Monday, January 2, 2012

The Republican Primary Candidates - They Definitely Aren't One of "Us"

I don't know if you have ever taken the time to visit the website Open Secrets, but it is a fascinating treasure trove of all things government, most particularly, money in government.  This Washington-based non-partisan, independent and nonprofit research group tracks money within the United States political game and how it impacts elections and public policy.  Here is their three part mission quoted verbatim from their website:

                Inform citizens about how money in politics affects their lives
       Empower voters and activists by providing unbiased information
                     Advocate for a transparent and responsive government

In light of 2011's OWS movement and the impending 2012 Presidential election and primary cycle, some of the data that can be mined from this website is most compelling.  What I'd like to do for this posting is to select some interesting facts regarding the personal assets owned of the major Republican candidates.  By doing this, I hope that my readers will see clear evidence for something that most American's know in their "gut", that federal politics has become a playground for the tiniest fraction of the "one percent".  

Fortunately for Americans, every Presidential election cycle, Presidential candidates have to file Personal Financial Disclosures that outline their net worth (within predetermined brackets) and their sources of income.  For this posting, I will take a more detailed look at the finances of several of the Republican Presidential candidates, I will include screen captures showing salient points about their investing strategies and their overall net worth, particularly as it relates to their status in American society.

First up and the top of the heap, Mitt Romney.    On this page, you'll note that Mr. Romney owns between $250,001 and $500,000 worth of gold, a fact that I find most interesting:


As well, you'll see that he is very well compensated for his services as both a director and a public speaker.  He was paid a Director's Fee of $113,880.73 for his services to Marriott International and was paid between $11,475 and $68,000 for each of nine speaking engagements during the year from February 2010 to February 2011 for a total of $374,327 just for talking!  That's roughly seven times the average household income in the United States.  While I realize that the going rate for public speeches by the elite is very high, I just don't see that any speech is worth $68,000 but then, that could just be me.

Here's another page from his Disclosure showing some of Mr. Romney's other assets:


Notice that he owns twelve Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) debt instruments ranging in size between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000 in size and another five ranging in size between $500,000 and $1,000,00 for a total value of between $15,500,000 and $65,000,000.  Mere pocket change!  These government issued agency bonds are triple-A rated and are used to increase the availability of funds for mortgages.  Later in his disclosure, he also lists an additional four FHLB debt instruments with a total value of between $4 million and $20 million.  It must be a full-time job keeping track of all of this money...except that it's held in a blind trust and somebody else gets paid to do the heavy lifting for Mr. Romney.

Enough of that.  On to Ron Paul.  Mr. Paul has a very interesting portfolio as shown on these two pages:



Mr. Paul is heavily invested in both gold and metals mining companies including Barrick Gold ($100,001 to $250,000), Eldorado Gold ($50,001 to $100,000), Goldcorp ($500,001 to $1,000,000), Iamgold ($250,001 to $500,000) and Newmont Mining ($250,001 to $500,000).  From what I can see on his Disclosure, he has a very, very interesting and non-mainstream outlook on the world and it's really not that difficult to see where he thinks that the world's economy is headed.  At least, in Mr. Paul's case, his investing strategy reflects both his actions and his words.  He also has between $250,001 and $500,000 on deposit with the First National Bank of Lake Jackson in Texas.  From the same bank, he has a personal loan for between $250,001 and $500,000 for 5 years at 3.75 percent.

Now, on to Newt Gingrich.  Here is a screen capture showing some of his assets:


His largest investment is in his Alliance Bernstein 2010 Retirement Strategy Class R where he has between $500,001 and $1,000,000 followed by his stake in Gingrich Productions, a multimedia production company owned by Mr. Gingrich and his wife Callista, also valued at between $500,001 and $1,000,000.  In 2010, Gingrich Productions paid Mr. Gingrich a cool $2,453,409 in "distributive shares" as shown here:


Mr. Gingrich also has CDs at several banks including Columbus Bank, Medallion Bank and GE Money Bank where he has five CDs ranging in size between $50,0001 and $250,000.  He has money scattered in several dozen funds in very small amounts, generally less than $15,000 each.  Like most Americans, he does have more than one checking and savings accounts; unlike most of America, the balance in his WellsFargo account alone is between $250,001 and $500,000.  In fact, in his three checking and savings accounts, he had a total balance ranging between $400,000 and $850,000, pretty much what I have in my checking account today.  What I found most interesting on the liabilities (debt) side of the ledger was his now paid-off revolving account with Tiffany & Co. for between $500,001 and $1,000,000 as shown here:


 Yes siree, Mr. Gingrich is just like the rest of America, isn't he?  I suspect that the vast majority of Americans have a revolving credit account at Tiffany & Co, don't they?

