About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Discussing Cindy McCain's tax returns, NBC's Curry did not note effect on John McCain of wife's fortune or benefit to Cindy of tax cuts her husband now supports

May 08, 2008 7:50 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: During an interview, Today co-host Ann Curry asked Cindy McCain about her refusal to release her tax returns, but did not challenge McCain's refusal by noting that John McCain's campaign has benefited financially from her wealth, and without noting that McCain supports the permanent extension of President Bush's tax cuts, from which those with capital gains -- something that would be indicated on Cindy McCain's tax returns -- benefit significantly.

103 Comments

On the May 8 edition of NBC's Today, co-host Ann Curry interviewed Cindy Hensley McCain, Sen. John McCain's wife, who said in response to calls for her to release her tax returns: "[M]y husband and I have been married 28 years, and we have filed separate tax returns for 28 years. This is a privacy issue. My husband is the candidate." Curry responded by asking, "So you'll never release, you're saying? ... Even if you're first lady?" After McCain said, "No," Curry added, "Because that is -- even though not an elected position, you would be in a very public role." McCain replied, "I'm not the candidate." Beyond noting Cindy McCain's "very public role" if she became first lady, Curry did not challenge her with any other reason why her tax returns are relevant to the presidential campaign. Among those reasons: John McCain, and therefore John McCain's campaign, benefits from his wife's wealth, and the tax returns would indicate the extent to which Cindy McCain -- and presumably therefore John McCain -- has benefited from President Bush's tax cuts, which McCain supports permanently extending.

In an April 27 New York Times article, Barry Meier and Margot Williams reported that McCain's campaign used a corporate jet owned by his wife's company, Hensley & Co., "over a seven-month period beginning last summer" and that "[f]or five of those months, the plane was used almost exclusively for campaign-related purposes." Meier and Williams also reported that "McCain's campaign was able to use his wife's corporate plane like a charter jet while paying first-class rates, several campaign finance experts said. Several of those experts, however, added that his campaign's actions, while keeping with the letter of law, did not reflect its spirit."

Further, Associated Press reporter Sharon Theimer, in an April 4 article, wrote that "[t]he 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." From the article:

Within a few years of marrying Cindy Hensley, the daughter of a multimillionaire Anheuser-Busch distributor, John McCain won his first election. He was new to Arizona politics and fundraising in the 1982 race for the House of Representatives, and his campaign quickly fell into debt. Personal money -- tens of thousands of dollars in loans to his campaign from McCain bank accounts -- helped him survive.

Anheuser-Busch's political action committee was among McCain's earliest donors. Cindy McCain's father, James Hensley, and other Hensley & Co. executives gave so much money that the Federal Election Commission ordered McCain to give some of it back. His campaign used Hensley office equipment such as computers and copiers, and Cindy McCain personally paid some of the campaign's bills.

Campaign reimbursed wife

The campaign gradually reimbursed Hensley for use of its equipment and Cindy McCain for her expenses. The loans -- described initially by McCain as coming from him and his wife -- caught the eye of the FEC, which repeatedly questioned him about them; spouses are held to the same donation limits as everyone else.

McCain told the FEC the loaned money came from his share of joint accounts. At the time, McCain reported drawing a $25,067 salary and $25,000 bonus working for Hensley in public relations and receiving a Navy pension of $11,038 a year. His 1982 financial disclosure report showed bank interest income, but it did not say how much the bank accounts held.

[...]

McCain's campaign still taps Hensley assets: His presidential campaign paid at least $227,000 last year to a limited liability corporation in which his wife and children are invested, King Aviation, for use of its private jet, according to campaign finance reports.

McCain also used Arizona property owned by Cindy McCain for a March 2 barbecue for reporters. The property is worth more than a million dollars and, according to profile by Home & Garden Television, has both a guest house and a third house next door for additional "living and entertainment space."

Curry also failed to point out -- either during the interview or a discussion with Today co-host Meredith Vieira -- that Cindy McCain's tax returns would also indicate the extent to which the McCains have benefited from the Bush tax cuts -- which John McCain supports extending permanently, despite previously opposing them. On April 18, the McCain campaign released John McCain's 2006 and 2007 income tax returns, but not Cindy McCain's separate returns. As part of John McCain's tax returns, the campaign released the "Wages and Salaries" that Cindy McCain received in 2006 and 2007 as chair of Hensley & Co., the McCains' share of interest income from a bank account, and their shares of income from John McCain's book royalties. But the information did not reveal the capital gains income, if any, for Cindy McCain from that period. By contrast, Teresa Heinz Kerry, the wife of Sen. John Kerry, did release what The New York Times reported on October 16, 2004, was a "two-page document" showing "total income of $5,073,554 last year" that enabled the Times to determine how much she had benefited from the Bush tax cuts.

A May 8 MSNBC.com article about Cindy McCain's interview by contributor Mike Celizic also failed to mention the reported intersection of her wealth and John McCain's political career.

From the May 8 edition of NBC's Today:

CURRY: She defended her own right to keep her tax returns private.

McCAIN: You know, my husband and I have been married 28 years, and we have filed separate tax returns for 28 years. This is a privacy issue. My husband is the candidate.

CURRY: So you'll never release, you're saying?

McCAIN: No, no.

CURRY: Never?

McCAIN: No.

CURRY: Even if you're first lady?

McCAIN: No.

CURRY: Because that is -- even though not an elected position, you would be in a very public role.

McCAIN: I'm not the candidate.

