Can anyone explain to me how it is controversial, or somehow reflects poorly on the Obamas, that their charitable contributions increased only when--get this!--their income increased significantly?
The premise is simple enough:
Senator Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, sharply increased their charitable donations as Mr. Obama began to run for president and the family’s income increased from book sales, according to tax returns that the couple released on Tuesday.
However, the NYT ultimately would like to have us believe that the spike in charitable contributions was a calculated political move:
"Their charitable giving only went up when it looked like he was campaigning for the presidential office," said Paul L. Caron, a professor at the University of Cincinnati College of Law and editor of the TaxProf Blog, which examines tax questions and has posted the returns.
http://www.nytimes.com/...
Yes, yes, I get the fact that their donations increased not only in amount but also as a percentage of their income...but managing a household budget myself, I have found it easier to give a higher percentage of income to charity as my income has increased past a level needed for day-to-day expenses.
I would also find it far easier to donate more money to charity after a large debt was paid off, like student loans:
On the trail, Obama often tells voters about his early career as a community organizer, and the student loans that he and his wife Michelle have only recently paid off.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...
Moreover, if I had Obama's resume and skills, and put them to use in low-paying public interest jobs, at the expense of my own standard of living, I would consider that to be a contribution to society far greater than mere cash to charity:
He told union workers at a campaign event in Las Vegas how, as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, he had lived on $12,000 a year.
"I wasn't living large," Obama told the crowd. "I had an old, beat-up car, had a little, tiny beat-up apartment. I was wearing raggedy, beat-up clothes. I got holes in the shoes, had holes in my car. You all've been there. You know what I'm talking about."
Of course, I'm no tax guru, just an ordinary person puzzled about why this is a point of criticism. It seems no more valid to me than the "evidence" of Obama's grasping ambition as reflected in a kindergarten essay.
PS: I'm confused about another point as well--is the Trinity UCC donation supposed to be politically expedient or political suicide? I can't keep track!