I concur with your basic point. I was struck by how high the salaries and benefits figure was for a supposedly charitable operation - roughly a third, plus or minus 5%. Another 35%, plus or minus 5%, went to “other expenses.” To me, a very generous estimate would be that 50% of revenues went to charity, with the actual figure more likely to be in the 25-35% range, which is very low, among the worst I’ve ever seen.
I would add that the Clinton’s annual donation to the Clinton Foundation is almost entirely accounted for by Chelsea’s wages.
Now, color me suspicious, but that looks like them having a tidy end run around gift taxes to the tune of whatever her net is a year.
Don’t get me wrong: I abhor all inheritance taxes and there is no delegated power given the federal to tax a person for giving a gift (with gift taxes the estate of the giver bears the tax burden) so if I could act that way there would be no ethical duplicity; but, the Clintons are basically once again showing that so-called “progressives” are really about being generous with other people’s money....