When is a tie not a tie? And when is a tie-breaker not a tie-breaker? When our friends in the liberal media are reporting on Obama.
In the course of criticizing Rick Santorum, the reliable Charles Blowset me off with this aside:
Then again, charitable giving doesn’t appear to be high on Motor Mouth Santorum’s list of priorities. As The Washington Post pointed out, based on Santorum’s tax return disclosure this week, he has given the least amount to charity of the four presidential candidates who have disclosed their tax returns. (Ron Paul has not.) His charitable giving was just 1.8 percent of his adjusted gross income.
The Obamas were the highest, giving 14.2 percent, even though their income was second lowest.
Obama won with 14.2%? That seems odd, since even the Huffers headlined the news that Romney gave 16% to charity over 2009-2010. So what did the WaPo report?
Here we go:
Romney and Obama vie for title of most charitable; Santorum gave least to charity
Posted by Aaron Blake at 12:40 PM ET, 02/16/2012
The most charitable presidential candidate in the 2012 election is … a tie!
A tie? So when did the tie become a vic for the Big O? Pressing on, we are not surprised to learn that watching journalism majors write about taxes can get ugly:
President Obama and his wife, Michelle, despite having the second-lowest income of the four candidate/spouse combos, gave the highest percentage of their $1.8 million income to charity in 2010, at 13.6 percent.
The wealthiest couple, Mitt Romney and wife Ann, finished slightly ahead, giving 13.8 percent to charity — most of it to the Mormon church. Of course, Romney also made far more than anyone else in 2010, at more than $21 million.
I know what you are thinking, even if you are a WaPo reporter – 13.8% is more than 13.6%. But we can move Obama to the front with a simple adjustment!
But when you calculate charitable giving based on adjustable gross income, Obama actually takes a lead. He and Michelle gave 14.2 percent of their AGI, while the Romneys gave 13.8 percent.
Oh, please – do we really have to look at Obama’s 2010 tax return? In 2010 Barack and Michele reported a Gross Income of $1.795 million; their AGI was $1.728 million. By applying their charitable deductions to the smaller base the WaPo arrived at their winning 14.2%.
But just what was that income adjustment? Well, from page 1 of the return we see that $18,000 was their share of a self-employment tax (associated, I have no doubt, with their book royalties, and I don’t want to know more) and $49,000 was due to a tax-deductible contribution to self-employed retirement plan (similar to an IRA.)
So Michelle and Barack win the “Most Charitable” title because they contributed a higher proportion of their Gross Income to a tax-advantaged retirement plan? I understand that charity begins a home, but really?
I have never figured out what a person gives to charity has to do with being president. I would rather have a president who doesn’t give any money to any charity, than to have one that gives a lot of money to others. We have too many of THOSE people in office already.
I remember when the propaganda media made a big fuss when they found out Bill Gates hadn’t given anything to charities. I don’t care for Bill Gates and I don’t use any of his stuff unless I have to, but his giving or not giving is his business and nobody else’s.
Yes, the Obama’s may have given more to charity, but I would be willing to give my entire social security check to charity if in exchange I get a large home, free food, free transportation, free medical, donations and gifts from thousands, and the guarantee that the good politicians from Chicago made sure I was well taken care of for life. On the other hand, what has Obama ever earned? This doesn’t mean crap about his donations. He still needs a second term, only he deserves it in Leavenworth.