Ned Lamont's Friday Document Dump
Hartford Courant columnist Kevin Rennie phones in with a quick rundown on Ned Lamont's tax return disclosure press event. This was Lamont's individual tax return, the first time in at least five years that he did not file jointly with his wife. The reason Lamont didn't release the return sooner is that he filed for an extensive in April and is just filing now (extensions are normally due in mid-August). Here are the highlights:
-- Lamont earned 2,702,981 in taxable 2005 income and paid taxes on $2,088,517.
-- The net taxes paid in 2005: $621,213 for a federal tax rate of 23%.
-- In what may be the most embarrassing revelation on the return, Lamont personally only claimed to give $5,385 in charitable contributions. The Lamont campaign emphasized that there is a separate Lamont family trust which, last year, doled out $213,750. Rennie states the campaign worked very hard at obscuring the $5,385 figure and bootstrapping Ned Lamont onto the amount the trust gave. The campaign manager had an angry tone, directing it at the press. Cameras were not allowed in the room while reporters examined the returns. Copies were collected at the end. The press conference had been on Lamont’s public schedule but then the campaign announced in an 11:30 a.m. email that the candidate would not be appearing.
-- Over the last five years, Lamont's family trust has contributed approx. $850,000, with approx. 25% of that total going to Harvard University.
-- The campaign did not release his wife's income tax return but did summarize the federal tax rate the Lamonts paid from 2001-2004 when the two filed jointly: In 2001, the Lamonts paid at a 38% federal tax rate clip; same in 2002. In 2003, their tax rate dropped to 34%; in 2004 it was 30% and in 2005, at least on Ned Lamont's indv. return, the tax rate went down to 23%.
-- Rennie notes Lamont's wife is a venture capitalist and could very well have earned more than Lamont last year.
wow, and this is newsworthy how? Of all the issues concerning Connecticut voters, a candidate's tax return is now the most important thing?
Typical politics of distraction.
Challenging Lamont's tax situation is a sideshow for Lieberman and sign of a desperate losing candidate. Lieberman is finsihed for the primary and will lose in November as REAL Democrats coalesce around the REAL Democratic candidate. Now Joe can go to work for FOX news and bash Democrats all he wants. What a sad ending for a guy who once showed so much promise.
For generations, a major and distinct feature of American life and culture has the been extraordinary volume of contributions to worthy cause of all kinds, people at all income levels. We generally do not pillory people who are small givers, but it is sad if they seek public office. The last prominent politician who gave next to nothing to charitable purposes was Richard Nixon.
It is morally wrong for someone with an income of more than $2 million should have total contributions of $5,385 last year. It is no explanation to say that his forbears set up and funded generously charitable trusts. The obligation of a rich man is to be charitable, HIMSELF.
I find the lack of moral character far worse than Joe Lieberman's support of the war (which I loath). But Mr. Lamont no more belongs in the US Senate than Richard Nixon did--and Spiro Agnew too.