Find Post Investigations On:
Facebook Scribd Twitter
Friendfeed RSS Google Reader
» About This Blog | Meet the Investigative Team | Subscribe
Ongoing Investigation

Top Secret America

The Post explores the top secret world the government created in response to the attacks of Sept. 11.

Ongoing Investigation

The Hidden Life of Guns

How guns move through American society, from store counter to crime scene.

Have a Tip?

Talk to Us

If you have solid tips, news or documents on potential ethical violations or abuses of power, we want to know. Send us your suggestions.
• E-mail Us

Categories

Post Investigations
In-depth investigative news
and multimedia from The Washington Post.
• Special Reports
• The Blog

Reporters' Notebook
An insider's guide to investigative news: reporters offer insights on their stories.

The Daily Read
A daily look at investigative news of note across the Web.

Top Picks
A weekly review of the best
in-depth and investigative reports from across the nation.

Hot Documents
Court filings, letters, audits and other documents of interest.

D.C. Region
Post coverage of investigative news in Maryland, Virginia and the District.

Washington Watchdogs
A periodic look into official government investigations.

Help! What Is RSS?
Find out how to follow Post Investigations in your favorite RSS reader.

Hot Comments

Unfortunately I believe that we are limited in what we can focus on. I think that if we proceed with the partisan sideshow of prosecuting Bush admin. officials, healthcare will get lost in the brouhaha.
— Posted by denamom, Obama's Quandary...

Recent Posts
Bob Woodward

The Washington Post's permanent investigative unit was set up in 1982 under Bob Woodward.


Archives
See what you missed, find what you're looking for.
Blog Archive »
Investigations Archive »

Have a Tip?
Send us information on ethics violations or abuses of power.
E-Mail Us »

Other
Investigations
Notable investigative projects from other news outlets.
On the Web »
Top Picks »

Check the Candidates' Tax Returns

POSTED: 07:31 PM ET, 04/ 4/2008 by The Editors

The Clinton campaign today released tax returns that show Bill and Hillary Clinton earned a combined $109 million between 2000 and 2007. Barak Obama and his wife earlier released returns showing their most recent adjusted gross income was over $900,000.

In the spirit of the tax and political season, the Investigations blog invites its readers to look through these returns and discuss what's in there.

Hillary and Bill Clinton: 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Barack and Michelle Obama: 2000-2006 (Warning: the returns are grouped in one 103-page document that takes a long time to load.)

By The Editors |  April 4, 2008; 7:31 PM ET
Previous: City to Sue Landlords | Next: D.C. Council Questions Contract

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Is it too much ask for the Post to point out McCain has still refused to release his taxes and perhaps harp on it as much as the rest of the media has harped on Hillary Clinton's taxes.

I will give credit to the Post's editorial board for at least bringing it up but some of it McCain loving reporters such as Jonathan Weisman needs to step up and do the same. I am not as kind as Media Matters is to Weisman because the Post editorialized on this point a week before Weisman's comments.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200803140010

During a March 5 Washingtonpost.com online discussion, Washington Post congressional reporter Jonathan Weisman wrote, "I think McCain has" released his tax returns. Weisman was wrong. Not only hasn't McCain released his taxes, he hasn't even promised to do so in the future, as Clinton has. But it's hard to blame Weisman for not knowing this, given that the rest of the news media were all but ignoring the subject.

Posted by: Tom | April 4, 2008 8:18 PM

The Clintons did not release their tax returns for 2007 but they were supposed to release them before the Pennsylvannia primaries. What's the problem? Why is Hillary trying to gain time?

Posted by: Logan | April 4, 2008 8:57 PM

Today's Wall Street Journal reports that Clinton consultant Mark Penn is shilling for a free trade agreement with Colombia that Hillary says she opposes.

As can be seen from the Clintons' tax returns, those friendly people in Dubai give millions to Bill Clinton while Hillary claims she opposes Dubai ownership of American seaports on national security grounds.

Marc Rich, the fugitive international financier and union buster, was pardoned by Bill Clinton, who enjoyed a social relationship with Rich's wealthy wife.

Hillary's brothers, Tony and Hugh Rodham, also profited from dubious presidential pardons offered by the would-be First Filanderer.

Tony Rodham helped gain a presidential pardon for a Tennessee couple convicted of bank fraud.

Hugh Rodham pocketed $400,000 in legal fees after two of his clients were granted last-minute pardons. One, Carlos Vignali Jr., was convicted for transporting 800 pounds of cocaine; and his pardon was granted against the wishes of the Justice Department.

The list goes on and on ...

One of the best compilations was done by the very reputable Stuart Taylor of the National Journal, who asked:

"Hillary Rodham Clinton is supposed to be smart. But how smart is it for a woman with such a bad reputation for truthfulness and veracity to put those character traits at the center of the campaign?)" ...

Christopher Hitchens, the ubiquitous conscience of the Fourth Estate, is right.

Hillary's "offenses to veracity and decency rival," he said, "if not indeed surpassed, the disbarred and perjured hack who is her husband and tutor."

Parents, can anyone in their right mind think this pair of co-dependent "grifters"--the word Jimmy Carter's chief of staff, Hamilton Jordan, used to define them--is a good role model for today's children?

Personal responsibility is the key to government accountability.

