June 10, 2014

Quote of the Day

Put down your Kleenexes, Sec, Clinton did not have it perhaps quite so bad as she averred...

Leaving aside for a brief moment how utterly farcical it is to use "struggle" and "houses" in the same sentence, the notion that the Clintons were presented in their post-presidency with anything other than a license to print money is unyielding in its abject hilarity. By 2001, Bill Clinton had made $200,000 per annum for eight years while paying nothing toward his housing or upkeep, and, in addition to the extraordinarily lucrative speaking gigs that American ex-presidents are now to expect, he had a lifetime of pensions and benefits to look forward to. (David Graham points out that, in the last 14 years, he has received nearly $16 million from the government.) By the end of the year in which he left office, the couple had made $16 million and enjoyed between $5 and $30 million in assets. By 2004, they had $50 million to their names. And by 2014, Clinton had become the highest-earning former president in America's history, with net assets of nearly $200 million. Being smart sorts, the couple knew full well that this was coming, which is why in 1999, with their apparently destructive legal bills still racking up, they bought a $6 million house in Chappaqua, N.Y., so that Hillary could legally run for the Senate. One suspects that if the Clintons had been genuinely worried that their legal fights might bankrupt them, they would not have done this, nor would friend Terry McAuliffe have agreed to loan them $1.3 million toward its purchase. -- Charlie Cooke

Hat-tip Jim Geraghty

UPDATE: In spite of the lengthy excerpt, whole thing the please read -- it is an impressive takedown of the Clintons which might come in handy over the next couple of years.

UPDATE II: Thanks, Facebook!


Quote of the Day Posted by John Kranz at June 10, 2014 10:18 AM

I'm not the world's largest Clinton fan, yet I find something to criticize in the above quote.

I will start by admitting I don't know exactly what Hillary said and I did not whole thing the please read so I may be way off base here...

BUT I have a problem with the argument that so and so could not possibly be struggling because they make X amount of dollars and have X dollars in assets. The Clintons income and asset numbers sound very large to me but I am certain the jg and dagny income and asset numbers would sound very large to some people as well.

I still feel entitled to complain that the economy sucks and my dollar doesn't go as far anymore. If you are in debt and struggling to pay bills, it feels bad no matter where on the income scale you fall.

As I do not believe that those lower on the income scale have a claim to what I have worked for, I therefore do not believe I get to tell those higher on the scale what their status should be.

The question of whether the Clintons actually, "earned," what they have is a different question and whole other matter. I would wish they hadn't collected an additional 16 million of taxpayer dollars but as JK noted in another post, that amount is in the noise range for governments.

Posted by: dagny at June 10, 2014 6:47 PM

I do not think that we should engage in class envy against the Clintons -- even though it world be positively fruit juicy to turn that tactic back on those who claimed that Gov. Romney was somehow "too rich" to be president.

But I'm not sure I'll join on your -- or Sec. Clinton's -- right to whine. Yes, you possess it but said person on lower rung has a more absolute right to laugh at you for doing so. And her ability to make five time the median annual income for an hour's gabbing at some cronies justifies some good eye-rolling.

If you are missing any context it's that she trotted out this tear-jerk to defend herself against Diane Sawyer's questions about $200K speaking fees. Had she taken the dagny approach and said "Diane, I was awesome -- they should've tipped me and washed my car" then I'd be in. But this is because she is embarrassed to be in the class she's in.

She also complains about the taxes. My sympathy chip is perhaps not completely soldered in today.

Posted by: jk at June 10, 2014 7:24 PM

A very enjoyable article! Not only does it reveal Empress Hillary's empty wardrobe, it suggests an erudite replacement acronym for 'ROFLMAO' with the phrase "unyielding in its abject hilarity." UAH? UIIAH?

Dagny's defense of the wealthy from attack for being wealthy is worthy, but not in the case of government royalty like Bill and Hillary Clinton, who lived rent and mortgage free in state and federal mansions for a couple of decades. However, what I found most interesting was HRH HRC's reference to taxes:

Her husband, she told Sawyer, "had to make double the money because of, obviously, taxes."

"Because of, obviously, taxes." Is she suggesting that, prior to leaving government service, their incomes were not taxable? I find no support for that reality, so what did she mean? "Double the money" compared to what?

But leaving aside the obvious issue that "yes, Ms. Clinton, so does every working American" she was caught by Ms. Sawyer's inopportune question, which revealed the obvious parallel between "astronomical speaking fees" and "obscene profits" - the former being Sawyer's characterization of her and her husband's *ahem* "earnings" and the later being HRH HRC's characterization of any profit earned by anyone who is not a contributor to her campaign. Marie Antoinette comes to mind.

I do feel a twinge of sympathy for HRH however since, if she has parroted class-warfare egalitarian rhetoric long enough to convince herself it is morally justified, the cognitive dissonance must genuinely keep her awake at night. (Ready for 3am phone calls, perhaps.)

Posted by: johngalt at June 11, 2014 3:15 PM

The Refugee saw some of clips and it seemed to be HRH attempting to say, "I feel your pain." Unfortunately for her, it came off very hollow. Trying to imply that she and Bill were just a paycheck away from homelessness as they left the White House just doesn't pass the laugh test.

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at June 11, 2014 4:26 PM | What do you think? [4]