Sunday, August 24, 2014

Advocacy v. Philanthropy

Not long ago, I posted the following observation about Ms. Hillary Rodham (a.k.a. Clinton to some of you):

By the way, her Forbes website profile claims she is a "philanthropist". The usual definition of that term is "a person who seeks to promote the welfare of others, esp. by the generous donation of money to good causes". Although she is making millions of dollars, can you name a single good cause to which she has applied it ... other than her campaign fund, which arguably will NEVER promote the welfare of anyone other than herself?


Recently I received the following comment about that observation:


Howard, you are wrong, very wrong. Hillary HAS spent a large majority of her career being an advocate for the welfare of children. She has also been a public servant. Get your facts straight please. You are too ignorant to be a saint.


There can be a big difference between mere "advocacy" and philanthropy. Although Ms. Rodham has indeed advocated many causes, the chief point of my observation is that the millions of dollars she has made do not appear to have been applied to any of those causes.


Far from being a philanthropist, Ms. Rodham appears to be more like a pig feeding at the public trough:



Here are some examples of what I mean:

(1) The taxpayers got billed for expenses during her book tour:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2722178/Expensive-Choices-US-taxpayers-spent-55-000-travel-expenses-Hillary-Clintons-BOOK-TOUR-Paris-Berlin.html


As the spouse of a former President, she is basically set for life ... at public expense. And as a former SoS, she's also a double dipper at the federal trough.


(2) She demands huge speaking fees, lavish accommodations, and luxury air transportation, even from public institutions:


http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/high-fashion-expense-hillary-travel


(3) She traveled nearly a million miles as Secretary of State, but the cost of that travel and her accommodations have never been revealed:


http://lonelyconservative.com/2013/07/how-much-did-hillary-clintons-travel-cost-the-taxpayers/


Since she always travels "presidential class", the cost must have been substantial. And what was the ROI for that money? Considering the state of the world today, We The People got essentially nothing of value from all her travels.


The money she now collects appears to go into her campaign fund and/or the so-called Clinton Foundation. According to the Better Business Bureau, that foundation does not meet its standards for governance and effectiveness:


http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/bill-hillary-and-chelsea-clinton-foundation-in-new-york-ny-655


And even The New York Times, hardly a nest of Clinton haters, has criticized the Clinton Foundation for its shady business deals and conflicts of interest:


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/us/politics/unease-at-clinton-foundation-over-finances-and-ambitions.html


The latest financial report filed by the foundation (for 2012) lists the following expenditures:

  • Salaries and benefits $62,611,672
  • Travel $13,554,476
  • Direct Program Expenditures $20,966,926

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/files/clinton_foundation_report_public_9-10-13.pdf


In other words, the foundation spent $55 million more on foundation employees and executives than was spent on the programs which allegedly benefit women, children, and/or the poor.


So in the long run, is Hillary a philanthropist ... or is the public, directly or indirectly, actually the ones who are donating money to her? You be the judge.


And as far as whether I am too ignorant to be a saint, I admit there are many things I do not know. I do, on the other hand, know the difference between those who worship G-d and those who worship Mammon. And I do not want another President who worships Mammon.

No comments:

Post a Comment