Just today, Hillary is blaming "the boys" for her tanking campaign ...

Forget the pharonic and wasteful spending by her campaign, the vicious infighting among her key advisors, race-gate, the made-for-Hollywood portrayal of Full-Metal-Jacket St. Hillary of Bosnia, etc., etc., etc.

When Hillary is losing, it is always because she is the victim of dark and sinister forces.

Except that these are an ever changing cast of characters (witness her making nice-nice last week with the man who in the 1990s she claimed headed the "vast rightwing conspiracy"--Pennsylvania mogul Mellon Scaife).

If you begin to add up the list of all those Hillary has blamed at one point or another for her being unable to realize her agenda or her ambitions you come up with at least the beginnings of an interesting profile ...

It is of the American people themselves.

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | April 4, 2008 10:58 PM

The connection with Dubai is very concerning to me.

Posted by: Howard | April 4, 2008 11:09 PM

Uh, you know:

1) your Obama URL is wrong - add a "0" to the year "200-06" to be "2000-06",

2) there are free utilities that will break the Obama file into one smaller PDF per year, and

3) there are also utilities that will compress PDFs to be smaller (with only a mild loss of resolution).

Posted by: jmorris | April 4, 2008 11:11 PM

The tax returns are one thing. They will be gone over with a fine tooth comb - EXCEPT, of course, the ones that are mosty crutial.

More importantly, hwoever, is that the Clintons are clever enough to put a viel over the incredible PENN story which came out today.
It is there that I think you will find astounding things for them to be ashamed about.

She stood up, before Ohio, and ridiculed Obama and said "if I had someone on my staff who was dealing with other countries in this way, I'd be concerned". What a smokescreen!!!
GO OVER THIS MEDIA!

Posted by: barbara miller | April 5, 2008 12:42 AM

It seems to me that the same announcement that reports the Clinton's income should report the Obama's income, since the candidates' income is apparently newsworthy.

Posted by: Christopher Inman | April 5, 2008 12:51 AM

109 MILLION !!!

And the Clintons are supposed to be the friend of Blue Collar workers?


And, we supposed to contribute to her campaign?

109 MILLION !

And she LENDS her campaign 5 million (while asking ordinary folk to contribute)

109 MILLION !

and her campaign doesn't pay it's bills?


it says a lot!

(I can think of 109 million reasons why I wouldn't give Hillary a penny !)

Posted by: kevinlarmee | April 5, 2008 1:14 AM

The fact that she "loaned" her campaign 5 mill with interest which would be paid from future campaign donations tells you a lot about these pond scum. You can count on her not receiving small donations from here on out.

Posted by: mel_in_mn | April 5, 2008 1:18 AM

Clearly, Hillary Clinton is no Mitt Romney.

Posted by: Hal | April 5, 2008 1:25 AM

After 35 years of public service, the Clintons earned every cent. Thank God they didn't use their public positions for personal gain. Hillary can afford to loan her campaign another 5 million.

Posted by: rvloser | April 5, 2008 2:02 AM

I had not heard that the $5 million loan to her campaign was with interest. Is this true? If so, it would be a major scandal. I have not read any such thing in the mainstream media. Will somebody with knowledge of the facts expound a little on this?

Posted by: Lito Hernanz | April 5, 2008 2:42 AM

Why is it so important for us to be nosey? How more rude can America be, not to mention the audicity of disguising this "want to see" as having some bearing on their electability. It is a blantant invasion of their privacy! How about this, if you want to view their return, then you should post yours for everyone to see as well. The only people who have a right to invade their privacy in this way is the IRS. If the IRS has no problem with their taxes, then who are we to question or judge them? What is with this "bulldog mentality" that people have adapted towards them? It's right up there with jealous and envy. Two of the worlds greatest sins, and two that we are all guilty of possessing. But, why??? Who cares what they made--OR rather, SHE made--there should be no comment about Bill, because he's not running for president--unless, that is, you ARE only just being nosey. What's important here, PEOPLE, is CAN SHE DO THE JOB?? That's all I care about. Everything else will take care of itself. Stop being bulldogs and STOP with the BULLYING! Stop taking every little piece of...nothing and shredding it into...NOTHING!

Posted by: Annette | April 5, 2008 5:21 AM

So Bill paid more than $400,000 in wages in 2006, in connection with his speechifying business.

Speechwriters? Traveling companions? Or just general office work (no political duties involved)?

Posted by: Bob | April 5, 2008 5:49 AM

Hey Washingotn Post, how come I can access the Clintons tax returns but not Obama's

hmmmmmm

this is the message I get:

"We are unable to locate the page you requested.
The page may have moved or may no longer be available "

Can you get your IT on this or are you refusing to publish?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2008 6:07 AM

So the major charitable contribution is to the Clinton Family Foundation .... and the Foundation gives $3,600 to the United Church of Christ (Wider Church Ministries). Hillary and Bill, subsidizing Barack's Rev. Wright?

Also from the Foundation, Yale gets $25,000 while Wellesley gets $35,000. In either case, a paltry return for the schools that put them on their path to millions.

Posted by: Bob | April 5, 2008 6:19 AM

The Clinton Family Foundation also has a problem with its $5,000 contribution in 2006 to "Wellstone Action!" That organization's website advises donors:

Wellstone Action is a nonprofit organization under Section 501(c)(4) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. Contributions support Wellstone Action's grassroots organizing, lobbying and campaigns and they are not tax-deductible."

