Cindy McCain, Aristocrat

[elfs]

In a recent flurry of conversation, the question of whether or not Cindy McCain's calling Obama "elitist" was inappropriate while she wore $280,000 earrings and someone, during the conversation, said that there's a difference between "wealthy" and "elitist."

There certainly is. But in America, there's also a difference in the way wealth is perceived. As John McCain put it, echoing a Jonah Goldberg talking point, "Americans don't hate the rich. They want to be like them."

I think that statement is mostly true. Americans don't hate Warren Buffet or Bill Gates for their wealth. We may not love their products (in Buffet's case we may not even understand it), but we understand that these men have, more or less, earned their wealth. They've done something, they've run something to make themselves so wealthy. They have created wealth for others in their wake.

We can't say that about Cindy McCain. She's a trust fund recipient and an "absentee owner" of her own company. She's bankrolled her husband's campaigns and stood beside him, but we don't see her leaving a wake of prosperity. She is quintessentially the kind of rich person that Americans instinctively dislike: rich by inheritance, maintained by a parasitic infrastructure that moves money around, feeding off attention and acclamation for which she is completely without merit. Unlike Buffet or Gates, if she's not elitist she is aristocratic.

Putting her up in front of the Republican National Convention was a mistake. She belongs to Bush's people: "the haves and the have mores." With no demonstrable meritocratic story to advance, she only helps to turn the middle class against her husband.

Comments

[damiana-swan.livejournal.com]

It doesn't really help that Cindy has been busily doing her best to leave part of her family behind. She has a half-sister whom she doesn't acknowledge (she tells people she was an only child) and whom her father damn near left out of his will--she received $10k, Cindy got everything else. And apparently Cindy hasn't exactly held out a helping hand to her older sister since.

Older sis, BTW, says she's voting for Obama.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

A different perspective, but ultimately supportive:

Bill Gates.... I have mixed feelings over. I think he cheated, some, to get where he got... OTOH, I do admire the fact that he's giving it away, and applaud where he's giving it. Uncle Warren.... I envy that man. It's not that I want his money. It's his money, he earned it, fairly AFAIK. I want his ability to make money. (or more properly, a copy of it... here goes the whole IP argument again...) I want a stash *I earned*.

But, yeah. I wanna be like Uncle Warren.

Cindy freakin' McCain didn't earn her stash... and she's not using it responsibly. I mean, most of the Kennedys tried to become statesmen. Two of'em got offed for messing with the mob, one drove his girlfriend off a bridge, and one let his wife browbeat him into flying into the drink off Martha's Vineyard.... but they *tried*. Cindy McCain's company is making cheap swill for dumb masses, and she's trying to get her husband, a snap-judgement-making, has-been naval officer elected Emperor. I do believe that's against the company policy of drinking responsibly.

[rhonan.livejournal.com]

And unlike John and Cindy McCain, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have both directly added to my prosperity, as I am currently supporting computers running Mr. Gates' lovely operating system for a company owned by Buffet.

[danceswithlife]

In a sense the scariest thing of all is that the McCain's don't seem to Get It. They don't understand why people don't love them. They seem to think that their choice to marry makes each of them look better in the public eye. Not.

[edichka2.livejournal.com]

I agree that "elitist" does not necessarily equal "wealthy."

I think that the "elitist" epithet is intended to convey that the candidate so termed thinks he's better or smarter or more sophisticated than the masses. (As if that were a bad thing.)

I think it's intended to resonate with the huge segment of our idiot society that, given enough money and power, would make itself just as crass and stupid wealthy as it in actuality is crass and stupid poor.

- Eddie

[doodlesthegreat.livejournal.com]

At this point, I'll hold T. Boone Pickens in the same league as Gates and Buffet.

[radarrider.livejournal.com]

Now with correct formatting and linky goodness!

From here (http://philanthropy.com/news/updates/4437/john-mccain-discloses-data-on-his-charity-giving):

In 2007, the Arizona senator reported $405,409 in total income and contributed $105,467, or 26 percent of his total income, to charity.

In 2006, Mr. McCain said he had $358,414 in total income and donated $64,695, or 18 percent of his total income, to charity.

...

Mrs. McCain has donated the same amount to charity as her husband — a total of $170,162 for each of them — over the past two years, his campaign said.

...

Mr. McCain’s campaign said he donates his royalties from his books to charities and that “this sum has totaled over $1,800,000 since 1998 when he signed his first book deal.” The campaign said his book income added up to $256,898 for 2006 and 2007.

The senator’s campaign also said that Mr. McCain has donated to charity a total of $450,000 since 1991— money he received from increases in his Senate salary — “because he opposed the Congressional pay increase at that time and pledged not to accept the pay raises.”

From here (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/04/20/20080420firstlady.html):

But beyond the designer clothing and the perfect blond hair is a Cindy McCain few have ever seen, one who contrasts sharply with the smiling, glossy image she projects alongside the senator on the campaign trail.

