Obama’s Financial Giving Is Lacking
Posted: Friday, April 04, 2008
by Laura Trahan
Personal finances are always a touchy subject, because yes they are personal. They are the decisions made between husbands and wives and God. Yet, when it comes to serving in a leadership role, should the spending habits of those wanting to take that role not be considered as a contributing factor of who is more qualified? Barack Obama recently released his personal finance tax records and I found it rather disturbing how little Obama gave to charity. Should this topic really matter? I think so. I think that if he is going to decide the spending habits of the United States, it should be considered how he views generally giving back to the community.
The Obamas contend that when they were making around $250,000, they could not afford to give any more. They felt $250,000 was not enough money for them to afford to give anymore? Amazing.
Arthur C. Brooks, author of Gross National Happiness, refers to their explanation as common. "Before we dismiss this explanation, it is worth noting that this is not an uncommon upper-income excuse for not giving. According to 2000 data from the Independent Sector (a trade group for nonprofit organizations), among people with above-average incomes who do not give charitably, a majority actually say it is because they don't have enough money."
Brooks has found that it is mostly the working poor who gives to charity. I think that is most likely because they are in a place in society where they actually see the hurt that goes on among this class of people. They work with these people, live with these people, watch these people suffer so they know the hurt and giving back is all the power they have to help.
The Obamas of the world are so busy spending their money to actually see what it is really like to have to live paycheck to paycheck and have daily needs just to fight to survive. Most studies show, according to Brooks, that the working poor tend to give away between four and five percent of their incomes, on average, while the rich give away between three and four percent.
I know what you are thinking at this point. So, Barack is just like all the other leaders of our country who make a lot of money but don't give back. Where he isn't. Brooks in his article compares the Obamas to the Cheneys. The key is when the Obamas did make a lot more money from book royalties they did give more, whopping five and six percent of their income.
Now lets compare that to the Cheneys. Brooks says In 2006, the Cheneys who had a combined income of $8.8 million, largely due to Mrs. Cheney's books and the couple's investment income. Just how much did the Cheneys give to charity? They gave 78 percent of their income, or $6.9 million.
Does this matter? I find it appalling that someone such as Obama would speak the speak about wanting to help those in need, but not do it before running for office. I would challenge the Obamas to try living off of what they actually gave to charity and then see what they really can afford in life.
If Obama wasn't running for president, I don't think this would be an issue. But you have to ask yourself if you feel comfortable electing a president that gives so little to others when he has so much to give. Of course, all of this comes down to your own values and beliefs on giving so it is all your decision as to if it matters to you or not.
I would love to hear your thoughts, though on the matter. Do you think it matters how much they give? Does this information sway you on how you will vote in the upcoming election? Is it no big deal?
This Article has been viewed 366 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (6 total)I don't think his (or any other politician's) personal finances are any of our business? I think we should stick to the real issues.Terry, thanks for the comment. Let me ask you this, do you think a big deal should have been made out of the Governor of New York's actions? Or (dare I say?) President Clinton? I know people believe that a politician's private life and public life should be kept separate. And I can kind of accept that. Personally, I believe what a person does with his own life says a lot about what he does with ours.
I think you raise a very valid point Laura, there is a big difference between talking about what you believe in and talking about what your speech writer and spin Doctor has told you to say. At the end of the day, charitable people 'give' to charity. Actions speak louder than words as they say.Thanks Cre! I couldn't have said it better.
I think the issue should be more about how well those seeking public office spend their money. Can they be sensible about spending or are they frivolous. Also, how much money you have in savings and how much you feel you can give to charity is always a personal call. Are you asking everyone to adopt a lifestyle similar to yours? Just because you might be comfortable making do with less money than someone else doesn't mean that they should be comfortable with less. And I don't believe a person's worthiness shoud be determined by how much or even if they give to charity.Dianne, thanks for the comment. I agree with your first statement. I certainly don't want to entrust the budget of the country to someone who can't balance their own! But I do think it is important to question why someone who is such a big proponent of the government providing everything for everyone when he hasn't done anything on his own to help. Why would I want a President who is charitable with my money when he isn't charitable with his own?
hi laura, this was one of those thought provoking articles. i, too, believe that the fact the a person doesn't contribute enough money is necessarily the problem, but what his thoughts about being charitable are. if there isn't enough money, there are services that need volunteers, etc. it aspires to where one's heart is, and possibly their greed. thanks for a good article, best regards, sueThanks Sue. I agree with you 100%.
Wow! And he claims to be a Christian and church member? I know people who live on $1,000-$1500 a month, yet they manage to give a MINIMUM of 10%! This was an excellent article, Laura. I had not heard those figures before. I heard what the Clinton's gave, but not the other two. Very good job, Miss Laura!Thanks April! Although I will say that I would love to live on what the Cheneys had after they gave away their 78%!
Laura, This is an insightful and very well written article. It provoked a lot of thought and raised points I had not even considered. I think thats what good writing is all about. Thanks, Rev Michael Bresciani
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.