CURRY: She disputed what has been described as her husband's temper.

[...]

CURRY: I also asked Cindy McCain about published reports this week that she and her husband didn't vote for George W. Bush after their bruising campaign loss in 2000. She said it's not true. Meredith?

VIEIRA: Very adamant about those tax returns -- a lot of people have been wondering if she's going to release them. She quite definitively said no.

CURRY: She's an extremely wealthy woman.

VIEIRA: Yeah.

CURRY: She's reportedly worth something like $100 million. But she is adamant that she will never release them because she's not a candidate -- she's actually not somebody who's a candidate, ever to be elected.

VIEIRA: All right, Ann. Thank you very much. Very interesting.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Science101 (May 08, 2008 7:57 pm ET)
         

      I dont see the point in significant others tax returns - Heinz, McCain, etc.  The actual person running for office should be liable to show his/her returns.  In this case, with McCain, since they have a prenup and hes not eligible to receive any of her wealth if they divorce, it really meaningless.

      As for capital gains, terrible, terrible idea to increase.  Your average person saves up and invests in the market to try and make an increse in their money for retirement - including those who buy homes, rent them out, and then sell them later on. 

      Not to mention, you think you see a housing crisis now?  How about a collapse on wall street when they double the tax.  Its going to be SELL SELL SELL.  Do you know how how much longer you would have to invest in order to make up that 15% difference between selling at the current gains rate vs the proposed gain rate?  My god.  If you think the unemployment rate is bad now, and companies letting go of people do to stock price decrease, imagine what will happen when everyone sells at once.

      But then again - the people making the decisions for this are only looking for an increase in funds to spend for overpriced government cars, hammers, etc.  Sure, we now have universal healthcare....and its great that I wont get sick while i sit on the couch without a job.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by rtwmd1230 (May 08, 2008 8:51 pm ET)
           
        Columbus, I've seriously never understood the standard argument against increasing the capital gains rate. You say that if it were to be raised, there would be a major sell-off on Wall Street before the new rate went into effect. But what do the investors then do with the profits they've realized? You say they would no longer invest them, so what do they do with the money? Bury it in the back yard? What alternative becomes more attractive than investing after the rate is raised?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Science101 (May 08, 2008 9:03 pm ET)
             
          Investing in other markets not composed of capital gains....or, just do what were forcing companies to do now, invest overseas to stay away from the tax policy. 
          Report Abuse
          • Author by carlileb5935 (May 08, 2008 11:43 pm ET)
               

            "Your average person saves up and invests in the market to try and make an increse in their money for retirement - including those who buy homes, rent them out, and then sell them later on.

            yes, excuse me here while I collect-- these-here-- rents--from my tenants and--oops-- there goes the mouse-- damn what the hell happened to my portfolio--help-- can't do everything at once...

            Report Abuse
          • Author by jawill11 (May 09, 2008 12:13 pm ET)
               

            The capital gains tax isn't based on the market, it's based on the money earner.  If I make money off of the Hong Kong stock market, I have to declare that income and pay taxes on it because I live in the US and I am filing a US tax return. 

            The point is still valid.  There is no legitimate argument for having the capital gains tax be so much lower than the wage tax. 

            Report Abuse
      • Author by wolf kotenberg (May 08, 2008 10:38 pm ET)
           
        Does Cindy Mccain use the same address as john McCain ? Could get interesting if that is the case. Separate incomes, owning different addresses but domiciling together...
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Science101 (May 08, 2008 10:48 pm ET)
             
          With a 100 million dollar RIA - you think they only own 1 home as both of their primary residence?  Cmon, you dont have to work at H&R Block to know the answer here.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by carlileb5935 (May 08, 2008 11:40 pm ET)
           

        "I dont see the point in significant others tax returns - Heinz, McCain, etc. "

        The hubbies are living off the money. That's why. 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Science101 (May 09, 2008 6:57 am ET)
             
          Dont be obtuse.  Your comment is stuff and nonsense.  With a $400k income, he has no reason to live off anyone elses wealth.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by wzwriter (May 09, 2008 7:35 am ET)
               

            Dont be obtuse.  Your comment is stuff and nonsense.  With a $400k income, he has no reason to live off anyone elses wealth.

            But you'd have to be a fool to believe that Gramps McCain derives no benefit whatsoever from Cindy's millions.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Science101 (May 09, 2008 10:14 am ET)
                 

              And you'd have to be a fool think that two average citizens getting married doesnt create extra space on the pocketbook.  Not to mention in this case there is a prenup, and his own $400k+/yr income.  Keep searching...

              Again, stuff & nonsense.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by foghornleghorn (May 09, 2008 12:49 pm ET)
                   

                What if Theresa Heinz said straight-out that she wouldn't EVER release her tax returns back in 2004?

                The right-wing idiot gabbers would drone on and on that she was hiding something.  Not a peep when Gramps' trophy wife says it.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by Science101 (May 09, 2008 4:04 pm ET)
                     
                  She wouldnt have to release hers, or threaten not to.  She files joint with Kerry, so by him releasing his...well, you see where im going.
                  Report Abuse
          • Author by wookie (May 09, 2008 8:59 am ET)
               
            You don't suppose it helps to start and maintain his candidacy?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Science101 (May 09, 2008 10:06 am ET)
                 

              20 years of public office pay, plus campaign contributions.  No, I dont.