Posted by: Bob | April 5, 2008 6:22 AM

Hey Annette, and anyone else offended by this "invasion of privacy". It's called PUBLIC service.

The question is not "Can" she do the job? In fact, anyone "can" do the job. Just look at the idiot that's in there now. The question is "how" would she do the job? She's smart, she's capable, she has a lot of good ideas. She'd do a decent job. But, her past experience says she'd do it secretly, with a bunker mentality. I for one am sick of that mode of operation. And as for the tax returns, it also gives us (the public who would be governed by another Clinton administration) some insight into where their wealth comes from and how they use it. Do they make lot's of donations? Yes. But the donations on to their own foundation. Interesting. And that foundation has paid out less than half of the donations it has received. Also interesting. I for one want to know more.

I vote for greater transparency. Obama '08!

Posted by: rightsaid | April 5, 2008 6:33 AM

Yet not a single person mentioning McCain has never released his taxes even from his earlier run at President. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has released their taxes from 2000 through 2006 but McCain has never released his taxes but look what the fight here is all about.

As far as 2007, neither Clinton or Obama has released them and most likely because they owe money and wait to the last day or just before to send it in.

I happen to like both candidates and prefer either one over McCain. If you continue to bash each other, you will be simply giving Bush a third term through John McCain.

Posted by: Tom | April 5, 2008 6:54 AM

What Tom said in first comment above.

Also, when your boy McCain finally is persuaded to release his taxes, make sure his rich wife's taxes are included, like the Clintons did.

Posted by: Bartolo | April 5, 2008 7:24 AM

I am confused. The headline in both the Post and NY Times is that the Clintons earned 109 million over the last 8 years. But if the 2007 returns have not been released, how can it be "the last 8 years"? I count 7 (2000 - 2006) Would some please clarify.

Posted by: AB68 | April 5, 2008 7:35 AM

sniff sniff sniff.

Posted by: linda | April 5, 2008 8:12 AM

To Christopher and the anonymous poster who see dark unfairness in WaPo's failure to put Obama's tax returns side by side. Obama's were released, so just Google it. The NYT says he made $1.6M in 2006, mainly from book income. From the stories I saw, Obama's returns showed mainly salary income and royalties from Obama's books. I don't know if Obama has had any income from speeches, etc.

It is notable that Hillary's book income is quite a bit less than Bill's. NYT says $10.5M total on "It Takes A Village" and her autobiography. I remember she got a $7M advance on the autobiography, so the $10.5M total indicates sales were not robust. I wonder if her publisher recouped the advance.

Posted by: TK in Texas | April 5, 2008 8:35 AM

In reviewing the 2006 return I noticed that on form 1116 Bill Clinton reported in excess of $6,000,000 in foreign source income from "Various Countries". The IRS instructions for this form specifically indicate the income is "to be reported on a country by country basis". I think this return should be amended to properly reflect from which foreign countries this income was derived. This could be quite revealing.
In addition I noticed that with speech and book income in excess of $14,000,000 Bill Clinton only paid social security tax on $94,000 of it. While this is legal it does highlight the unfairness of the current system.

Posted by: Curious | April 5, 2008 8:49 AM

$109 million in 8 years, from the White House "experience". Money made on the backs of poor disenfranchised people whose "pain" the Clintons supposedly feel. Jetting all over the world, on private jets of oil rich sheiks, and getting paid extraordinary amounts of money for "speeches", and stuff.

Meanwhile, The Senator who would be President, attacks the very "foreign money interests" from which her husband is receiving money. From which SHE is receiving money "through him". All the while they talk about "Bush and Cheney, and their rich friends".

Hey, it sounds like another example of the hypocrisy we saw in the dictionary. Trying to "equate with the community", while making millions dealing with the very people who capitalize on the state of disadvantagedness of this community.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2008 10:19 AM

Like some of the other posters, I want to know: Where are the returns from 2007?

Posted by: Holly in Louisiana | April 5, 2008 10:23 AM

Are the fat cats who paid Bill Clinton $250,000 for his one-hour speeches the same folks who so generously contributed to Hillary's campaign and, of late, are trying to intimidate Democrats in the Senate into giving her the advantage?

Are the small $25-$100 contributions she's now receiving from working class folks coming from them individually or channeled through them by the same fat cats into her campaign? (Recall the postal carrier who contributed $50,000 though he earns only $40,000)

Are the $10.2 million the Clintons contributed to their non-profit foundation being forwarded to charitable organizations, as required, or secretly siphoned off by Hillary's to cover camping expenses?
Where did the $5 million she "lent" her staff come from?

Did Hillary earn the standard 10%-20% royalty for her ghost-written autobiography or did she bypass a publisher and kept all the profit for herself? And if she published and marketed the book herself, where did she get money? When the book came out in 2003 the Clintons wouldn't have had the means to risk such a venture.

Since in her outreach to college students daughter Chelsea refuses to discuss the Monica Lewinski scandal, perhaps she could answer some those questions about her parent's finances. Or is this none of their business as well?

Carlos Navarro
http://gadfly26.blogspot

Posted by: Carlos Navarro | April 5, 2008 10:30 AM

The information in the Clinton's tax returns is of such a summary nature that not much in the way of conclusion can be drawn.

