Santorum's most despicable lie

[dsc]

Last edited Sun Mar 25, 2012, 07:32 PM - Edit history (1)

On March 4th, Rick Santorum appeared on Fox News Sunday and was asked about his charitable contributions, which were substantially less than those of Romney or Obama. Here is what he said.

WALLACE: One last question on social issues. You say that churches and faith-based organizations have a big role to play in helping the poor, helping people who are disadvantaged.

I want to ask you about the 2010 tax returns because in them, they show that President Obama gave 14 percent of his income to charity. Mitt Romney almost 14 percent. You gave 1.76 percent.

Why so little, sir?

SANTORUM: Well, I mean, we always need to do better. I was in the situation where we have seven children and one disabled child who we take care of and she's very, very expensive. We love her and we cherish the opportunity to take care of her. But she's -- it's an additional expense and we have round the clock care for it and our insurance company doesn't cover it, so I pay for it. And you know, that's one of the things that, you know, you have to balance the needs of your immediate family.

And if you look back in the previous years, we did donate more. And it's an area that I need to do better and will do better.

WALLACE: Actually, we looked at your charitable returns, I think since 2007. And in every case, it was around 2 percent. You talked about --

SANTORUM: Well, it was 3 percent or 4 percent in some cases, but that's OK. Again, we were dealing -- we are dealing with a situation in our own family. I have seven children. During those four years, we had our little girl, and it was -- it's very costly. She is very costly.

Again, I'm not making excuse except for the fact that, you know, every families go through periods of times where they have to donate -- dedicate resources to the problems they have in their own family and taking care of people. And that's what we did.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/2012/03/04/rick-santorum-looks-ahead-super-tuesday-sens-graham-blumenthal-talk-iran-afghanistan?page=2#ixzz1qAeykzed

end of quote, bolding mine.

Now, Bella was born in 2008 and one of the years he did turn over was 2007 which would cover 2006. That year he gave 13,383 on an income of 668,480 which is a smidge over 2% (remember Bella was born in 2008).

His 2008 return, which covers 2007, he gave 21,990 on income of 952,630 which is 2.31%.

His 2009 return, his first post Bella, he gave 29,822 on an income of 1,127,266, which is 2.6%

His 2010 return, he gave 16,289 on an income of 930,227 which is 1.75%.

If you do a pre Bella and post Bella total you see the following. He gave 35,273 on income of 1,621,110 which is 2.175% pre Bella. Post Bella he gave 46,111 on income of 2,057,493 which is 2.24%. That's right, his charitable giving actually went up after he had Bella. Blaming his disabled child for his lack of charitable giving, can it get any lower?

Just realized I didn't put in a link to his returns.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/02/exclusive-santorum-releases-four-years-of-taxes-114653.html

Go to the four links labeled here, here, here, and here.

[cbayer]

1. Good job. This is truly despicable.

And how does he think that people making less than 1 or 2 million a year take care of their disabled children?

What an ass.

[Ken Burch]

32. He probably think they're being punished by God for the wife's orgasms.

[K Gardner]

2. Everything he says is despicable, but this rises to the top. K&R

[dballance]

3. I'm being a nice guy

You know he does have a special needs child and it is really expensive. So if he can't afford to contribute as much as Romney or Obama then I understand that.

Good grief I'm really being an understanding Democrat. One of our biggest faults is having sympathy for others and not being as big bastards as the GOP.

[dsc]

7. except as I pointed out in my post

He was more miserly before Bella.

[nxylas]

34. I don't see that as a fault

However, it does tend to put Democrats permanently on the defensive.

[SamG]

4. He has Federal health care insurance, the best there is..

for former Senators or Reps. He can utilize that for much of any rehabilitation or special services for a preschooler, and there are many schools where a child with a disability is welcome, yes, even public preschool programs for toddlers, paid for by taxpayers.

Now, he and his wife travel all over the country, (who is caring for the children while they are away)?

