Rick Santorum: Big Government Income; Wealthy; Paltry Charitable Giving — Anemic

What do we see after 20 years of employment in government? Celebrity? Yes. Fame? Yes. Huge speaking fees? Yes. High paid “consulting” fees? Yes. Wealth? Yes. Generosity? You decide.

What is left? Power.

Two days ago, Rick Santorum released his tax returns. Let’s take a peek at them and what we learned from the Santorum’s returns (last four years):

• Their effective tax rates were between 25% and 29%
• Their most recent contributions to charity equal 1.8% (to a high of 2.6% in 2009)
• They are wealthy by almost any standard in America

[source: RIGHT SPEAK]

The media goes all out to depict Governor Romney negatively by comparison to Gingrich and Santorum. For example, Governor Romney’s latest tax returns indicate he paid around 15% in capital gains taxes. However, rarely does the press mention the obvious: That he had to earn the original money that got invested. Governor Romney’s original income was earned just like you and I earn it. And he would have paid ordinary income taxes on that money, at the time. I’m no accountant, but he would have been taxed originally at 35% I believe. Adding his capital gains taxes to his ordinary income taxes means he paid around 50% in taxes, give or take.

So what? Both Senator Santorum and Governor Romney did what is legally required of them: They paid to Caesar what Caesar demands. No more. No less. They both did what was required of them under the law. Good!

The bigger and more important question is, what did each man choose to do with their “discretionary” incomes? Both are wealthy men by comparison to the vast majority of Americans. Many Americans of modest, even limited means pay far more than 2% of their income to charity (remember the widow’s mite?) — I know many Americans of modest means who contribute far more than the Santorums, as a percentage of income.

By contrast, Governor Romney paid 16% in charitable contributions. Comparing just percentages, Romney paid almost nine times the amount as Santorum. So what?

Governor Romney earned ALL of his money in businesses — the old fashioned way! Clearly he has been blessed and he knows he has been blessed and we know this because he has been generous in his giving to various entities, including his church.

Senator Santorum on the other hand, earned all of his money from the government or as a result of fame and celebrity gained while in the government (one does not garner huge speaking fees as a normal Joe). Becoming wealthy, after working in government, is unfortunately common today especially from money derived from influence peddling (the lobby). Ultimately, most of Santorum’s present wealth came directly or indirectly from your pocket and mine. And after paying the legal tax rate, he felt compelled to contribute 1.8% to charity?

Okay.

Remember Mark DeMoss, the nationally recognized Evangelical leader? Here is what he had to say about Mr. Santorum’s anemic contributions (from Politico):

“At best it shows political bad judgment and at worst it shows a lack of personal commitment to a principle that religious conservatives and political conservatives believe in, which is being generous with our money.”

“And so I just think it’s a mistake. And look, Santorum and (Newt) Gingrich, these two candidates, they’re not the first to appear on the low end of this spectrum. Every four years we see it. And im always surprised. I am always surprised that someone running for president or who actually becomes president doesn’t have a record of a higher percentage of giving.”

Does the level of contributions really matter?

DeMoss stressed that he’s not brought up the topic of Santorum and Gingrich’s charitable giving with Romney headquarters. In his own life, DeMoss said he gives away 20 percent of his family income to charitable causes.

“This is just something I feel strongly about myself,” he said. “We’ve been blessed. I’ve been very fortunate in my life. And I’m not running for anything. But if I were running I’d make sure that number stayed up there because I think it looks good.”

From The Washington Post, we have this request:

First, he did very well for himself after leaving the Senate, making between $659,000 in 2007 to up $1.1 million in 2009. He did a lot of “consulting.” But we don’t know for whom and what he did to earn that money. Even Newt Gingrich coughed up a couple of Freddie Mac contracts. Shouldn’t we get to see whether Santorum was playing the same game — that is, making money on behalf of causes and clients that are at odds with his conservative ideology? Needless to say, it does confirm that he, like Gingrich, has derived his income directly or indirectly from government for more than 20 years. Aside from a four-year stint as a lawyer his expertise has been politics.
[...]
And finally, in those four years he gave a shockingly tiny amount to charity. In no year was charitable giving more than 3 percent of his income, and he dipped below 2 percent in one year.

He apparently believes in church doctrine about contraception but not about tithing. Compared to the American people as a whole (who give about 2 percent on average), his level of giving is not unusual. But for people in his income bracket, he’s frankly cheap when it comes to charity. Last October the New York Times reported that “the wealthiest Americans — those making over $500,000 annually, which is less than 1 percent of all tax filers — gave away 3.4 percent of their income in 2008. That is significantly higher than Americans at lower income levels.” But not the Santorums. Recall that in the years for which the Romneys released their tax returns or estimates they gave away about 16 percent of their income.

I focus on the charitable giving because so much of Santorum’s career and a good deal of his writing focus on faith-based charities. So why did he personally give so little to the groups he lauds?

For someone who lectures his fellow citizens about parenting and contraception, he deserves to be scrutinized for what appears to be a glaring inconsistency in his own behavior. He talks the talk, but does he walk the walk? These tax returns suggest not.

[emphasis added]

Another Washington Post article compares charitable giving of all the candidates, including Obama. It should be noted however, that the Obama’s only became more charitable as they became very wealthy. In other words, when their discretionary income was lower (still wealthy at that time), their charitable giving was in line with Gingrich and Santorum — paltry.

CNN Money had this to say about the anemic contributions of Gingrich and Santorum:

“When you put it in the context of people of faith, then it really is on the low side,” Berger said.

What about Santorum’s constant preaching to us about family values, contraception, etc.? Is not tithing (defined) also a part of his overall belief? The CNN Money piece continues (my understanding is that Santorum is a practicing, devout Catholic):

The relatively low contribution level is also a bit puzzling for a senator who championed non-profits and charitable organizations while in office.

“We should be proactive in finding ways to more fully engage the American public in charitable giving,” Santorum said in a 2005 statement on the CARE Act, a bill he sponsored that sought to promote the interests of charities and provide incentives for Americans to donate.

[emphasis added]

“Gentleness, self-sacrifice and generosity are the exclusive possession of no one race or religion.” –Mahatma Gandhi

,