Posted by: Karl | April 5, 2008 10:39 AM

Hillary is all for lobbyists,favours owed and owing favours but none for the poor people.How can you explain that she only gave money to charity in her entire life only when she started running for presidency[ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/clintons-discolsed-tax-returns-show-more-than-109m-earned-in-the-past-eight-years-805030.html ]? SAY NO TO LOBBYISTS SETTING THE AGENDA AND VOTE FOR CHANGE:OBAMA'08&'12

Posted by: Clintonfatigue | April 5, 2008 10:59 AM

Are Clintons going to take a big pay cut if Hilary becomes the President or is he going to continue his big money speeches, consulting...?

Posted by: LUMINGSHIH | April 5, 2008 11:23 AM

Our attention have beed diverted from the real campaign issue.

MARK PENN, Hillary Clinton's chief campaign strategist, apologized for meeting with Colombia's ambassador to discuss a trade pact the candidate opposes!

The same way they met with Canada's regarding NAFTA oppositio; and turned to blame it on Obama during the run-up to the Ohio primary.

We are not FOOLED this time. I just hope the Pennsylvanian's ain't either.

We now know who tells the people a different thing in the campaign while her aids go behind the scene to negotiate the REAL DEAL!!!

Posted by: Smart | April 5, 2008 11:36 AM

What would be useful instead of most of these comments is if the WaPo did a comparison on past President's income after they left the White House. The Kennedy and the Bush families were wealthy and connected before they pursued the presidency. The Clinton family was not. When all these posters become president they too can reap the financial rewards. Until then, enough of this nonsense.

Posted by: PKelly65 | April 5, 2008 11:40 AM

How come there's no breakout of the charitable contributions? I was looking forward to checking whether any of that tithing went to The Fellowship or any of its many AKAs...see


http://harpers.org/archive/2003/03/0079525

I mean, if they're claiming charitable gifts, there should be a form in the tax return listing the recipients. Why isn't it there for any of the years?

Posted by: Dem | April 5, 2008 11:45 AM

For Obama's returns, by year rather than as a 103-page document, go to the TaxProfBlog:

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/03/obama-releases.html

I'm a supporter of neither Obama nor Clinton, but for those clamoring for the 2007 returns, those returns aren't due until 15 April 2008. Moreover, they're entitled to extend them until 15 October 2008. Feel free to hold their feet to the fire.

Posted by: Scott Meyer | April 5, 2008 12:26 PM

I saw "NONE" under line 45 on the Clinton's tax return.

This is the AMT line. The Alternative Minimum tax is being paid by everyday tax payers, yet, neither the Clinton's nor the Obama's paid it.

Tax shelters must be nice. I wish the media and their tax experts would discuss how they got around it. I would like to know the trick.

My husband and I made $182,000 in AGI and paid $3,000 in AMT.

So much for middle class tax payers not being hit.

Posted by: Samantha | April 5, 2008 12:32 PM

The Clintons did NOT release their tax returns for 2007! And it seems that they do not plan to release them before the Pennsylvannia primaries while Hillary had said that they would. What's the problem? To much dirty sources for the money? They don't want to show who will have influence on them in a new Clinton White House? And where are the records about the big donors to the Clinton's library? The Clinton library received recently a $31.3 million donation after Bill expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader's, undercuting both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan's poor human rights: Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html

We need to know more about the Clintons records.

Note that the current records should show that the Clintons made a lot of money with Dubai while Hillary is criticizing this of relationship with foreign organization on the campaign trail.

Posted by: Logan6 | April 5, 2008 12:43 PM

How about holding the feet to the fire to the only candidate who has never released his taxes John McCain?

Isn't it odd the Straight talk express guy has never faced hounding overr this issue? The Post brought it up in a Fenruary 27th editorial. Yet a week later a Post Reporter Jonathan Weisman falsely states in a chat in his own paper that he beliebves McCain has released his tax returns.

Basically the mainstream media has created a situation where Obama gets criticized for a lack of charitable contributions, Clinton for making a lot of money while McCain gets a free pass. The barbecue he feeds the press pool must be pretty good that he can ignore disclosing his income taxes ever since he started running for President.

How about having a Washington Post investigation on why McCain is given such kid glove treatment by the media even though he refuses to disclose his taxes?

Posted by: Tom | April 5, 2008 1:02 PM

I am confused, are the Clintons Democrats or Republicans ?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2008 1:10 PM

TOWNHALL - Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign released their tax forms from 2000-2007 Thursday, which showed the Clintons earned more than $100 million in that time period and donated $10 million of that to their own charity.

The Clinton campaign reports donating $10,256,741 to the CFF between 2000 and 2006. During that time, CFF dispersed $2,530,100 in money to other charities and causes.

The names of other persons who donated to the CFF are not required to be disclosed.

Over the years, the CFF gave $80,000 to the Clinton Birthplace Foundation Inc., $20,000 to the Shakespeare Theatre, $40,000 to the School of the American Ballet, $5,000 to the YMCA of Martha's Vineyard, $10,000 to Amnesty International.

The CFF also donated money to the Immanuel Baptist Church in Shackelford, Arkansas, Georgetown and Yale each year.

