Skip to comments.Senator Scrooge?
Posted on 07/29/2006 3:11:10 PM PDT by Graybeard58
When the news media write about Ned Lamont, they almost universally call him a "Greenwich businessman." Were he a Republican, they would brand him a "Republican multimillionaire," which is journalistic code for "conservative, hard-hearted, money-grubbing skinflint."
Mr. Lamont is worth about $200 million, less the $3 million he put into his campaign to take the Democratic Senate nomination from incumbent Joseph I. Lieberman. Mr. Lamont's tax return reveals he made $2.8 million in 2005, including $546,044 in salary and more than $1.7 million in capital gains.
But the most telling detail -- one not widely reported -- about the man appears on Form 1040, Schedule A, Line 16: Gifts to Charity: $5,385. Ned Lamont makes Al Gore and John Kerry look like John Beresford Tipton. He probably has run up bigger bar tabs at the Round Hill Club in Greenwich, which he quit a while back before his 10-year affiliation with a private club that caters to white snooty-toots could become a campaign issue.
To most working stiffs, $5,385 is a goodly sum, but to Mr. Lamont, it's chicken scratch. For perspective, it's the equivalent of someone making $56,000 last year giving just $10.77 to charity.
If Mr. Lamont was Alan Schlesinger, the Republican senatorial candidate, his niggardly ways would have been front-page news and fodder for scathing commentary. But because Mr. Lamont is a far-left-wing Democrat and the media's favorite anti-war candidate, journalists suppressed these revealing facts or downplayed them via matter-of-fact reporting.
It's clear now why Ned Lamont protested so vigorously about releasing his personal-financial information. He didn't want voters to know he is a progressive, hard-hearted, money-grubbing skinflint.
Gift to himself: $2.8 million
Limousine liberal, by any other name.
The DUmmies will scream and focus on the word niggardly.
JMO, the wackos have taken over the democrat party and nothing is going to get in their irrational and hateful vendetta against President Bush, but Lieberman only has himself to blame for being part of the wacko party.
So? Maybe he does not want his charitable activities to be funded by other taxpayers - in which case he is to be applauded and encouraged to drive the number on his 1040 to zero.
I normally don't like to brow-beat a person for giving little to charity. This is a free country after all. But if Lamont were a Senator, he would assuredly legislate that the rich and middle class give more of their money to his desired social programs without their consent, so I have no problem reporting his hypocrisy.
I'd be careful on this one. Not all my donations to charitable causes qualify as tax-deductible.
Very few of mine do but I see this as an occasion to beat up on a democrat so I'm all for it.
As I understand the tax law, any money given to any Catholic organization is considered a political, not a charitable, contribution because the Church vociferously opposes feticide and obfuscating the definition of the word "marriage." Some clerics also despise Islamofascism and the Church even maintains an entire military diocese to support our troops and their families. In these acrimonious times, articulating these positions--especially from the pulpit--amounts to supporting one political party over the other. Lest we not further forget, Catholics now hold a majority of the Justices on the Supreme Court.
All the Democrats are rich. It's their way of "compensating" for their handicap.
Liberals are only generous with OPM.
BTW, what's Lamont's connection to CPUSA
Big deal, so you replace one ineffectual dem with another...it's Connecticut, after all.
his niggardly ways: I thought we had dropped that word, it harmed many writers who have tried to use it.