But McCain is a straight-talker, a maverick. At least that's what all the reporters who pal around at his barbecues say. And who could doubt the sincerity of a guy whose "grilling" by political correspondents starts off with the reporters presenting him a tray of baked goods, with SPRINKLES, no less. You negative Nellies better get with the program or you'll miss out on the inside scoop on John's secrets for grilling spareribs.

[MrJoyboy]

So McCain is married to an alien overlord?