Let's close this posting with a quick look at Rick Santorum's finances.  As shown on this screen capture, Mr. Santorum is BIG into rental properties:


All told, his five rental properties in Pennsylvania have a declared value ranging between $500,000 and $1,250,000 with rental income ranging from $15,001 to $50,000 each on an annual basis.  He has the obligatory checking accounts, the largest of the three has a balance of between $50,001 and $100,000.  All I can say is, these candidates really like to carry large balances in their checking accounts!  He has a sampling of stocks that lean toward the pharmaceutical and tech side with valuations generally between $1001 and $15,000 each, most held in various funds or as individual stocks in his IRA with Stifel Financial.  He also has a small E*Trade account that holds 10 stocks with a value ranging from $10,000 to $150,000.  His other compensation is rather eye opening; as a columnist, contributor or consultant for companies ranging from the Philadelphia Inquirer to Consol Energy to his position as Senior Fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center, he raked in $896,037 in 2010.  That's quite a pay packet, roughly 18 times what an average American family earns in a given year!

Now for the bad news.  Here are Mr. Santorum's liabilities:


He owes between $350,000 and $750,000 on his rental properties in Pennsylvania, meaning that his actual equity in his rental properties ranges from $150,000 to $500,000.

I think that the information provided in this posting is enough to make my point.  While the GOP candidates may come across as sympathetic to the plight of ordinary unemployed, underemployed and foreclosed upon Americans, the Financial Disclosure data released by Open Secrets tells another tale; these five individuals definitely live way, way on the other side of the tracks.  In fact, they can hardly really see "our" side of the tracks from their vantage point.

30 comments:

  1. Rick Perry is double-dipping in Texas. He collects a state retirement pension for having worked previously for the State of Texas while drawing a state salary and getting to contribute to increasing greatly his retirement pension with the state. The public employees of Texas, esp. public school teachers, are not allowed to double-dip by law. Remember, Perry is the one crucifying Social Security as a Ponzi scheme. Wouldn't the Texas state pension qualify as a Ponzi scheme in his way of thinking? Please expose this crooked hypocritical liar for what he is. Just another big bag of wind. Our system of government is so corrupt. We need a new system

    ReplyDelete
  2. For some reason, I was unable to find his Disclosure on the Open Secrets website. If anyone has any suggestions or links, I would appreciate the assistance.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Clinton made 20 million during his presidency giving talks....your point is understood about the worth of words, but it is who speaks the words that give it the price. All of these people are extraordinary. They studied and succeeded while you and millions of others were out being unexceptional, partying, or nothing. Most of these people who rule the world deserve the power bestowed on them. Some do not, and some abuse the system. I agree that these candidates are not "the average americans".... but let's not be naive. No president has ever been average. You get elected by being above-average. A prestigious education....luck....power, and money. Do not write all of these ludicrous and sarcastic jokes about the relativity between the average american and these titanic people who now stand so far above you you can only see the slightest hint of their shadow. Grow up, start reporting the wealth of democrats and I'm sure you'd be equally and if not more surprised.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "You get elected by being above-average. A prestigious education....luck....power, and money."

      You forgot "being related to a existing president or powerful person"

      Being rich does not mean "self made" and it certainly doesn't always mean deserving.

      " Grow up, start reporting the wealth of democrats "

      Absolutely. Get details on both sides.

      That said, its far more relevant for the Republicans as they are the reason for the top 2% getting tax cuts since Bush. The Democrats, in general, are in favor of having the highest earners taxed at least to the pre-bush levels.

      Delete
  4. How is investing in metal-mining stocks when one sees it as a prudent investment (no word on his returns, but the outstrip Wall Street by a large margin, BTW), how is that "outside Main Street"?

    You gotta do better than that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous 10:16

    Democrats up next. And as for above average, not necessarily. A lot of it is pure luck. Bush the Second being prime proof.

    Anonymous 10:18

    His selection of pretty much only gold and metals mining stocks is most unusual in this world of pump and dump tech stocks. That cannot be denied. And good on him.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Always enjoy your postings PJ, keep up the good work

    ReplyDelete
  7. The fundamental problem is that all of the elected politicians in this country are quite wealthy, and live very comfortable and privileged lives. Not one of them know what it is like to be unemployed or underemployed, or to be a single parent, or to be chronically ill with little or no health insurance, or to face old age penury because Wall Street greed heads plundered their life long retirement funds. Not a single one of them knows what it's like to only be able to send their children to the woefully underfunded public dumbed down schools that make us the laughing stock of the educated world, or to have to go into debt so our children can attend college. Every one of them takes advantage of their position for personal gain while pretending to look after the interests of the people. As Hamilton said " the function of democracy is to protect the interests of the opulent few". Is there any wonder why voter turn out is so low? And, this is the system of government we wish other nations to adopt?

    ReplyDelete
  8. To help explain how we got here, though, after the Democratic version, which probably looks just as bad, pull up information on campaign spending vs elect-ability.

    What you'll find is that we as a nation vote for the one that dumps the most money into their campaign. Since richer = more money to dump + more contacts to gather money from, we are, in effect, requiring presidents to being 1%ers to stand a chance. You can't even argue that it's 'the system' since, excluding '00 the popular vote followed the same trend.

    It makes the US rather unique. Most countries have matters like this forced upon them, with the public ignored and/or forced to comply. In this country, it's we that have made our own bed. We vote for the richest that will not compromise. We keep investing, and buying the products the 'companies in power' offer. Apologies for going there, but, we created this Matrix, and plugged ourselves in.