              Again, the both of you are trying to dream up a legitimate reason to hate McCain because his wife has money tied up in a Prenup, and you cannot find anything substantial to penalize him for.

              Get a life, seriously.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by wzwriter (May 09, 2008 12:38 pm ET)
                   

                Oh, we already have PLENTY of reasons to hate Gramps McCain, Columbus.  And it has nothing to do with envy over his wife's millions.

                BTW, it's a documented fact that the only reason he HAS 20 years of public service is that he used his wife's money and connections to get elected to Congress in teh first place.  If you honestly think that they keep their money completely separate and he does not benefit in any way from her millions, then I know of a brifge in Brooklyn you might be interested in purchaseing.....

                Report Abuse
                • Author by IRONY 101 (May 09, 2008 12:45 pm ET)
                     
                  Would Colombo be so trusting of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama? Hmmm...methinks Colombo is blinded by the right. ;>)
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Science101 (May 09, 2008 12:50 pm ET)
                       

                    Hillary has already proven herself an evil witch who will do whatever it takes to acheive her office. 

                    I don't have anything personal against Barack Obama, except the fact that at 40+yrs old, he was too stupid to learn that you are who you surround yourself with.  Rezko, Wright, Ayers.  Wise up BO.

                    I personally think McCain is an honest man for the most part, I just dont see eye to eye with him politically.  And the flip flop of immigration wasnt a big deal because he realligned himself with the majority of the american people on that particular issue.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (May 09, 2008 6:13 pm ET)
                         

                      I don't have anything personal against Barack Obama, except the fact that at 40+yrs old, he was too stupid to learn that you are who you surround yourself with.  Rezko, Wright, Ayers.  Wise up BO.

                      LOL

                      In October 1989 The Arizona Republic reported that in addition to campaign contributions, McCain's wife and her father had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators. The paper also reported that the McCains, sometimes accompanied by their daughter and baby-sitter, had made at least nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard the American Continental Corporation (parent of Lincoln) jet. Three of the trips were made during vacations to Keating's opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay. McCain also did not pay Keating for some of the trips until years after they were taken, after he learned that Keating was in trouble over Lincoln.  Lincoln Savings and Loan's collapse is said to have cost taxpayers $3.4 billion. 

                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by Science101 (May 09, 2008 12:50 pm ET)
                       

                    Hillary has already proven herself an evil witch who will do whatever it takes to acheive her office. 

                    I don't have anything personal against Barack Obama, except the fact that at 40+yrs old, he was too stupid to learn that you are who you surround yourself with.  Rezko, Wright, Ayers.  Wise up BO.

                    I personally think McCain is an honest man for the most part, I just dont see eye to eye with him politically.  And the flip flop of immigration wasnt a big deal because he realligned himself with the majority of the american people on that particular issue.

                    Report Abuse
                • Author by Science101 (May 09, 2008 12:47 pm ET)
                     

                  Sorry, you can keep your dirty Brooklyn Bridge. 

                  You are assuming way too much.  Could it be possible that his wife helped him campaign 20 years ago financially?  Sure.  Is it possible that people get into politics because they have money?  Sure.  No US politician out there was a poor soul while running for congress/presidency.  But you are being obtuse if you do not think that his nationally known story of being a POW prior to running for office influenced voters decisions more than his needed contributions from his wife Cindy.

                  You are a fool to think that someone who inherited her money if financing John so she can become richer.

                  Where do you people come up with this s***?  Do you not have your own personal lives to deal with, that you feel necessary to intrude and lie about the lives of others?  I think you need to get out more.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by IRONY 101 (May 09, 2008 12:52 pm ET)
                       

                    Do you not have your own personal lives to deal with, that you feel necessary to intrude and lie about the lives of others? 

                    Are you for real? John McCain is running for President of the United States. His wife wants to be First Lady. She has a history of criminal activity and drug addiction. McCain was implicated peripherally in underhanded shenanigans for which people went to jail. And you don't want them scrutinized? Ha..! Yea, right...

                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by foghornleghorn (May 09, 2008 12:52 pm ET)
                       

                    that you feel necessary to intrude and lie about the lives of others?

                    You should have a sit down with our 42nd president.  He could tell you all about personal attacks with no truth behind them.

                    Report Abuse
    • Author by mr. l (May 08, 2008 8:11 pm ET)
         
      So McCain is not benefitting by staying married?  And where is MY 'universal' health care?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Science101 (May 08, 2008 8:23 pm ET)
           

        I dont think McCain needs his wife's money given his congressional salary, and IRA.  Now Kerry on the other hand, pure benefitter.  But like i said, doesnt matter to me.

        Where is your Universal Health Care?  Wish in one hand, and poo in the other.  Which one fills up faster....

        Report Abuse
        • Author by wookie (May 09, 2008 9:01 am ET)
             

          >>I dont think McCain needs his wife's money given his congressional salary, and IRA.  Now Kerry on the other hand, pure benefitter.  

          It's different because, well, it just is!

          Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (May 08, 2008 8:58 pm ET)
         
      Her tax returns are relevant. People need to be reassured that she has not benefitted financially from her husband's political power. What is Cindy McCain hiding? If she's afraid of the sort of scrutiny that comes with being part of the First Family then let her remain the rich trophy wife of a Senator from Arizona. 
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Science101 (May 08, 2008 9:05 pm ET)
           
        She was a multimillionaire by inheritance.  Not by politics.  Im sure the tax policy is benefitting the Heinz ketchup company, dont see them complaining.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by IRONY 101 (May 08, 2008 9:21 pm ET)
             

          I don't care if she inherited her money. Has she ever benefitted financially from any legislation that her husband supported. Has she ever made money as a result of his political connections? Wasn't there some connection to Cindy McCain and the Keating Five scandal?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Science101 (May 08, 2008 9:46 pm ET)
               

            If she owns investments, then she has benefitting from a lower capital gains tax, just as I have.  Remember the capital gains tax is the same for everyone not in the lowest two income tax brackets.

