Thursday, March 27, 2008

Hillary " Tonya Harding" Clinton's NON-Transparency

Hillary " Tonya Harding" Clinton's claim that she's the most 'transparent' candidate is about as accurate as her Bosnia LIE.

She says that she's been vetted.

The truth is, she hasn't been vetted AT ALL.

I've said, for some time, one of my main reasons for supporting Barack Obama is his plans for transparency in government...something that Hillary " Tonya Harding" Clinton does NOT share.

How could she?

When she won't come clean about
1. Taxes
2. Earmarks

Hat tip: Daily Dish

What Hillary Is Hiding
Her tax records, pork...
By Amanda Kathryn Hydro

"I think I’m probably the most transparent person in public life," Sen. Hillary Clinton recently declared.

Much like her husband’s infamous Monica Lewinsky testimony, in which then-President Bill Clinton haggled, "It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is," Hillary’s claim depends on what her definition of "transparent" is.

If Sen. Clinton thinks she’s transparent now that thousands of pages of scheduling records from her days as first lady have been released — because the group Judicial Watch and others sued to have them made public — sure, she’s transparent.

And if not disclosing her sources of income and sharing her tax returns since leaving the White House equals transparency, then yes, those Clintons are one transparent couple. On government disclosure forms, Sen. Clinton reports they have assets worth somewhere between $10 million and $50 million. That’s a lot of paid speeches and book sales. For a point of contrast, Sen. Barack Obama’s reported belongings, on the same disclosure forms, are worth between $456,000 and $1.1 million.

How have the Clintons amassed most of their wealth since leaving the White House? Where did that $5 million that Sen. Clinton pumped into her own campaign earlier this year come from? Who has donated to the presidential library’s coffers?

If Sen. Clinton really were the "most transparent" public official in the country, we’d know the answers to these questions. Instead her campaign hems and haws and says they’ll try to release some tax returns on or around April 15.

And then there’s the transparency that every taxpayer is interested in: How is Sen. Clinton spending our tax dollars?

The Los Angeles Times reports "Clinton has earmarked more than $2.3 billion in federal appropriations for projects" since joining the Senate. The Times also points out that it’s lucrative to be a Clinton contributor, reporting, "Since taking office in 2001, Clinton has delivered $500 million worth of earmarks that have specifically benefited 59 corporations. About 64 percent of those corporations provided funds to her campaigns through donations made by employees, executives, board members or lobbyists."

Rest of article is HERE.

No comments: