Thursday, July 27, 2006

Ned Lamont's generous spirit 

Regular readers know that I have not been paying a lot of attention to the Lamont-Lieberman Senate race in Connecticut, except to read the debate on the right about what this means for the Democratic Party in the next election cycle. Either way, Connecticut is going to have an exceedingly liberal Senator next year.

However, regular readers also know that I always enjoy picking on The New York Times, and few do it better than Tom Maguire. Today Maguire wonders why the Times, for the first time in its history, is not interested in the admission practices of a private country club. Indeed, Maguire managed to write his highly entertaining post without even citing the Grey Hypocrite's obsessive coverage four years ago of the Augusta National Golf Club's admissions rules. That it should conveniently fail to examine Ned Lamont's membership in Round Hill, mindlessly republishing the campaign talking points, is at least a little hilarious.

So is this other bit linked by Maguire under the subtitle "bonus laughtrack":

Ned Lamont, the Greenwich multimillionaire who is challenging Senator Joseph I. Lieberman in next month’s Democratic primary, had an adjusted gross income of more than $2.8 million last year, according to the 2005 tax return his campaign released yesterday.

But that money is only a fraction of Mr. Lamont’s wealth, which his advisers estimate at around $200 million. The returns did not include the income of his wife, Annie Lamont, who is a partner at a Westport-based venture capital fund and considered a millionaire in her own right....

Mr. Lamont paid $621,213 in federal taxes and $43,074 in real estate taxes in 2005. He claimed $5,385 in charitable contributions.

Mr. Lamont had a salary of $546,044, and received capital gains of more than $1.7 million, according to the tax returns.

Only five grand in charitable contributions on an adjusted gross income of $2.8 million? Well, what do you expect from a statist? He believes government should do all the stuff that charities now do.

If one were to tweak Maguire and offer up a defense of Lamont, it is that his family foundation gave away $213,750 last year. The Times does not report the assets in the foundation, but by definition they would not have been included in Ned Lamont's $200 million net worth. No matter. Either the foundation is equally cheap, or it is a miniscule operation compared to Lamont's net worth. If we assume that the foundation gives away 5% of its net worth every year, which would keep its total assets growing at around the rate of inflation, the foundation only has about $4,000,000 in it. Lamont is a skinflint no matter how you measure it.


By Anonymous larwyn, at Thu Jul 27, 10:40:00 PM:

Generous spirits unite.


Michael Shiavo Heads East to Campaign for Ned Lamont

Michael Shiavo:

- the man who would not allow the parents of his dead wife to view her body when she was alive
- or dead
- then did not tell them about her funeral
- or what he did with her ashes,
- and promised to have her remains buried in Pennsylvania, but didn't
- and then gave her family, the Schindlers, a final FU on her gravestone is heading to Connecticut to campaign for Ned Lamont!

No matter what your thoughts are about the life and death of Terri Shiavo, this guy is one scum bucket.

By Blogger Purple Avenger, at Thu Jul 27, 11:30:00 PM:

Buying a lifetime supply of gift certificates for a "Night at Hooters" doesn't really count as charity in my mind ;->  

By Blogger ScurvyOaks, at Fri Jul 28, 02:58:00 PM:

If Lamont's foundation is a "private foundation," as appears likely, Section 4942 of the Internal Revenue Code requires annual distributions of at least 5% of the value of the foundation's assets (other than assets used directly in carrying out the foundation's exempt purpose). Failure to comply with this requirement would subject the foundation to significant penalties, so it seems safe to assume that Lamont's foundation complies. Consequently, it can be said with some confidence that the investment assets of the foundation did not exceed $4,275,000 at the end of last year.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sat Jan 10, 09:11:00 AM:



Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?