Friday, July 13, 2012

Over 30% of President Obama’s 2009-2011 Gross Income Came From Foreign Sources

By Jim Lindgren

I find it strange that the Obama campaign would be making so much of Romney’s income from foreign sources when Obama’s foreign source income appears to be a much bigger percentage of his income over the last few years. Of course, one can’t tell for sure because Mitt Romney has not released his 2009 tax return.

Yet in the three tax years in which Barack Obama has been President (2009, 2010, and 2011), fully 30.1% of the Obamas’ gross income has come from foreign sources: ($2,711,340 out of a 3-year total gross income of $8,993,449). In 2009, 26.5% of the Obamas’ gross income came from foreign sources. In 2010 it was a whopping 41.4%, and in 2010 it was 30.2%.

The salary that we taxpayers pay him as President (just under $1.2 million over the 3 years) accounted for less than 13% of the Obamas’ income, a share dwarfed by their 30% from foreign sources over the same period.

From 2009 through 2011, the Obamas paid $87,429 in foreign taxes, which they applied toward a credit to reduce their U.S. tax bill. The amounts I examined are reported on Form 1116, of which there are two filed along with their 1040 when they had both general and passive foreign income.

Their returns do not disclose which foreign countries are responsible for paying the Obamas the $2.7 million in foreign source income, but the overwhelming bulk of it must come from payments resulting directly or indirectly from book sales. Nonetheless, the Obamas did report a total of $3,611 in foreign passive income in 2009 and 2010, a type of income that most often results from investments in foreign countries. Like some of the foreign investments for which Romney has been pilloried, this Obama passive foreign income might result from the foreign investments of U.S. financial entities in which the Obamas invested.

I hope that the White House press will be able to determine the foreign sources that account for over 30% of the Obamas’ income. And given President Obama’s campaign rhetoric, I would especially like to know the origins of the foreign passive income.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

The Latest From The Alinskyite Attack on Boehner Continues


On Wednesday afternoon, I received the following email missive from

James —

The special interests in Washington are not happy, and it’s because of something you did.

Since President Obama moved into the White House, this movement has stripped them of their influence, proving we could take on the lobbyists and corporate cash with good, old-fashioned organizing.

Now these groups are vowing to get payback in the fall elections — and they have put all their chips on one man: Congressman John Boehner.

Third-party organizations have already spent millions to help Republicans take over the House and make him Speaker — and you can bet there are millions more to come in the form of nasty TV ads and shadowy robo-calls before November.

Here’s how we fight back: the largest-scale voter turnout effort this party has ever assembled in an election like this.

Another grassroots supporter has promised to match, dollar for dollar, whatever you can chip in today. These matched donations add up fast — and right now there are 3,211 donations across the country waiting to be doubled.

Don’t leave this money on the table — donate $5 or more today and double your impact.

It’s easy to see why these special interests picked John Boehner. This is a guy who first made national news 14 years ago when he was caught handing out checks from tobacco lobbyists on the House floor.

John Boehner said he did nothing wrong — he was simply helping out his lobbyist friends.

And, in all of the fights we’ve waged together these past 20 months, he’s been these special interests’ right-hand man.

He teamed up with financial lobbyists to do everything he could to stall Wall Street reform and even took time before the vote on health reform to scream “Hell no!” over and over again from the podium.

If John Boehner is handed the Speaker’s gavel, all that is wrong with Washington is back in business. Their plans are simple — unravel what this movement has done and stand in the way of the rest of President Obama’s agenda. Some Republican leaders have even threatened to shut down the government to get their way — a heartless move that would hold Social Security checks hostage and shut down veterans’ hospitals across the country.

With just 48 days to go until the election, this movement is the only thing standing in John Boehner’s way.

Take advantage of this opportunity to piggy-back on another grassroots supporter’s promise. Help fund our effort to fight back against Republicans and keep America moving forward.

Chip in $5 today to get your donation doubled:



Mitch Stewart
Organizing for America

The Alinskyite attempt to freeze and demonize John Boehner was recently furthered by the New York Times. Is the Times doing what it did in 2008 and doing an unfair lobbyist hit story on a Republican leader, or does Boehner really have closer ties to lobbyists than Speaker Nancy Pelosi? I don’t know much about Boehner, but I was impressed with his speech before the House as they were passing the Cap & Trade bill (which so far has stalled in the Senate).

BTW, Bolehner has responded to the Times.

While the Democratic attack on Boehner may or may not work this year, contrary to some Republican commentary, such attacks CAN work. I remember 1995–96, when Dick Morris’s campaign on behalf of Bill Clinton against Newt Gingrich destroyed Gingrich’s credibility, an attack from which Gingrich has still not fully recovered.

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Ric Burns’s Goldman Sachs Documentary


A few years ago documentary filmmaker Ric Burns was hired by Goldman Sachs to make a documentary on the firm, with Goldman retaining editorial control.

Funny or Die has an excerpt from the upcoming film (after a particularly loud and annoying ad from Minyanville):

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Orin’s Opinion on Obama Birthday Email is Based on Factual Error


In a post below, Orin Kerr expresses his opinion that he does not find the Obama birthday email even “a bit creepy.” While certainly entitled to his own opinion, he is not entitled to his own facts.

Orin writes:

As far as I can tell, Jim received this e-mail because he signed up to be on the Obama campaign’s e-mail list (as was the case with this prior e-mail he blogged about). . . .

Given that this apparently was . . . only sent to people who voluntarily signed up to receive such things, I have trouble understanding why Jim sees it as “emulating the trappings” of a dictatorship.

In neither post did I state or imply that I had signed up to be on the Obama campaign’s email list. While working on a post for the Volokh Conspiracy, as part of my due diligence I had emailed the Obama campaign with specific questions about Obama’s position on what I was writing about. I never signed up to be on any Obama related email list. Nor did I present myself as a supporter in my email to the campaign.

If my experience can be generalized–and maybe it can’t–this Obama email list is comprised of people who contacted the campaign in any capacity, not just supporters. It is certainly not just for people who signed up to be on a list.

Orin is mistaken on the factual basis for his opinion.

Would having the facts right change his opinion? Frankly, I don’t know.