Do they have au pair's or paid professionals to care for the children? On a several hundred thousand dollar a year income, paying 100,000 to 200,000 for child care professionals to take care of the kids while he is out campaigning, quite possible.

I'm not buying this.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

28. wish Wallace was thinking like you do

these are the points frothy should be confronted with.

[Honeycombe8]

30. Give Wallace some credit, tho. He's on Faux, and he at least asked about this. nt

[Ken Burch]

31. I think this was one of those rare instances in which he remebers that he's Mike Wallace's kid.

(they usually pass in a moment, but still...)

[onethatcares]

5. Imagine how much he could donate to charity if

we had single payer universal healthcare?

Let's cut to the chase, he did not expect to have a special needs child, neither do 95% of the people that do, but

95% of them don't make millions a year or even $600K, and this clown is the poster boy for the rest of us dying due

to lack of government healthcare.

[K8-EEE]

6. And what about families living paycheck to paycheck, who aren't millionaires, who have disabled kids

I'm sure he's against government spending for that, wouldn't it be "wasteful?"

[Mariana]

8. Oh, charities are supposed to help them.

You know, the charities that he won't donate to.

[Doctor_J]

9. What does he want parents of disabled children who don't make millions to do?

He is a liar, hypocrite, and miserable piece of shit who I wouldn't let walk my dog. I wish we had some media presence to ridicule him and the rest of the sociopaths who shill for the repukes

[yardwork]

10. It's so hard to choose just one despicable lie from Santorum. This might be it.

[izquierdista]

11. Missing the boat entirely

As long as the conversation is "how much is the right amount to donate", it misses the mark. The question should be "why should there be a need for charity at all, why aren't basic human needs covered by the government as basic human rights?" Depending on the generous impulses of the rich is never going to meet all the needs that are out there.

I'd like to see medical, poverty, and educational charities out of business because all of the needs were met by government programs funded with a 70% top marginal tax rate. Then if the rich still want to help those less well off, they can fund things like after school accordion lessons.

[lukkadairish]

12. You beat me to it

That is a very cogent point. I might add that he bases close to 100% of his campaign platform on Xtian values that take the Book of Leviticus off the cliff. If he is such a biblical follower and the epitome of a child of the Lord, he should
Quit apologizing for his stance in life, give
up all that he has, and be a true fisher of men....not a fearmongering judgmental oligarch

[salin]

16. agreed. But for a politician to claim that social costs should be met

private means (charitable giving rather than govt) this is significant. Voluntarily, he gives little (and remember he also cheated his local govt out of $ for homeschooling his kids in another state), and he takes freely. Clearly he does not really believe that this country's safety nets can be met through voluntary giving. Point being he doesn't believe there should be a safety net.

[Mariana]

17. I think his hypocrisy needs to be pointed out.

Insisting that people should rely on charities, while HE refuses to contribute to them substantially. This story illustrates three important things: 1. Santorum is personally selfish and stingy with his wealth. 2. He's as big a hypocrite as a man can be - he's not even supporting the church he says is so important to him. 3. Charities can't be counted on to meet people's needs because so many wealthy people are like Santorum.

[SunSeeker]

18. Bingo. Thanks for saving me the typing. :) nt

[arthritisR_US]

23. Ditto

[gratuitous]

21. But since we haven't quite reached this utopia

There is still a need for charitable giving, and Ricky Sweater Vest thinks the charitable leavings should be sufficient for everyone. He just won't be the one kicking in, despite an annual income way above most of his fellow citizens. If my giving ever dwindled to a paltry three percent of my income, I'd keep my lip zipped about trying to tell other people what they should be pungling up.

I recall Jesus had something pertinent to say on that point.

[Louisiana1976]

13. K&R

[Atman]

14. Well, MY question is this...

WTF does Rick Santorum do to warrant a million dollar salary??!! Or is he just another loafer living off the interest on the scams he pulled off while in DC?

[progressoid]

19. No shit.

That was my first thought as well.