            But then again, by your logic, she should be considered not a citizen of the United States, and anything that benefits the people who are considered "wealthy" should automatically be voted against. 

            Report Abuse
            • Author by IRONY 101 (May 08, 2008 10:10 pm ET)
                 
              No... Any persons who want the trust of the American people and the privilege of living in the White House should be willing to produce their tax returns for inspection. It seems like a small price to pay. What exactly are Cindy and John McCain hiding?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Science101 (May 08, 2008 10:22 pm ET)
                   

                Its not a question of what are they hiding, its a question of what are you looking for.  Now, the IRS isnt suitable for checking tax returns, or are you saying that they are corrupt and allow politicians to do whatevery they want on them?

                This is such a silly thing.  For people prying on "innocent until proven guilty", you sure are for invasion of privacy...and I thought the Privacy Act was a bad thing.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by IRONY 101 (May 08, 2008 10:38 pm ET)
                     
                  Maybe you haven't noticed but families in politics necessarily give up a certain amount of privacy, particularly when the highest office in the land is involved. Perhaps the McCains should have considered this before deciding to seek the White House. Actually, though, I am pleased that Cindy McCain refuses to reveal her tax returns because, IMO, this will not sit well with the average voter.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Science101 (May 08, 2008 10:43 pm ET)
                       
                    I dont think this is going to sway voters one way or another.  No one in their right mind cares what Cindy McCain does with her inheritance.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by IRONY 101 (May 08, 2008 10:49 pm ET)
                         
                      You are obviously out of touch...
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Science101 (May 08, 2008 11:07 pm ET)
                           

                        Yeah obviously. 

                        *Rolls Eyes*

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by IRONY 101 (May 08, 2008 11:21 pm ET)
                             
                          Yea, and I'm sure the McCains don't want Cindy's tax returns to be made public simply as a matter of principle. I know Republicans cultivate dumb voters but, hey, not all people are as stupid as many Republican voters. If there was nothing incriminating in Cindy McCain's tax returns she'd release them. John and Cindy McCain are obvioulsy hiding something. And you think voters aren't going to notice that? Get real...
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by mikerhyner8202 (May 08, 2008 11:59 pm ET)
                               

                            "not all people are as stupid as many Republican voters"

                            The more stupid ones now call themselves progressives.

                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by wzwriter (May 09, 2008 12:42 pm ET)
                                 

                              The more stupid ones now call themselves progressives.

                              And the MOST stupid ones come up with snappy comebacks like that.  You're not making your side look good at all....

                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by mikerhyner8202 (May 10, 2008 1:41 am ET)
                                   
                                Our side has your side to make us look good.
                                Report Abuse
                          • Author by Science101 (May 09, 2008 10:15 am ET)
                               

                            Cindi wont even give her husband half of her wealth if they divorce, what makes you think she'll make her entire financial history that started before their marriage available to the public because of John's profession?

                            Stuff and nonsense.

                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by IRONY 101 (May 09, 2008 10:19 am ET)
                                 
                              Golly, you seem to know a lot about the McCains' financial relationship. It's a shame the rest of the American public isn't privy to it as well. After all, why do the American people need to know the about the financial dealings of a future president and his wealthy spouse? What great harm or embarrassment do the McCain's fear if Cindy's tax returns were revealed?
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by Science101 (May 09, 2008 12:19 pm ET)
                                   

                                http://www.snopes.com/politics/mccain/cindy.asp

                                Go read that, and then try to discredit the lady.  You really are a partisan SOB who will stop at nothing to attempt to discredit innocent people.

                                Really quite sad.

                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by IRONY 101 (May 09, 2008 12:37 pm ET)
                                     

                                  Yea, and it's so sweet the part about how she avoided prosecution for her crimes through an agreement with the Justice Department...she'll make a sterling First Lady if her husband is elected, I'm sure. And if she falters, I hope John doesn't call her a c*nt in public as he has been known to do  ;>) 

                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by wzwriter (May 09, 2008 12:45 pm ET)
                                       
                                    Or the part about how she used to steal painkillers from her medical non-profit.  I'll bet that Gramps Mccain pulled quite a fre strings to keel ol' Cindy Lou out of the slammer...
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by IRONY 101 (May 09, 2008 12:48 pm ET)
                                         
                                      We'll never know because the McCains are very private people...don't believe in all that scrutiny stuff. BTW, is "c*nt" John McCain's pet name for his beloved bride?
                                      Report Abuse
                                  • Author by Science101 (May 09, 2008 1:11 pm ET)
                                       

                                    Lets see, she stayed out of jail by making a deal with the justice department because of a prescription pain killer addiction.

                                    Wow, that must really have some pull on her tax returns, and how dishonest they are as people...especially when it happend about 20 years ago.

                                    But hey, at least she had a prescription instead of BO's coke addiction.

                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by IRONY 101 (May 09, 2008 1:16 pm ET)
                                         

                                      "...she stayed out of jail by making a deal with the justice department because of a prescription pain killer addiction."

