What do you know about the Clinton Foundation?

No, I mean really. Think about it for a moment. What do you know about the Clinton Foundation?

And what is your attitude about the Clinton Foundation?

I ask, because of a short Email I received from Bloomberg Politics. Here are some excerpts:

With 76 days until election day, Hillary Clinton’s not-so-great week of e-mail-cum-Clinton Foundation woes marches on.

“E-mail – cum- Clinton Foundation woes”? What exactly are the “woes” for a foundation that gives to charity?

Donald Trump’s campaign is now going on offense after a new report found that more than half of the people outside the government who met with the former Secretary of State during her tenure gave money to the Foundation.

Let’s parse that sentence: We’re not talking about everyone Clinton has met.

We’re not even talking about everyone she met while she was Secretary of State.

And we’re not even talking about everyone she met while Secretary of State, who were not government employees.

We only are talking about half of non-government people who met her during the 4-year period, 2009-2013 — a relatively small number.

And what exactly is the complaint about those people? That they gave Mrs. Clinton money? No, that might be illegal, depending on circumstance.

That they gave Mrs. Clinton campaign contributions? No, would be perfectly legal in most cases.

The complaint seems to be, so far as I can tell, that these people gave to a charity started by Bill Clinton — not to Bill, not to Hillary, but to a charity.

While this type of access-granting is not necessarily illegal or out of the norm in political circles (and while the Clinton campaign is saying the report is based on flawed data), the story adds another pang to the doubts already plaguing the Clinton campaign.

No, it’s not at all illegal, and yes, it is the norm. And, if it’s not illegal, or even out of the norm, why does giving money to a charity that does not benefit the Clintons, add a “pang to doubts” plaguing the Clinton campaign?

Because Donald Trump said so.

Remind me: Isn’t Trump the guy who lied that President Obama is not a citizen? Isn’t Donald Trump the guy who is waiting to be civilly and criminally prosecuted for the Trump University scam that lined his pockets at the expense of innocent students.

And isn’t there a bit of irony to Trump’s criticism of a charitable foundation? (Trump promised millions to charity. We found less than $10,000 over 7 years.

Will Clinton’s lead in the polls and Trump’s disastrous August overshadow her transparency issues?

Or is it time for her to change her approach—and also maybe just shut the Foundation down?

Now that would be the real disgrace: Shut down a charity in an effort to get elected. This is what Bloomberg suggests? Yikes!

The claim (unproven, but so what?) is that Clinton gave introductions in return for contributions to the Foundation. She denies it.

But let’s say, worst-case, the accusations are true. Would the conversations have gone something like this:

“If you give a million dollars to my charitable foundation, I’ll arrange for you to meet Senator Jones.”
“O.K., Mrs. Clinton, I’ll give a million dollars to the Foundation.”

Is that pretty much what the worst-case scenario sounds like?

Maybe I’m naive. I don’t understand why it’s perfectly O.K. for people to give millions of dollars to Pacs and to candidates election committees, but not O.K. to give to a candidate’s charitymoney that does not go to the candidate herself.

Does anyone out there really believe rich donors like Mr. Bloomberg, give out campaign contributions, while expecting nothing in return, not even an introduction or a lunch meeting?

I have a long-time friend, who donated a lot of money to Obama’s campaign. My friend had dinner with Obama.  Ooooh . . . Is this a scandal?

And we’re not even talking about campaign contributions. We’re talking about charity. 

If someone came to me and said, “I’ll give a million dollars for cancer research, if you get me a meeting with Vice President Biden”, I’d do my darndest to make it happen.

And if I succeeded, I’d feel I’d done a good thing for the world.

But, Bloomberg wants Clinton to shut down a charity, a charity that is doing good for the world, just so she can get elected. I guess that is what passes for morality, today.

And Donald Trump, who lies about his meager charitable giving, criticizes the Clinton Foundation, and the media buy into the nonsense.

The world has turned upside down.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

Ten Steps to Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich afford better health care than the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE AN ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA, AND/OR EVERY STATE, A PER CAPITA ECONOMIC BONUS (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONEFive reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefiting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-tranferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the government (the later having no use for those dollars).
Any tax on corporations reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all corporate taxes come around and reappear as deductions from your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and corporate taxes would be an good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.