CFF lost a significant amount of money in the last two tax reporting years. CFF claimed $4.3 million assets on their 2005 IRS 990 forms. CFF reported much less, $255,890, on their most recent 2006 tax forms. It is not immediately clear from reading the forms where the money went or why assets were lost.

During that time, the Clintons removed themselves as senior officials of the foundation on their tax forms and moved CFF headquarters.

The 2005 tax returns show the foundation's address as P.O Box 937 Chappaqua, New York�the city which the Clintons keep their New York home. The next year's tax forms lists the CFF address as in Salinas, California.

On the 2005 forms and those from previous years, Bill Clinton was listed as CFF President, Hillary Clinton has the title of secretary/treasurer and daughter Chelsea Clinton was "director." The 2006 tax forms list Gloria Clinton as CFF CEO and Manager, Erlinda Valdez as secretary and Catherina Hillman as treasurer.

Gloria Clinton was paid $252,500 according to the 2006 returns for her work that year

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2008 1:16 PM

I just love the disparity of how much Sen. Obama gave to charity vs the Sen. HRC.

That tells you how much she cares for those in need!

Posted by: jerry rubin | April 5, 2008 2:01 PM

I must admit that I am surprised. I surely thought a scandal would fall out of the Clinton's tax returns. I am cautiously proud of them. Still voting for Obama though.

Posted by: Chris Stewart | April 5, 2008 2:20 PM

Bill came to Cornell University to give a speech on Convocation event. He was reportedly paid $250,000. All of my friends went to see him, and some of them got in line as early as 5:00am in the morning. He was absolutely great!

Say anything you want, I think he deserves all those earnings.

I was a foreign student and got my ph.d. and now work in the US. I remeber how all of us, the young ph.d. students once got together and talked about how Bush was elected twice in this country because many in this country thought he is a nice person to have a beer with. We couldn't understand why so many in the US hate the Clintons, whom, by the way, are well respected by people in my country. We care more about their ability to manage the country, less about their personal life.

Now, the Americans seem (to me) is repeating the mistake -- Obama, a cool person to listen to. He has shown absolutely no record or his ability to lead. He even couldn't claim anything good he has doen for his own IL district, where 11 of Rezko's public-subsidzed projects went south and left those low-income people poor living conditions.

I have yet to have the right to vote in this county. But if I have, I will vote for Clinton. All of my friends have made similar decision.

Posted by: Student | April 5, 2008 2:54 PM

This release raises a number of questions:
What is the source of Bubba's foreign based income?
What does he do for Yucaipa to merit a $15M
payout?
Who are the charities and organizations that receive money from the Clinton Foundation?
How much has the Foundation paid out versus taken in?
I am sure that with the Clinton's usual transparency, we will have these answers forthcoming very quickly. maybe mark Penn will be assign the task of spinning an answer.

Posted by: tom | April 5, 2008 3:37 PM

The more they make, the more taxes they pay. What's wrong with that?

Posted by: Ellen | April 5, 2008 4:26 PM

The real "good stuff," you can bet is in the 2007 tax return and no one seems to even mention it....she has been successful in taking our "eye" off that particular return and many people think it's included in what they released......I hope someone points this out.....many many many times.

Posted by: Peg | April 5, 2008 5:58 PM

Rightsaid...I vote for transparency too,so when are we going to hear about Obama's drug habit and if he WAS a dealer.That is alot more important then how much anyone made or paid in taxes.Of course all you people who desire to raise druggies don't seem to care.Remember Bush??

Posted by: ggranny21 | April 5, 2008 6:03 PM

Im confused. The Clintons est taxes for 2007 ARE POSTED. They are filing an extension and therefore they are not final. Here's the info:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/returns/2007est.pdf

Sorry to take away one more excuse for whining.

Posted by: Ann | April 5, 2008 7:12 PM

Is there any way we can determine just how much of the charitable contributions from 2000 to 2006 actually went to the Clinton Family Foundation? If I read the return correctly for 2006, $1,580,503 went to the Clinton Family Foundation for that year.

Posted by: rvloser | April 5, 2008 7:26 PM

Ann: Thanks for the information about the estimated Clinton taxes for 2007, but we are talking about the Clintons. Who knows what the truth is from those two. Sorry, but honesty is not a trait I would give to either of them and a paragraph on hillaryclinton.com is not a reliable source for me..

Posted by: Truth Seeker | April 5, 2008 7:33 PM

Where Did Obamas get $ 1, 650,000 CASH to BUY Chicago Mansion in 2005, when they Earned $ 250,000 that year. It was not Borrowed in a Mortgage.

Posted by: Robert | April 5, 2008 9:00 PM

Hang out with and "Do Business with Rezkos"... THAT'S OK? Clintons did Not Associate with Criminals!

Mrs Rezko bought lot part of $ 1,650,000 mansion owner would not sell separately.Obama''s excuse was: "Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn''t have felt comfortable staying at the church," Obama said Thursday during a taping of the ABC talk show, "The View." The interview will be broadcast Friday.
Oh really? Did Wright actually "acknowledge" that he had offended people and his remarks were "inappropriate?"

Tom McGuire:
So, when did Wright acknowledge that what he had said was deeply offensive and inappropriate? The AP story recounts some of Wright''s controversial comments but oddly omits to mention his apology, as does all other news coverage with which I am familiar.