                                      Wrong...she stayed out of jail despite the fact that she was a drug-addicted THIEF who stole from a charitable relief organization. How much lower than that can you get? While I admire any person's success in turning a despicable life around, please don't paint Cindy McCain as an angel. She skated because she was Cindy McCain. We would not have been so lucky, most likely.

                                      Report Abuse
              • Author by mikerhyner8202 (May 08, 2008 11:56 pm ET)
                   

                "Any persons who want the trust of the American people and the privilege of living in the White House should be willing to produce their tax returns for inspection"

                Then make this a REQUIREMENT, in law. If not stop the bantering over something not required...

                Report Abuse
      • Author by Science101 (May 08, 2008 9:06 pm ET)
           
        Also - im certain that hes a trophy husband, just like Kerry.  If you want to try to make an accusation, at least do it right.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by IRONY 101 (May 08, 2008 9:11 pm ET)
             
          John McCain was a Senator when he began his affair with young Cindy. He was doing PR for the Navy. Far from a trophy husband...I guess she just liked the sex. ;>)
          Report Abuse
          • Author by IRONY 101 (May 08, 2008 9:11 pm ET)
               
            Excuse me...should read: John McCain was NOT a Senator...
            Report Abuse
            • Author by wzwriter (May 09, 2008 9:39 am ET)
                 

              Excuse me...should read: John McCain was NOT a Senator...

              That's correct - he was still in the Navy when he and Cindy started canoodling.  After he divorced Carol and married Cindy, he used CINDY'S connections and CINDY'S money to get elected to Congress, and from there to the Senate.  So he HAS benefitted over the years from her millions, and therefore she SHOULD release her tax returns.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by IRONY 101 (May 09, 2008 9:49 am ET)
                   
                Exactly... And logic would tell you that refusing to release Cindy's tax records looks bad and can't possibly help McCain...unless there is something in the tax records that would make McCain look even worse. John and Cindy are hiding something...not necessarily anything major but certainly something embarrassing.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Science101 (May 09, 2008 10:16 am ET)
                     
                  Keep fishing.  Im sure they arent hiding a Rezco connection.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by IRONY 101 (May 09, 2008 10:26 am ET)
                       
                    Keep sweating...because you know this isn't going to quietly go away.
                    Report Abuse
    • Author by pointofview (May 08, 2008 8:59 pm ET)
         
      Her Tax returns are nobody's business.  She is not running for office.  Period.....
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pointofview (May 08, 2008 8:59 pm ET)
         
      Her Tax returns are nobody's business.  She is not running for office.  Period.....
      Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (May 08, 2008 9:14 pm ET)
           
        Yea, and Cindy McCain's refusal to release her tax returns will gain McCain tons of votes. People like openness, not secretive rich people.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by cArn (May 08, 2008 9:12 pm ET)
         
      Raising the capital gains tax won't hit the middle class and it doesn't increase revenues in the long run.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by cArn (May 08, 2008 9:18 pm ET)
         
      Oops. My mistake. I should have said raising the capital gains tax won't hit the middle class and lowering it won't bring in increased revenue in the long run.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Science101 (May 08, 2008 9:42 pm ET)
           

        It will hit the middle class.  You do realize that capital gains will effect everyone not in the lowest two income brackets.   Unless you consider someone who makes 60k/yr investing in the stock market for retirement not hitting the middle class.

         

        Report Abuse
        • Author by BottleBlonde (May 08, 2008 11:55 pm ET)
             

          Clearly, you are an ignoramus. And what do you want to bet that you ignore the reality I have posted the next time this subject comes up?

          http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/would_raising_the_capital_gains_tax_rate.html

          "The fact is that Obama's proposal exempts all making under $250,000 a year from paying any increase in the capital gains rate"

          It isn't going to hurt the middle class.

          "More than 80 percent of all capital gains income went to those making more than $200,000 a year in 2006. Very few making under $50,000 would be affected by any increase in the top capital gains rate."And finally"More than eight dollars of every 10 in capital gains goes to those making more than $200,000 a year.
          Those are the tax filers who, overwhelmingly, would be affected by any increase in the rates, even if there were no exemptions such as Obama proposes.

          The group Wallace mentioned, those who make less than $50,000, got only 4 percent of all capital gains income in 2006. And hardly any of those pay the top rate now."
          You don't have a leg to stand on.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by cArn (May 08, 2008 9:51 pm ET)
         

      http://www.cbpp.org/policy-points4-18-08.htm

      Most middle-income Americans own much or all of their stock through 401(k)s, IRAs, or other tax-preferred saving accounts.  They do not pay taxes when their stocks within those accounts go up, so a change in the tax rate doesn’t affect them.

      Even among the minority of middle-class Americans who do benefit from the capital gains and dividend tax cuts, the benefits are very small.  This is because capital gains and dividend income is highly concentrated at the very top of the income scale.  The Tax Policy Center estimates that the highest-income 5 percent of U.S. households receive 83 percent of total capital gains income.

      According to the Tax Policy Center, the average household in the middle of the income spectrum received $20 from the 2003 capital gains and dividend tax cuts.  The average household earning over $1 million received $32,000, or 1,600 times as much.

      Here's another source: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/would_raising_the_capital_gains_tax_rate.html

      More than 80 percent of all capital gains income went to those making more than $200,000 a year in 2006. Very few making under $50,000 would be affected by any increase in the top capital gains rate 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Science101 (May 08, 2008 10:03 pm ET)
           

        So let me get this right - we should increase it, because the people who are in between 50k and 200k/yr dont matter?  And I thought this was all to benefit the middle class?!

        Also, you do realize that many middle class people do invest in stocks, outside of their IRA/401k/403b, correct?  Not to mention homes are capital gains.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by BottleBlonde (May 09, 2008 12:01 am ET)
             

          We should increase the capital gains taxes on those making more than $200,000 because the gain will be the greatest with the pain the least.

          If the average household in the middle of the income spectrum received $20 from the 2003 capital gains and dividend tax cuts, their losses would amount to a couple of movie tickets or less - and yeah, if it gives our nation a better chance at balancing the budget using more funds than currently collected from those people most able to afford it, I have no problem with people making lower midlle income salaries losing $5-20 bucks a year. The facts are though, that those people won't lose a dime, because any households with salaries under $200,000 are exempt from ANY increases according to Obama's plan.

          Again, you don't have a leg to stand on.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by cArn (May 08, 2008 10:17 pm ET)
         

      An increase would mean more revenue for govt. programs and social services like education, healthcare, etc. If you want  to argue against additional govt. spending and intervention, fine, but don't lie and say that raising the capital gains tax will invariably "hurt" the middle class. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Science101 (May 08, 2008 10:25 pm ET)
           

        Yes, it will hurt the middle class.  Bottom line.

        And this whole "lets do everything for healthcare and education" is starting to be the boy who cried wolf.  Every tax that comes up is based on it, yet never goes there.  I think that getting rid of pork barrel projects will be more than sufficient funding for healthcare and education.  After all, there is no need for a "bridge to nowhere".

        Report Abuse
        • Author by jawill11 (May 09, 2008 12:24 pm ET)
             
          So all evidence points to the contrary, that it does not hurt the middle class in any way.  However, we are to just take you're word for it because you say it does?  Why?  Provide some counter evidence to prove your point, or stop making it.  You were given many links and quotes showing that your argument is false and you have not refuted them.  Put up or shut up.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Computer (May 09, 2008 1:02 pm ET)
               

            Many middle-income Americans have acquired modest amounts of stock in the companies they work for through company plans. As the companies grew and prospered, the stock split one, two, three, even four times. With each split, the cost basis of these holdings, acquired with hard-won preinflation dollars, has been halved. But it is only a paper gain. If in later years, or retirement, there is a need, the stock can be sold in what is the equivalent of a fire sale. Virtually all the sales price is taxable - via capital gains tax at a higher percentage. In contrast, the very rich usually have offsetting losses, or their holdings are acquired short term in active trading.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by Computer (May 09, 2008 1:06 pm ET)
               

            Obama said during the debate in Pennsylvania that he is willing to nearly double the capital-gains tax rate from the current 15 percent to 28 percent. Obama wants a higher capital-gains tax rate to punish high-paid managers of hedge funds. While hedge fund managers might pay more, so would the other 100 million owners of stocks. According to IRS data, 80 percent of recent tax returns that declared capital-gains were from households with income less than $100,000. Obama's tax polices would hurt the small investor.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by BottleBlonde (May 09, 2008 3:48 pm ET)
                 

              So, did the other poster Columbus get banned, and you took his place?

              Obama's plan exempts people making under $200,000. Can't you read?

              Report Abuse
          • Author by Computer (May 09, 2008 1:33 pm ET)
               

            If Obama really wanted to get the capital gains tax to produce more revenue, he would decrease it, not increase it. He tries to laugh this off by saying that rich people didn’t mind the 28% rate under Bill Clinton, but in fact they did. When Clinton finally lowered it from 28%, under pressure from the Republican Congress in 1997, investment capital tripled. The resultant economic expansion from 1998-2000 outperformed the three-year period after the 1993 tax increase by a full percentage point in average GDP. This lesson instructed the Bush administration in how to generate economic growth, leading to the further reduction in CGT rate in 2001, and the five-plus years of expansion that resulted from it after absorbing the economic damage of 9/11.

            Furthermore Obama never gives a really good reason to increase the CGT rate –except his nebulous issue of “fairness”. Obama doesn’t explain how an increased rate will generate increased revenues. It won’t; instead of selling off moderately-performing assets and taking the tax hit to invest in higher-risk, higher-potential investments, people will instead hold assets until the tax situation improves. That not only means less revenue as capital gains go unrealized, it means a lot less capital for new economic growth, which will help stall the economy.

            Obama still displays no real comprehension of the dynamics of investment and tax policy, a shortcoming with real consequences in a President. He favors jacking up tax rates to redistribute capital from those who earn it to those who do not, and like others before him, he will find those gains elusive. If Democrats are to be believed that the economy has headed seriously south, what’s needed is massive incentive for investors, not another disincentive for capital to go into hiding.

             

            Report Abuse
        • Author by foghornleghorn (May 09, 2008 12:58 pm ET)
             

           I think that getting rid of pork barrel projects will be more than sufficient funding for healthcare and education.

          I'll do you one better.  Let's get rid of the pork in the defense dept. by ending the war.  I bet $250 million per month could fund a lot of educating and health caring.

          But then again, you'd rather die because your HMO won't cover you than in a terrorist attack.  Which is more likely?