[SammyWinstonJack]

33. Mine too.

[freefall]

15. C'mon guys. You're being really mean.

After all he's only 54 years old and he'll never be able to have sex again unless his wife dies and he marries someone else much younger. She is 52 and almost definitely no longer able to have children and doesn't he believe that procreation is the only reason to have sex? Give the poor guy a break. He's probably too horny to even think about donations.

Just in case it is needed:

[starroute]

20. There's something selfish about a millionaire having seven kids in the first place

He's saying, in effect, "I would rather lavish every penny I have on a large family of my own than limit my family and spend some of my money to help thousands of poor children."

Back in the old days, the poor tended to have the large families while the rich limited theirs. But now things are reversed, and having seven children is a way of flaunting your wealth, of saying, "I can afford what the average person can't."

I'd say that of the seven deadly sins, Santorum is hitting both greed and pride at the same time.

[Vanje]

22. Lame! nt

[loyalsister]

24. Where is she now?

"we are dealing with a situation in our own family. I have seven children. During those four years, we had our little girl, and it was -- it's very costly. She is very costly."

Which is it?

And yes, our lifestyles are very expensive. I find it incredibly hypocritical that he is not an advocate for everyone to have equal access to the care they need and I hope someone asks him about it soon. He seems to endorse the idea that disabled people are supposed to be poor.

[Thinkingabout]

25. Guess this is one of the Catholic church teachings Rick does not believe in.

He needs to spend some time in confession. I get the picture now he only believes the parts he chooses and not the whole religion. Figures, guess he can be predident on the days he chooses.

[Lucky Luciano]

26. To be fair, Romney makes 20X more than frothy, so Romney can afford 14% much more easily.

I don't know Obama's total income - probably comparable to frothy I am guessing, but if not, possibly a bit more (double?) so there is that.

[Beartracks]

27. I think Santorum makes a great case for single payer.

I mean, if you find it tough to pay for your sick child on more than $1 million per year, what do think the middle class is supposed to do? Hold a bake sale at the church where you donated your 1.76%?

Thanks, Rick, for so eloquently explaining why it's time for single-payer in America!

===============

[progressoid]

36. +1

[Honeycombe8]

29. Good job, dsc. His statements are so bad in several ways...

I'm sure his followers will follow the sympathy line. BUT bear in mind that people who are not as wealthy as he is WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THAT CARE FOR THEIR CHILD, since ins. cos. don't pay for it, as he said.

Second, he should be tithing, if he is truly religious and thinks that every dollar he gives to God comes back to him three fold or whatever.

Follow the money, and you'll see where a man's heart is.

[eepatt]

35. not really

No! Just google him and you'll see where his heart is.

[Javaman]

37. ass froth lies. so what else is new?

the guy is dispicable.

[Historic NY]

38. Little light in the collection basket, he is.

[LynneSin]

39. Biggest bullshit I see - taking care of a disabled child isn't limited to millionaires

It must be nice for Santorum to make close to a million dollars each year and I'm sure after this GOP primary season that yearly salary will increase since this whole GOP primary wasn't about Santorum being president but Santorum raising his profile so he can make more money with speaking fees & book deals.

But most people who deal with a disabled child probably make far less than what Rick Santorum makes. Not only does Rick Santorum make the type of income that allows him to spend money out of pocket to care for the child but he makes enough so that his wife can be a stay-at-home mother which saves costs on finding day-care or a nurse to care for the child while a single parent or both parents work.


If if Bella was born in a typical family that makes $50k a year they would be screwed and who knows if Bella would have survived as long as she has (from what I have read the survival rate on what she has is only a few years).

[Alcibiades]

40. ...and our insurance company doesn't cover it

Why doesn't he go into the free market and find a policy that does cover it?

Oh, right, because insurance options for people with disabilities are limited, even for highly-paid elected officials such as Santorum.

If he wants better coverage, he probably ought to support the PPACA.