And I am strangely certain that a Wright apology would have made the news - unless he never made it publicly. So what are we supposed to believe - that Wright apologized to Obama, who is now apologizing to the rest of us on Wright''s behalf? For heaven''s sake, this really does show that Obama is made of Presidential stuff - maybe he can do an Apology Tour, just as Bill Clinton did.


Barack lied:

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2008 9:07 PM

Christopher Inman===well, yeah. Except that Obama released his 2007 like 6 weeks ago and followed about two weeks later with all of them back to 2000.His could have been released with hers had she not held back on them. Duh!!

Posted by: majorteddy | April 5, 2008 9:20 PM

robert===Michelle had a very lucrative bottle route. Maybe they saved it up over the years.

Posted by: majorteddy | April 5, 2008 9:23 PM

Wow! I had no idea so many people knew Bill and Hillary intimately to judge their character. Or judge them for that matter. And we wonder why the world is how it is. People never cease to amaze me with their hate. If you don't agree with someone's views, fine. You have the right. But why do you find it necessary to be so mean and hateful? If anyone doubts the world is ending soon, just read most of these posts. Love for their fellow person. It's all around.

Posted by: Sam | April 5, 2008 10:09 PM

1. I guess with all this talk of Obama's pastor, we can safely say that he is not a muslim. Funny how the Clinton and Foxnews supporters don't talk about how Obama is a muslim anymore.
2. Funny how all the dems that were upset about Bush and Carlyle group's ties to the Saudi Royal family are willing to give Hillary Clinton a pass when she and Bill take money from Dubai and Kazakhastan.
3. Funny how Mitt Romney can spend his own money on his campaign and yet Hillary loans her money to the campaign and is asking for more when she and Bill have made 109 Mill in 8 years.
4. Funny how many dems are willing to vote for another John Kerry in that Hillary voted for the war before she voted against it over and above choosing someone who presents a clear alternative to the republicans.
5. Funny how Obama is being held responsible for words someone (his pastor) else said; but Hillary Clinton is not held responsible for lying about Bosnia or the Ohio hospital issue - it is all of a sudden not lying, it is misspeaking.
6. Funny how Hillary supporters tout her experience with the economy but ignore the fact that her campaign manager is a paid director of a bankrupt prime loan bank.
7. Funny how Hillary supporters tout her experience as why she is ready to lead on "Day 1" yet her campaign is not paying its bills - in particular is in arrears when it comes to paying the health insurance for its workers (?!?) Is this how she will lead the country on day one?
8. Funny how if Obama were found in his taxes to be accepting money from Dubai, everyone would be accusing him of being a Muslim Manchurian candidate, but when Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton accept money from Middle Eastern emirates like George Bush and Carlyle Group, it is no problem for Hillary supporters (?). Why is that?
9. Funny how Fox news is now the pro-Hillary channel and Hillary is supported by Rupert Murdoch but dems hate Fox news because it is not fair or balanced. But now Hillary supporters love Fox. Fox is so pro-Hillary Sean Hannity is running a segment called the real Barack Obama and covering Planned Parenthood's support of Obama ($12000 contributed) but doesn't mention the thousands Planned Parenthood has given to the Clinton campaign?
10. Funny how all the MSM refer to Obama as black and always talk about his connection to African Americans when he is as much white as he is black; and where nurture is concerned more white since he was raised by his white mother and white grand-parents?

Dems where is the truth, where is the outrage?

Posted by: Andrew | April 6, 2008 1:07 AM

1. I guess with all this talk of Obama's pastor, we can safely say that he is not a muslim. Funny how the Clinton and Foxnews supporters don't talk about how Obama is a muslim anymore.
2. Funny how all the dems that were upset about Bush and Carlyle group's ties to the Saudi Royal family are willing to give Hillary Clinton a pass when she and Bill take money from Dubai and Kazakhastan.
3. Funny how Mitt Romney can spend his own money on his campaign and yet Hillary loans her money to the campaign and is asking for more when she and Bill have made 109 Mill in 8 years.
4. Funny how many dems are willing to vote for another John Kerry in that Hillary voted for the war before she voted against it over and above choosing someone who presents a clear alternative to the republicans.
5. Funny how Obama is being held responsible for words someone (his pastor) else said; but Hillary Clinton is not held responsible for lying about Bosnia or the Ohio hospital issue - it is all of a sudden not lying, it is misspeaking.
6. Funny how Hillary supporters tout her experience with the economy but ignore the fact that her campaign manager is a paid director of a bankrupt prime loan bank.
7. Funny how Hillary supporters tout her experience as why she is ready to lead on "Day 1" yet her campaign is not paying its bills - in particular is in arrears when it comes to paying the health insurance for its workers (?!?) Is this how she will lead the country on day one?
8. Funny how if Obama were found in his taxes to be accepting money from Dubai, everyone would be accusing him of being a Muslim Manchurian candidate, but when Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton accept money from Middle Eastern emirates like George Bush and Carlyle Group, it is no problem for Hillary supporters (?). Why is that?
9. Funny how Fox news is now the pro-Hillary channel and Hillary is supported by Rupert Murdoch but dems hate Fox news because it is not fair or balanced. But now Hillary supporters love Fox. Fox is so pro-Hillary Sean Hannity is running a segment called the real Barack Obama and covering Planned Parenthood's support of Obama ($12000 contributed) but doesn't mention the thousands Planned Parenthood has given to the Clinton campaign?
10. Funny how all the MSM refer to Obama as black and always talk about his connection to African Americans when he is as much white as he is black; and where nurture is concerned more white since he was raised by his white mother and white grand-parents?

