As a married couple, John and Cindy McCain are multi-millionaires. But John McCain on his own is just a guy with some money in a Wachovia savings account. In other words, he's stashed all his considerable assets under his wife's name, and then proceeded to not disclose anything at all about his finances under pretense of protecting his daughter's privacy. It's absurd. Meanwhile, what could possibly be in there that he's worried would be damning. Stock in the Umbrella Corporation?
« Obama 3-3 | Main | Wright Round Baby »
McBucks
28 Apr 2008 05:11 pm
Comments (66)
he's stashed all his considerable assets under his wife's name
What, does he own his wife?
Maybe liberals like Matthew aren't aware, but women are actually independent people. One cannot "stash" one's assets under someone else's name. Assets ownd by Cindy McCain are not actually owned by John McCain and simply "stashed" in Cindy's name, like a six-pack in a cooler.
Now I see where the misogyny of the Obama campaign comes from.
McCain's wife keeping her own prenup-protected assets segregated from McCain isn't the same as McCain "stashing his assets in his wife's name".
Matt,
Let's say your father married an aspiring politician and had her sign a prenup so she couldn't ditch him a few years later and walk away with half of his Hollywood screenwriter/producer money. Let's further imagine that this aspiring politician ran for office and reported her own modest income and assets on her tax return, instead of claiming ownership of your father's Hollywood money. Would it be fair to claim she was "stashing" her assets in your father's name?
It's not like Cindy McCain wouldn't have any concerns about the long term stability of her marriage to John, right?
One cannot "stash" one's assets under someone else's name.
First, you don't know much about finances if you make a statement like that. Movement of assets between spouses is an untaxed transfer. Re-titling from one spouse to the other is used quite frequently when one spouse owns most of the assets. This allows both spouses to take advantage of something known as their unified credit (essentially the credit associated with the amount per person not subject to estate tax) in case the spouse owning very little dies first.
Second, if you believe that a man making $169,300 (plus lots of perks and expenses that are already taken care of) as a U.S. Senator owns nothing more than a checking account, then you're incredibly gullible.
Please. According to my 5 seconds of googling, Arizona is a community property state. Pre-nup or no, you're telling me that if McCain got divorced, he wouldn't wind up with any of his wife's shit? That's what being married means -- what's hers is yours and what's yours is hers.
LFC makes a good point. Assuming McCain's being honest, that means all the money he's made as a Senator and a book author has disappeared. Or, we assume he's lying, and that money is stashed in one of his wife's assets. Which sounds more likely to you?
To add to too many steves' comment, being a community property state means that prenup or not, both names would have signed the mortgage (assuming they got a mortgage). Remember that real estate is an asset. How much does McCain own in the way of assets?
"LFC makes a good point. Assuming McCain's being honest, that means all the money he's made as a Senator and a book author has disappeared."
Could he have put it in trust for his kids? It's not as if McCain has a huge incentive to save at this point -- if he retired tomorrow, he'd have a generous Senate pension to go along with the Navy pension he's already collecting, and I doubt Cindy makes him split the utilities and and property taxes equally, but who knows.
First, you don't know much about finances if you make a statement like that. Movement of assets between spouses is an untaxed transfer.
So? Once it's been transferred to the spouse, the assets are hers, not yours.
And TMS is right about the community property state. Anything made during the marriage is automatically half his under state law.
BTW, by not having anything in John McCain's name, they would pay estate tax on an additional $2M if John died this year and $3.5M if he died next year (assuming he dies first). Figures being floated for 2011 (after the law is set to "sunset" back to $1M) are around $5-7M. At a top marginal estate tax rate of 45%, that's a fair amount of tax.
You can bet that if the McCain's have a financial advisor who knows s*** about s***, they'll be re-titling assets in his name the moment it is politically expedient to do so. It's just that right now, the risk is worth the privacy to them.
Pre-nup or no, you're telling me that if McCain got divorced, he wouldn't wind up with any of his wife's shit? That's what being married means -- what's hers is yours and what's yours is hers.
I don't think you are understanding the concept of a pre-nup.