          Report Abuse
    • Author by cArn (May 08, 2008 10:20 pm ET)
         
      The point I was refuting is that very few people would be affected by the increase. I wasn't arguing about anything else.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Science101 (May 08, 2008 10:26 pm ET)
           
        I know what your point was, I just dont agree with it.  Taxation has gotten out of control, so has government spending.  No longer is it the day of working for your lifestyle, and donating a small portion in taxes to help your country.  Now its, how much do i need to make in order to get by because my taxes are so ridiculous.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by eddy3957 reregistered (May 08, 2008 11:26 pm ET)
             
          Concerned about taxes but not the gross military spending.  You do realize that the unfunded spending is driving the VALUE of your dollar denominated assets down?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Science101 (May 09, 2008 10:19 am ET)
               
            Military spending as a percentage of overall budget is greatly trumped as it is by social welfare policies.   You complain about military spending, but now you want to back a 300B plan to pay for moronic loan holders?  Please.  Cry me a river.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by foghornleghorn (May 09, 2008 1:20 pm ET)
                 

               moronic loan holders?

              Your disdain for people is appalling.

              Report Abuse
        • Author by BottleBlonde (May 09, 2008 12:16 am ET)
             

          Liar.

          Your point was "It will hit the middle class" until it was proven that it would barely hurt anyone in the lower middle class income ranges, and wouldn't hurt them at all under Obama's proposal since he exempts them from any increases.

          Your point was "Your average person saves up and invests in the market to try and make an increse in their money for retirement - including those who buy homes, rent them out, and then sell them later on", except the average person making 50,000 a year does not do any of that. The average person who makes any significant money off capital gains and would be affected by this increase is NOT 'your average person'. They are way above average in income levels. Average people don't make much money off stocks.

          And your point was "So let me get this right - we should increase it, because the people who are in between 50k and 200k/yr dont matter?  And I thought this was all to benefit the middle class?!"

          Except that raising the tax payments of people who are better able to shoulder more of the burden does benefit those who are less able to shoulder additional burden, so raising the capital gains taxes of those making more than $200,000 does help the middle class making $50,000 to 200,000. The people who make that amount of money will benefit more from the increases gained from higher income families than they'll lose if they are minimally hit by the higher capital gains tax rate.

          It sucks that your party's President (and don't even try to deny the connection between you and Bush) got us so much further into debt when he had a balanced budget and a surplus when he got into office. I'd love to be able to simply be paying down the budget deficits from decades ago instead of not even covering current shortfalls. You, on the other hand, are all about enriching yourself today with steady capital gains tax rates and screwing our kids tomorrow.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by cArn (May 08, 2008 10:26 pm ET)
         

      Yes, it will hurt the middle class.  Bottom line.

      Even after I provided two links that refute that? 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Science101 (May 08, 2008 10:28 pm ET)
           

        More than 80 percent of all capital gains income went to those making more than $200,000 a year in 2006. Very few making under $50,000 would be affected by any increase in the top capital gains rate 

        Your point proves that 20% of capital gains are owned by the middle class.  That is a big percentage. 

        Report Abuse
    • Author by cArn (May 08, 2008 10:42 pm ET)
         

      Your point proves that 20% of capital gains are owned by the middle class.  That is a big percentage. 

      That 20% is owned by a small part of the middle class. Please read more than what I copy and pasted. That's why I provided a link:

      "Just under 13 percent of all who filed tax returns for 2006 reported any capital gains income, however small. That means that raising capital gains tax rates could not affect 87 percent of all filers, since they have no gains income to tax. (Capital gains are the profits realized from the sale of such assets as stocks or real estate.)

      Wallace was referring to that small slice of returns that show any gains at all. But of those returns that had capital gains income, less than 36 percent showed adjusted gross income of less than $50,000, not "half" as Wallace said."

      And for a specific candidate's take on it:

      "Wallace was wrong on a number of counts. The fact is that Obama's proposal exempts all making under $250,000 a year from paying any increase in the capital gains rate, according to campaign economic adviser Austan Goolsbee."

       

      Report Abuse
    • Author by pointofview (May 09, 2008 12:23 am ET)
         
      While all of this makes for great bed time reading, the fact still remains that McCain's wife is not running for any office, and she has no moral or legal obligation to show her tax returns to anyone.  As she said, she has been filing a seperate return for 28 years.  This is not something she started doing 4 years ago when her husband decided to run for president.  It is her private matter, and not the business of the American Public. 
      Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (May 09, 2008 9:59 am ET)
           
        Cindy McCain may not have any legal obligation to disclose her tax returns, but it's ludicrous to contend that her reportedly considerable finances bear no relevance to her husband's bid to become president. Considering his substantial influence as a U.S. Senator questions of conflicts of interest always lurk in the shadows and, more particularly, whether John McCain ever supported legislation that benefitted his wife. Producing her tax returns would appear to me to be nothing more than a minor inconvenience. It would seem to me that if Cindy McCain loved her husband and supported his candidacy that she would do whatever was necessary to allay any potential doubts about his trustworthiness. In my view, something is fishy here...
        Report Abuse
      • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (May 10, 2008 3:27 pm ET)
           

        LOL

        Stephen Hess, an expert in presidential politics at the Brookings Institution who worked in the Eisenhower and Nixon White Houses, said the Kerrys relinquished their claims on privacy when Mr. Kerry decided to seek the Democratic presidential nomination.  ''No one makes you run for president,'' Mr. Hess said. ''If you're asking your fellow Americans to make you president, you're asking for as much power as can be bestowed.''