Dems where is the truth, where is the outrage?

Posted by: Andrew | April 6, 2008 1:07 AM

1. I guess with all this talk of Obama's pastor, we can safely say that he is not a muslim. Funny how the Clinton and Foxnews supporters don't talk about how Obama is a muslim anymore.
2. Funny how all the dems that were upset about Bush and Carlyle group's ties to the Saudi Royal family are willing to give Hillary Clinton a pass when she and Bill take money from Dubai and Kazakhastan.
3. Funny how Mitt Romney can spend his own money on his campaign and yet Hillary loans her money to the campaign and is asking for more when she and Bill have made 109 Mill in 8 years.
4. Funny how many dems are willing to vote for another John Kerry in that Hillary voted for the war before she voted against it over and above choosing someone who presents a clear alternative to the republicans.
5. Funny how Obama is being held responsible for words someone (his pastor) else said; but Hillary Clinton is not held responsible for lying about Bosnia or the Ohio hospital issue - it is all of a sudden not lying, it is misspeaking.
6. Funny how Hillary supporters tout her experience with the economy but ignore the fact that her campaign manager is a paid director of a bankrupt prime loan bank.
7. Funny how Hillary supporters tout her experience as why she is ready to lead on "Day 1" yet her campaign is not paying its bills - in particular is in arrears when it comes to paying the health insurance for its workers (?!?) Is this how she will lead the country on day one?
8. Funny how if Obama were found in his taxes to be accepting money from Dubai, everyone would be accusing him of being a Muslim Manchurian candidate, but when Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton accept money from Middle Eastern emirates like George Bush and Carlyle Group, it is no problem for Hillary supporters (?). Why is that?
9. Funny how Fox news is now the pro-Hillary channel and Hillary is supported by Rupert Murdoch but dems hate Fox news because it is not fair or balanced. But now Hillary supporters love Fox. Fox is so pro-Hillary Sean Hannity is running a segment called the real Barack Obama and covering Planned Parenthood's support of Obama ($12000 contributed) but doesn't mention the thousands Planned Parenthood has given to the Clinton campaign?
10. Funny how all the MSM refer to Obama as black and always talk about his connection to African Americans when he is as much white as he is black; and where nurture is concerned more white since he was raised by his white mother and white grand-parents?

Dems where is the truth, where is the outrage?

Posted by: Andrew | April 6, 2008 1:07 AM

So. Clintons made a lot of money, 109 million, and many people are surprised, some are even ofended. I wonder why? What's wrong with making money. NOTHING. Change your mind people. Be open and get REAL. Clintons are SMART. They work smarter than harder, that's business, and there isn't anything evil on making business.

When people, such as in the case of the Clintons, generate money, they create business, and with business they create jobs. With jobs, they help those employed to generate some income on their own who then spend their money. Ultimately, money is circulated and their millions also help improve the country's economy to some level.

PLEASE se the whole picture. It's also about the practices you implement to make busines. What's wrong with publishing a couple of books, scheduling some public speaking engagements and charging thousands of $$$ to people willing to pay. I mean, they forced NOBODY to buy books or hear them speak. They provided a product (A BOOK) and a service (their PUBLIC SPEAKING). These are decent means to make money. So please jelous people stop pointing fingers at them. Stop blaming them for being smarter than you and knowing how to generate money. Be smart, learn from them and get a life of your own.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2008 2:58 AM

So. Clintons made a lot of money, 109 million, and many people are surprised, some are even ofended. I wonder why? What's wrong with making money. NOTHING. Change your mind people. Be open and get REAL. Clintons are SMART. They work smarter than harder, that's business, and there isn't anything evil on making business.

When people, such as in the case of the Clintons, generate money, they create business, and with business they create jobs. With jobs, they help those employed to generate some income on their own who then spend their money. Ultimately, money is circulated and their millions also help improve the country's economy to some level.

PLEASE se the whole picture. It's also about the practices you implement to make busines. What's wrong with publishing a couple of books, scheduling some public speaking engagements and charging thousands of $$$ to people willing to pay. I mean, they forced NOBODY to buy books or hear them speak. They provided a product (A BOOK) and a service (their PUBLIC SPEAKING). These are decent means to make money. So please jelous people stop pointing fingers at them. Stop blaming them for being smarter than you and knowing how to generate money. Be smart, learn from them and get a life of your own.

Posted by: Carmen | April 6, 2008 2:58 AM

Obama has a back ground that would show all the signs of being a black muslim, You may want to look up sites like "Nation of Islam", Indoneisha and Kenya as well.
While obam didn't grow up with his father, his stepfather was also rooted in the Muslim background. I don't know about anyone one else, but, I if you read the doctrine of Nation of Islam and "what they want from WHITE AMERICA" you may start to feel very scared. Come on do you really think obam is really going to "own Up" to being Muslim? Gey real and wake up!
Sure America is ready for a black president, Colin Powell could and still could have the masses vote. But obam, no way.