So, if a presidential candidate has a spouse that he could be transferring assets to and from, if he's going to be open about his finances, the spouse needs to be open, too. Same rules apply for the Obamas and for Bill & Hillary. You don't get privacy when you or your spouse is running for president.
And TMS is right about the community property state. Anything made during the marriage is automatically half his under state law.
That's the general principle. But if you keep separate property seperate, then the earnings from the separate property will usually be separate as well.
blah,
I'm not sure that you can keep property seperate in a community property state. I think (not positive) that title is held in both names in a community property state.
One cannot "stash" one's assets under someone else's name.
Even assuming we do live in a fantasy land where this goofy assertion is true, why is it any less important to know about Cindy's assets than John's?
Whether or not you want to define him as a multi-millionaire, he damn sure lives like one because of his wife. Therefore, it would seem to me that he has some considerable interests tied up in his wife's assets, prenup or no.
If you're arguing that transparency in the personal finances (and potential conflicts of interest) of candidates doesn't matter, then say that. But don't pretend spouse's assets somehow don't matter, as though Cindy is eating caviar across the table from John who is forced to subsist on Hamburger Helper because their finances are separate.
I understand the concept, I'm just skeptical that there's a pre-nup out there that would really allow Cindy McCain to walk away with *everything*
I'm not sure that you can keep property seperate in a community property state. I think (not positive) that title is held in both names in a community property state.
Yes, you can. How do I know? (1) I had to learn it for the bar exam. (2) My wife has sepearate property.
I don't know what everyone here is so worried about. How likely is it that Cindy McCain would be foolish enough to engage in business dealings with a crooked McCain benefactor...oh.
Uh, never mind.
Geez, I'm not voting, but if you don't think McCain could burn through a 170k income, with only the use of a checking account, on completely legal goods and services, no matter a Senator's perks, you lack imagination. Especially if he knew his kids were completely taken care of via his wife's pile.
But don't pretend spouse's assets somehow don't matter, as though Cindy is eating caviar across the table from John who is forced to subsist on Hamburger Helper because their finances are separate. - Jake H.
At this point (because we've not yet moved in together) my wife and I keep our assets separate and she does have more than I. But if she's eating caviar whilst I eat hamburger helper, it would merely be a reflection of her being a pescatarian whilst I am a confirmed carnivore.
I don't think you are understanding the concept of a pre-nup.
And Al, you DEFINITELY don't understand what it means to live in a community property state. Pre-nuptial agreements can not override state law. One could protect Cindy's assets that existed prior to the marriage, but not on assets acquired (including growth of owned assets) after the marriage.
You're confused between state law (which, particularly in a community property state, defines ownership rules) and federal estate tax law (which taxes based upon that ownership).
Could he have put it in trust for his kids?
If he did, any assets transfered would be gifts to the trust and they would have to be reported on his annual federal gift tax return, even if they stayed below the $1,000,000 lifetime gift amount. (That's non-spousal gifts. Again, marital gifts are unlimited.)
Al's line of argument is rather breathtaking, even coming from him. Tell us, Al, what possible action could McCain take that would constitute "stashing" his money? Or is it just prima facia impossible for him to do so?
HOW DID THAT PIECE OF SHIT JEFFREY GOLDBERG GET A FUCKING ATLANTIC BLOG???? AND WHY IS MATT THE ONLY COWORKER HE DOESN'T GIVE A SHOUT OUT TOO?
Why the fuck is the Atlantic rewarding stupidity??? Just look at his 2006 blog post (for some reason, it's included on his next page...).
HOW DID THAT PIECE OF SHIT JEFFREY GOLDBERG GET A FUCKING ATLANTIC BLOG???? AND WHY IS MATT THE ONLY COWORKER HE DOESN'T GIVE A SHOUT OUT TOO?
Why the fuck is the Atlantic rewarding stupidity??? Just look at his 2006 blog post (for some reason, it's included on his next page...).
Tell us, Al, what possible action could McCain take that would constitute "stashing" his money? Or is it just prima facia impossible for him to do so?
Once you transfer it to the bank account in the Caymens, it's not really YOURS anymore...
I'm not sure that you can keep property seperate in a community property state. I think (not positive) that title is held in both names in a community property state.
