Why did the Clintons liquidate their blind trust?

[question everything]

Well, yes, I know why. Because the trust invested in industries that could provide a conflict of interest. But I thought that this is why the trusts are "blind." That the politicians are not involved in decisions about investments and, perhaps, that the content of the trust is hidden.

I don't think they should be penalized for liquidating the trust and paying a lot of capital gain taxes on it.

And, no, I don't have problems with their millions. They probably were some of the - poor would not be the right word - less affluents to come to the White House. They left with heavy debt for all the legal problems. So I am glad that they did benefit for their service.

[LiberalFighter]

1. Federal law requires presidential candidates to reveal their financial assets

That includes whatever is in a blind trust. Prior to this action the Clintons were unaware of where the money was invested.

This is not require for members of Congress. The law supercedes any requirements for members of Congress who run for President.

I don't know if they will really be paying a lot of capital gains tax. The question is how much of their assets are subject to the tax. Of course, the initial investment is not taxed.

I don't have problem with them having millions either. Especially, since Bill does more for free then probably for all of the Republican candidates combined. He has done more both financially and other ways for charity.

[northzax]

4. no, they will have a big tax bite

I assume they have added money to their blind trust since 1993, btb, they must have to get this amount.

anytime you liquidate large stock holdings overnight, you are going to get a tax bite. they don't have time to plan out how to diminish that.

a question I have about blind trusts, which maybe someone knows here, is how people with true blind trusts (like George Bush, to his credit, his is apparently a pure blind, he reportedly doesn't even know how much money he has, and won't, until January 21, 2009) how do people pay taxes?


ok, never mind. found it. the trust files its own tax return, and reports certain types of income to the beneficiary for tax purposes. interesting. you get a quarterly report of assets, and an annual report of income.

[SharonAnn]

2. Presidential candidates cannot have a blind trust. So when they found what

out what their trust was holding, they liquidated those bad holdings.

They didn't know about them before "unblinding" the trust, because the trust was, in fact, a blind trust.

Don't buy the right-wing rhetoric about this.

As soon as they found out, they took action. Before that, it was truly a "blind" trust.

[northzax]

3. presidential candidates cannot hold the same blind trusts

as senators, so they had to rejigger them to comply with the new rules. rather than create a new blind trust (similar to the one George Bush has) they chose to cash out and not own any investments save treasury bills and cash.

They have had the blind trust since 1993, when Clinton took office, and the rules have changed since then, and senate blind trusts are notoriously not all that blind at all (see: Frist, W). even if they had rolled their investments into a new blind trust, they would know what they owned right now, and that creates the potential for conflict of interest.

[question everything]

6. Is this why Bush's is real blind?

because the laws have changed?

[northzax]

7. as far as I understand

I don't think anyone has questioned the veracity or tightness of the Bush blind trust.

[Bitwit1234]

5. I still don't understand how cheney can keep his Halliburton stock

and receive dividends. Course tho, we know, if you are a republican the law for everyone else doesn't apply to you.

[KoKo]

8. I worry the Clinton's are worried about the Economy Tanking and they

are taking it out of the market for safety! :eyes:

[William769]

9. Who said that?

[question everything]

10. Similar sentiments in a WSJ editorial

yes, the WSJ, but interesting:


Hillary's Portfolio
June 18, 2007; Page A16

(snip)

The Clintons' stock holdings include lots of companies demonized on the political left – Exxon Mobil, Wal-Mart, Pfizer -- though they are nothing to be ashamed of. But if the former First Couple is concerned about conflicts in specific holdings, they could have rolled that money into a broad-based stock index fund. That would at least have left them invested in America's future prosperity.

The Clintons have become rich in part through their participation in the "ownership society" during the boom of the past four years. Mrs. Clinton had an opportunity to show solidarity with the investor class, but now we wonder if she's gearing up to run against the same oil and drug companies that were recently paying her dividends.

The Obama campaign wasted no time attacking some of Mrs. Clinton's investments as a betrayal of the people, or something. But this merely confirms that Mrs. Clinton could decline to compete with the anti-corporate populists in the Democratic field. Instead, she has left the impression that our leaders govern best when they are cut off from the real economic world in which the rest of us live.

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118212380243238474.html (subscription)

[rinsd]

11. Consider the source (nt)

[question everything]

12. Of course

However, since at least one DUer wonder about this, can it be used to scare the hell out of many who rely on the stock market for the health of their 401Ks, IRAs and even their home, car and life insurance?