It is indeed revealing to look not only at total charitable giving of any individual but at the list of the beneficiaries of giving from that individual. I’ll take a look at the Harper’s piece. Thanks for passing it along.

Peter,

There’s nothing unethical at all about wealthy people taking advantage of tax deductions for their charitable giving.

But it strikes me as a bit hypocritical to talk about the evils of “tax cuts for the rich” and then (as a wealthy person) turning around and exploiting the tax code to lessen your own liability.

And, truth be told, I guess I’m sick of the dreadful Clintons and just wish they would go away. Go Obama!

the drool that is “American Idol Gives Back”.. Rob Schnider pitched:

“I figured Bono has enough money to solve whatever problem is going on in Africa, but apparently he only has half.”

Woods has started his own charitable foundation, funding school programs, scholarships, and to teach golf to under-privileged kids.

At the sane token, Dick has reported something like $6 million in donations on his tax return, 3 quarters of his adjusted income.

McCain’s contributions include healthy sums of money to elite private schools that his children attended, those schools collectively are the largest beneficiaries of their foundations donations.
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/02/hbc-90002519

No more a cheapshot than using Tiger as an example. That’s my point. The Clintons are not serving a cause higher than themselves anymore than a bigshot golfer who also gives to charity.

I wonder if the Clintons took all their deductions on that $10m right after decrying “tax cuts for the rich.”

My understanding is Tiger is involved with charitable causes and gives away as much of his money as the next rich guy.

If you want to talk about not serving a higher cause but going for the almighty dollar, then look no farther, for example, than the Clintons of late, or a creep like Tyco’s Dennis Kozlowski. But Tiger?