Wow, taking on Chelsea Clinton and even Bill and Hilly for being too rich! A NYTs columnist no less. This hardly seems safe if Maureen wants to stay a member of The Party (Democrat) in good standing!
I wonder what Maureen's net worth is? Since she is a long time successful columnist and has written a couple of books that have sold at least enough so it is "a couple" rather than one, I'm guessing that she is "comfortable" ... say $3-5 Million or so if she has been sensible at all. Definitely "top 5%er".
It is always mysterious to me how someone decides how much it is "right" for someone else to earn? I tend to see money like health, or good friends, or wisdom -- something that is at least based on God given blessings in ability, circumstance, etc. Can often be radically improved by work, habits, choices and of course the ever present "luck" ... or maybe again, blessings depending on your world view. It is almost always the same folks that claim that you "can't judge" on abortion, gay marriage, anything anti-Christian, etc that have an absolute 100% moral certainty about how much someone else ought to make. A topic I'll try to better understand another day.
What is one to make of this gem:
Chozick estimated that the lucrative family speechmaking business has generated more than $100 million for the former president and first lady, whose fees range from $200,000 to $700,000 per appearance. Bill alone earned $17 million last year doing what he likes to do best — talking.Based on history, how sure is Maureen that what Bill likes to do best is talking? But be that as it may, she is a writer -- I assume she enjoys writing, I certainly do ... and talking as well for that matter. Does she feel that her lifestyle is "undeserved" for "just writing"?
“It is troubling when corporate donors give to political charities with more or less obvious expectation softer and gentler treatment will ensue in the future. It is also troubling when some of the payers are public or nonprofit entities themselves such as colleges and universities, converting taxpayer funds and tax-exempt donations into signals that could end up in positive treatment when these institutions are themselves seeking access and favors, even if it is only a good word put in by one of the Clintons to a federal agency providing funding or to a regulator who might be taking a critical look at university tuitions and endowment payouts.What part of "progressive" has Maureen missed? As the government progressively gets larger and ever more intrusive, the hope of those intruded on that they can pay for "softer and gentler treatment " gets more and more fervent and desperate. This is EXACTLY why we once had a Constitution and LIMITED government, so that law abiding people and business did not have to try to curry favor in hopes of better treatment.
Maureen apparently gets that, but is just surprised there are people in government that will take advantage of the situation to their own benefit? She is a columnist and has no better grasp on the human propensity to use conditions to our advantage that that? Naive really doesn't cover it. ALL human institutions need to have limits on power -- and ESPECIALLY the government, because it has the greatest chance of becoming an oppressor. Vermin like the Clintons are a sure sign of how deep the rot has become here -- they are like seeing rats around your grainery.
Mareen may find that her life takes a very bad turn here. Being a columnist with the NYTs and risking losing your status as a TPM (The Party Member) in GOOD STANDING is risky business. I will be actually surprised if I am NOT writing a "I told you so" in less than a year.
'via Blog this'
No comments:
Post a Comment