"For he will decieve the masses and bring destruction and be the " most loved " of any before him".

Posted by: Vote USA | April 6, 2008 3:21 AM

The only Muslim influence I am worried about this election is that of the Clinton's receiving money from the Emir of Dubai while running for the Presidency.

No more flying out Saudi Princes after Saudis bomb our country; No more Clinton brokered deals to sell our shipping ports to Dubai emirs.

Let's get new leadership that is not Bush or Clinton.

Since when has America become a Monarchy? Why must we always be led by a Bush or Clinton that receives money from middle eastern leaders?

Posted by: Andrew | April 6, 2008 8:58 AM

A little perspective.

Since the $109 million is for two people over a seven-year period, each Clinton averaged about $7.8 million a year, well above the $41,231 the average American earned last year.

That is an enormous amount compared to cooks, who average $20,291 annually, or waiters and waitresses, who average only $8,931. It is also a lot compared to what policemen and fire fighters average every year ($51,192 and $50,981, respectively). It is even more than Barack Obama and his wife make ($1.6 million in a good year), and it is more than the salaries of the average doctor ($127,020), dentist ($130,057), surgeon ($177,052), judge ($123,933) or lawyer ($83,336). Seven million a year is also a lot for a government employee (a GS 15 averages $120,981, those on the executive schedule earn up to $191,300), and it is even a lot for the average CEO, who earns $220,317 a year. But it is not a lot for many of the heads of Fortune 500 companies, who make as much as $200 million annually, according to Forbes.

But most of the $109 million was not salary. The Clintons received a third of their incomes from book deals, which are unlikely to be repeated. They also paid a third of their earnings in taxes ($33.8 million) and put another $10.2 billion in a charitable trust. So they kept about 65 million, or 9.2 million annually, putting them well above the average family's income.

So the Clintons are rich--as rich as those CEOs who direct America's larger corporations.

But whether they are wealthy is a moot point. McCain and his wife are not poor, nor are Obama and his wife (and the Obamas still have fifteen years to match the Clintons).

The question is not whether Hillary Clinton is rich; it is whether she favors helping those on the bottom of the income scale who struggle to pay the rent and cannot afford health insurance. It is the respective programs of the candidates, not their earnings, that need to be studied and compared.

Posted by: Jim | April 6, 2008 11:11 AM

If Bill Clinton can make this much money out of the white house, imagine how much he would net if his lying wife somehow stole two elections?

Posted by: queenskid | April 6, 2008 1:09 PM

Carmen wrote:
>>
"So. Clintons made a lot of money, 109 million, and many people are surprised, some are even ofended. I wonder why? What's wrong with making money. NOTHING...

Posted by: PDSimic | April 6, 2008 4:18 PM

Obama hasn't filed his 07 return yet I believe you will see a large jump in Michelle's earnings.As Obama obtained a million dollar earmark for the hospital were she worked.

Posted by: roncraw | April 6, 2008 4:57 PM

So, the Clintons must cook their own food and clean their own houses just like us folks since I didn't see any nanny taxes on their tax returns? Just wondering...

Posted by: Wondering | April 7, 2008 10:10 AM

A lot of nice comments above. I have not filed my 2007 taxes yet either. Not due for another week...

Is no one else surprised that these two tax-and-spend, wealth redistribution, healthcare for all, Robin Hood Democrats don't donate their own money to charity?

Obama is at about 4%, with some pretty weak charities, including the Reverend Wrong. Clinton, from what I read above is at about 2.5%. Obama does donate to the UN, and a few other good ones, Clinton just defers her donations via the foundation.

Compare this with Dick Cheney for instance. More than half of his windfall income is donated to charity. (Tax returns are online) I include Book Deals and Stock IPO income that number.

The concept: Got free money? - Donate much of it to charity. And donate a good amount of your basic income to charity, too.

But sadly, neither of the Democrats (and get over it, they are really the same person) get the concept.

scott

Posted by: scottst | April 7, 2008 10:41 AM


Clinton Tax returns show $15,406,527 from

Yucaipa Global Opportunities Fund 1, LLC.


2003 $1,000,000
2004 $4,000,000
2005 $5,000,000
2006 $2,656,527
2007 $2,750,000

Bill Clinton's affiliation with billionaire Ron Burkle's Yucaipa Companies .

Mrs. Clinton's Senate financial-disclosure form, which includes spousal income, reveals her husband in 2005 received "guaranteed" partnership payments from Yucaipa Global Opportunities Fund I LLC of "over $1,000."

Posted by: Cisco | April 7, 2008 2:14 PM

Where are McCain's Tax Returns? We know his wife keeps him on a nice long leash, so hers are relevant too of course. Why no story there?

Posted by: Darnell Jones | April 29, 2008 12:41 PM

I wish I understood how to figure out the AMT form. My accountant did it this year, and I don't owe any, but it seems odd that with an income of less than 120K she would have to fill out the form and check. Meanwhile, the Clintons made millions and don't owe any AMT? I thought the AMT was supposed to capture tax due from sources other than those normally captured by the IRS, or was to "tax the rich" for not paying enough income tax. Any CPA's got a comment?

Posted by: mike | May 7, 2008 4:46 PM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 

© 2010 The Washington Post Company