        Ed Gillespie, chairman of the Republican Party, said Mrs. Heinz Kerry's finances were relevant to the campaign, especially because Mr. Kerry borrowed $6 million against the equity in a Boston town house they jointly own to keep his campaign afloat earlier in the year. ''It seems to me that that's a legitimate question,'' Mr. Gillespie said.

        The Washington Post editorial board has also joined in, writing:

        ...with her husband seeking the presidency, her financial dealings, as well as his, ought to be as open as possible. Keeping her returns private would set a bad precedent. Imagine a future presidential candidate whose spouse has complicated business dealings or federal contracts, chooses to file a separate tax return, and refuses to make it public.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (May 09, 2008 1:05 am ET)
         

      Wrong, The Sweet Moma Express needs to step into the light. Show us how that good old republican family values up front. All the big open hearted, supportive things she does foe John. And then writes off as a tax break.

      She's an interesting person. I suppose the interest maybe frustrated. She'll get to retreat to Olympus. On display from a safe distence. Held up as an impossible example to all wives.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by wzwriter (May 09, 2008 7:33 am ET)
         

      CURRY: She's reportedly worth something like $100 million. But she is adamant that she will never release them because she's not a candidate -- she's actually not somebody who's a candidate, ever to be elected.

      Yet another reason not to vote for Gramps McCain.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (May 09, 2008 10:02 am ET)
           
        Don't know about you, but I already have enough reasons not to vote for the fraud, John McCain. But, thank you, John McCain, for continuing to reinforce my decision.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (May 09, 2008 11:05 am ET)
         
      Lowering the Capital Gains Tax and trying to eliminate the Estate Tax are two of the biggest con jobs perpetrated by the Country Club Republicans, with the help of their mindless Evangelical Robovoters.

      The campaign to eliminate the Estate Tax was initiated by a billionaire years ago. He hired a Right Wing think tank to come up with a rationale, hence the name "Death Tax".

      As for the capital gains tax, any impact on the middle class can be dealt with by exempting certain things for certain income brackets, much as they've already done with home sales. As I understand it, they've already exempted one time sales of primary residences up to a certain amount. That type of exemption could easily be expanded. Lowering the capital gains tax was just one more sop to the rich.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (May 09, 2008 11:12 am ET)
           
        Just for fun, I looked it up. A single person is exempt from taxes on $250,000 of capital gains from the sale of a primary residence. A couple is exempt from $500,000. So, the idea that the capital gains tax hurts Ma and Pa Kettle when they sell their house and move to a retirement village is absolute bullsh*t.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (May 09, 2008 11:28 am ET)
         
      Conservatives often tell us that imposing any additional taxes on millionaires is unfair, as if it would impact their lifestyle in a significant way. Yet, one of our conservative posters insists that John McCain can live just fine in his multiple houses on his 400k salary, thank you very much.

      I think it will be funny to watch over the next few months as Gramps tries to portray Obama as an "elitist", while his multi-millionaire wife refuses to release her tax information. This will require some serious pretzelized logic.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Science101 (May 09, 2008 1:16 pm ET)
           

        NO one said that it would hurt their lifestyle.  The point is that they are already pay about 90% of the taxes in this country.  When is enough, enough?  When will you bloodsucking leach liberals get up off your lazy union a**es and stand on your own two feet? 

        Whats wrong with wanted to be very rich, and have enough money to leave your children so they never have to work or worry?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Spartacus (May 09, 2008 4:35 pm ET)
             
          The point is that they are already pay about 90% of the taxes in this country.  When is enough, enough?  When will you bloodsucking leach liberals get up off your lazy union a**es and stand on your own two feet? 

          Whats wrong with wanted to be very rich, and have enough money to leave your children so they never have to work or worry?

          The first statement would be correct if it referred to "income taxes" - however when you consider ALL taxes multimillionaires (top 1%) actually shoulder 27.6% of the Federal tax burden, not 90%.  Those numbers are from the Congressional Budget Office, which ironically is a reliable data source for those of us in the reality-based community.

          There's nothing wrong with wanting to get rich and provide for your heirs until you exploit others to do it.  Case in point...

          I'm a director at a (non-union) Fortune 50 firm.  Last February, the word came down that due to expense pressures there would be no bonuses and merit increases would be limited to 3%.  This meant that several employees and managers (average salary $45K - in Los Angeles) who had worked 80-hour weeks to make their numbers and earn "Exceeds" or "Far Exceeds" performance ratings would now get a raise that was effectively less than inflation.  Fast forward two weeks when the firm files its 10K and 10Q - our CEO who had presided over a 10% loss in shareholder value received a hefty bonus plus an 18% base salary increase up to $25 million.  The other senior executives - even those whose divisions lost money - also received similar increases.

          Sadly, this perversion of the American Dream happens all the time to workers who aren't unionized and rather frequently to those who are.  Guess George Carlin was right...they call it the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by truthseeker77 (May 09, 2008 12:14 pm ET)
         
      It's a logical fallacy to argue that a wealthy man supports tax cuts only because he and his wife are rich.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (May 09, 2008 12:37 pm ET)
           
        It is equally fallacious to argue that rich people don't consider their own gains when deciding whether or not to support tax cuts for themselves.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (May 09, 2008 12:40 pm ET)
           
        I find this fascinating. People who were apoplectic about Nancy Pelosi voting for a bill which potentially raised her property value have no problem with Millionaire members of Congress voting to give themselves huge tax cuts.
        Report Abuse
The Fox Effect
Media Matters Connect

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.