    The good side is that if you are your own jailer, you also have the key to the door. What we need is places like this site reaching everyone they can, and us readers spreading the information around. We need to learn what's going on, and make sure others know.

    It's not like these things are new. What's new is that we're finally learning about it.

    Btw, about voter turnout, it's still low, but it's so much better than it was in the past. We're getting better.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Just pleased that candidates are forced to disclose their finances. At least we can see who we are dealing with, since finances do say a lot about the person.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "You get elected by being above-average."
    Bush Junior is above-average? America is screwed then...

    ReplyDelete
  11. What is Romney hiding in his tax return that he won't show us? Like maybe he pays almost none by using the system that is setup by politicians to cater to the rich. Moving to the Democratic side will show the same huge numbers. John Kerry is a billionaire and while I know he's not running (this year) he has in the past. More important stats for me is who is buying influence from these candidates. Romney has listed 42 supporters who are billionaires, Obama has 30 billionaires supporting him. All the way down to lowly Ron Paul who has the support of NO BILLIONAIRES. While accumulating the most money from active duty military and veterans. Because he is the only non-war monger in both parties and they are sick of being shot at/blown up for the elites agenda. Ron Paul the candidate of/for the little guy.

    ReplyDelete
  12. No, Clinton didn't make 20 million during his presidency giving talks. The Clintons weren't all that wealthy when they came to D.C., and were deeply in debt due to legal fees when they left the White House. Clinton made millions afterwards by giving talks here and abroad AND from his best-selling autobiography.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lol, what? The Clintons were millionaires when they got in. But I guess that's okay because they're Democrats so they don't have to earn what average people do.

      Delete
  13. Clinton (and all other presidents) cannot earn speaking fees while in office. Afterwards, it's fair game. I think this says a lot about changing the way we allow campaigning. Basically, we need to have a standard template for all candidates, like having them provide us with a resume in the same format (education, work experience, contacts, etc). Then, we have a three week active campaigning period, then election. This 24/7/365 4-year cycle of never-ending campaigning is not conducive to good governance.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Allan Simpson (GOP elder statesman) made an apt comment to Farid Zakaria. He noted that, while all of Romney's laundry has been amply washed and hung out to dry, the others - and notably Rick Santorum - have yet to undergo that degree of scrutiny. He doubts that many, if any, of them will survive the experience.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I don't undersand what the big deal is? While Mitt is a Twit imo, he also helped found Bain Capital, and say around $65m in assets (ballpark) is not that much, it's actually only, $65m in assets. You've got Groupon that was valued at $20+ billion recently, and that steaming pile of crap started a few years ago, how many pre-IPO shareholders do you think it has?

    As for the other candidates, a few mill here and there. That's what any ambitious american would have if not more.

    I mean seriously, what do you expect? An ambitious person running for the office of president to be your average joe making 45k a year. Bullshit, because quite frankly an asshole making 45k a year would NEVER have the chops to get elected into office, or even make a viable run for el presidente.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I don't understand what's wrong with making money. It does not appear that they are being dishonest or gaming the system. It looks like they are making legitimate investments. So what if they are rich. Both my wife and I are poor college students, definately part of the "99", but the great thing about america is that we don't have to stay here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " It does not appear that they are being dishonest or gaming the system. "

      Thats because people like them make the system to bias themselves to start with.

      How much do you make each year in speaking fees? Why should speaking fees not be taxed exactly?

      Nothing wrong with being rich - but there is with having disproportional political influence because of it.

      Delete
    2. What about Clinton's speaking fees? What about Obama's millions? What about Kerry's wealth, that dwarfs even Mitt's?

      Delete
  17. Dream on... most likely you'll stay there. But that's why us poor schmucks support these guys - because we hope against unbelievable odds - that one day we can be just like them. kinda pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Doesn't it seem rather odd that in some democracies outside of America that relatively average Joes (and Josephines) can actually make it to the top of the political heap? Take Canada's Stephen Harper for example.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Now we know where the smart money goes! And I'd rather read where smart people invest than whine with the dimwits. Yes, please do a piece on the Dems so we can also mine their disclosures for investment ideas!

    ReplyDelete
  20. I find it strange that Romney only has $250,001 to $500,000 in gold since most financial advisors recommend you have between 5% and 10% in precious metals.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Obama was on welfare with a single mother, don't give us the BS that you have to be born rich, or that someone who only makes $45,000 is stupid or a schmuck. Although with Citizens United, maybe that's how it's going to be from now on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obama went to a private school. If they were actually poor, which they weren't, they wouldn't be able to afford that.

      Delete
  22. Interesting post PJ. I find your blog to cover more accurate information than main media. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  23. This is very interesting. Thanks for posting. Now, let's see some statistics on Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Rein and a few other rich Democrats.

    ReplyDelete
  24. OOOps... Reid not Rein ..

    ReplyDelete
  25. What about John Kerry's money? He makes more than any of them. You think he's "one of us"? How idiotic and hypocritical.
    Romney's the only multi-millionaire of the group here. Look at Obama's funds, or Clinton's. They're richer than any here except Romney, add Obama's sugar daddies and he makes more.

    ReplyDelete