This Cindy McCain harbors a ruggedness and fearlessness befitting her war-hero husband.

She has waded through minefields in Cambodia. Slept out in the bush in tents in Angola. Comforted children under the broiling sun in Morocco.

But the 53-year-old's extensive charity work has been largely overlooked.

Read the rest for an extensive rundown of Cindy McCain's charitable activities.

From here (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0704250022apr25,0,3205433.story):

On their just-filed 2006 tax return, Obama and his wife, a hospital administrator, reported taxable income of $983,626 and claimed deductions for $60,307 in charitable donations. In 2005 they earned a combined $1.65 million and gave away about $77,300.

In 2002, the year before Obama launched his campaign for U.S. Senate, the Obamas reported income of $259,394, ranking them in the top 2 percent of U.S. households, according to Census Bureau statistics. That year the Obamas claimed $1,050 in deductions for gifts to charity, or 0.4 percent of their income. The average U.S. household totaled $1,872 in gifts to charity in 2002, according to the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.

...

From 1997 through 2002, the Obamas reported devoting less than 1 percent of their household income to charity. In 2005, as the book-deal money poured in, they reported $1.65 million in combined income, with $77,315, or 4.7 percent, going to charity.

Only a few of the tax returns released by Obama detail the recipients of his charity. In 1998, when the Obamas reported a combined household income of $191,146 and $1,100 in cash donations to charity, the biggest gift went to Trinity. It totaled $400, about 0.2 percent of their combined income.

In 2005 they gave the church $5,000 and in 2006 it received $22,500. Over the past two years, the Obamas have claimed charitable deductions for $45,000 in gifts to reading programs; $31,000 to CARE, an international aid group; $13,107 to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation; and $5,000 to the Muntu Dance Theatre. Michelle Obama serves on the board of directors of the South Side dance troupe.

I know the Obamas have done some charity work besides donations. However, there doesn't seem to be much information on what it might be. I did find this (http://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/998-barak-obama), but it's pretty thin. If you know of more, please let me know.

In any event, I daresay you own Cindy McCain an apology.

[radarrider.livejournal.com]

Please ignore the messed up formatting.

[radarrider.livejournal.com]

Okay, if you're going to bring up Cindy McCain's half-sister, you really can't ignore Barack Obama's half-brother. Or does he not count for some reason? Perhaps because he's not a US citizen and therefore doesn't get to vote?

Admittedly, there are differences, the main one being that Cindy is the inheritor of her father's fortune and neither Barack nor Michelle Obama inherited much if anything from their parents. I will grant that this counts for something.

On the other hand, we've only been given Kathleen's side of the story. Could there be a reason Jim Hensley left his fortune to Cindy? We don't know. I've looked around and I haven't been able to find anything that addresses this. The closest thing I can find is just that Hensley's will was heavily amended. If you know of any additional information, please pass it along.

[lisakit.livejournal.com]

Wow, I'm impressed.

I'm wondering though, you've got percentages of charity to income. What about percentages of charity to total worth? I mean, the Dems are claiming the Obama's are much more charitable and the Reps are saying the McCain's are... It would be one more measure to put things in perspective.

Also, how much did the McCain's & Obama's start out with for campaign funds? Maybe the Obama's were saving up for the race? And did both families claim all of their charity (though, how would you account for unclaimed)?

Just askin' since you seem to know where to find the info. ;)

[radarrider.livejournal.com]

Without knowing the exact numbers, it's safe to say that the McCains are worth more than the Obamas given Cindy's inheritance of her father's fortune and business. However, I don't think that charity as a percentage of total worth is valid given that much, if not most of that total worth is tied up in non-liquid assets, namely the business, its physical assets such as property, buildings, equipment, etc. as well as any stock or other investments.

It's possible that one or both didn't claim some charitable donations but, as you mentioned, how would we know? I figure that, in this area, there would be no upside to leaving any donations unclaimed but I'm not an expert.

As for campaign funds, I don't know how much they started out with at the beginning. However, here's links to the summary data for each candidate.

John McCain (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cid=N00006424)

Barack Obama (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cid=N00009638&cycle=2008)

Note that in both cases, self-financing is listed as $0. You will also note that Obama is the first candidate to opt out of public financing in the general election (not the primary) since the program was put in place, after earlier promising to use public financing. This means he'll be able to spend as much as he can get in donations whereas McCain will be limited according to a formula that is probably rather opaque and requires an accountant to figure out. :)

[elfs.livejournal.com]

I actually think that's all quite admirable. Far more gracious and generous than I can afford to be. From what you've described, she's been good at spending her inheritance, rather than actually creating wealth. She's chosen to spend it admirably-- it's lovely noblesse oblige but what you've posted in no way contradicts my original point that Cindy McCain's primary role in life resembles that of Paris Hilton. She's an aristocrat.