Yes, you can designate the rights to any property:
ARS 25-203. Scope of agreement A. Parties to a premarital agreement may contract with respect to: 1. The rights and obligations of each of the parties in any of the property of either or both of them whenever and wherever acquired or located. ...
John McCain: human tax shelter or kept man?
There is absolutely no evidence that McCain "stashed all his considerable assets under his wife's name."
First, he's been a government employee all his life and has no "considerable assets" that I know of.
Second, even in a community property state, certain property is "separate property" that, post-dissolution, stays with the spouse who owns it. Both inheritance and property owned prior to marriage are classified as separate property. I understand Cindy's main asset, her father's beer distributorship, to be inheritance, so (absent an agreement to the contrary or commingling of assets) that's 100% hers, and John would get none of it in the event of divorce.
A pre-nup wouldn't even be necessary to insure that the inheritance remain Cindy's separate property; that's the case simply by operation of law.
And Cindy's assets are actually quite important to understanding what's going on. Take a look at this spousal advantage Senator "Straight Talk" has taken advantage of.
I'm sorry, but when you get an ultra-special break on the use of a private plane supplied by your wife's company, your wife's finances become every bit as much of a campaign issue as your own finances.
why is it any less important to know about Cindy's assets than John's?
Because the assets are, you know, not his.
But to reiterate wht I said on the last thread on the topic: I do in fact think Cindy should release her full tax info. (Just as Mrs. Kerry should have, but didn't, in 2004.) It is somewhat less important where the couple keeps their assets separate, and files separately, but I'd prefer both of the couple to release the info anyway.
Sheesh, I'm sure Matthew, Barack, Howie Dean, and all the other Democrats will turn out to be forensic accountants, eager to disqualify McCain. It is rather fun watching you guys tilt at windmills, though. And it's probably a good idea to avoid mentioning philanthropy, considering Barry and spouse "gave" only around one percent on average for the disclosed period, while JMac donated more than ten percent of his income to charities.
By the way, I wonder if Barry's philanthropy includes the tithes he paid to keep Rev. Wright in the pulpit?
Al & Fred - Please... conservatives would go nuts if they couldn't see Bill's finances. The double standard here is so blatantly obvious it's painful.
Assuming McCain's being honest, that means all the money he's made as a Senator and a book author has disappeared.
BTW, forgot to mention - McCain has donated all the book proceeds to charity.
There is absolutely no evidence that McCain "stashed all his considerable assets under his wife's name."
Where did Keating's money go? Oh, that's right. Those were "campaign donations".
And I should add that the special break on the private jet that McCain got would not be available to any other candidate who did not have a spouse that owned a company that happened to own a jet.
Between this and the magic "loan" he received, McCain's stance on public financing is nothing but bulls***. Unless, of course, he believes in the rules for the OTHER candidates, just not himself. That would be consistent with his words and actions.
So much for Mr. "Straight Talk".
conservatives would go nuts if they couldn't see Bill's finances. The double standard here is so blatantly obvious it's painful
As was pointed out last thread on this topic, the hypocrisy is on your side: liberals could not have cared less that Teresa Heinz Kerry refused to disclose her full tax info (she release all of 2 summary pages, 2 weeks before the election).
Just because the McCain's prenup gives Cindy McCain legal title to substantially all assets during the marriage does not mean that she retains the assets after the marriage. It very well could provide for a more equitable dissolution -- in fact, I would be shocked if it didn't. I'm not licensed to practice in Arizona (though I am a state over), but I would be surprised if there wasn't precedent that a prenup that (1) requires one spouse to transfer all of his/her property to the other spouse during the marriage and then (2) awards him/her with absolutely nothing upon dissolution is void as unconscionable or contrary to public policy.
Al, it's not like Cindy McCain is some distant companion holding herself apart from politics. She takes a fairly active role on the campaign trail and she provided the campaign plane at a steep discount through one of the companies she owns.
Aside from a Wachovia checking account, in which he keeps between $15,000 and $50,000 (wouldn't some of that money earn more interest in a certificate of deposit?), all of the couple's assets are in Cindy's name. John McCain's tax return is so anemic, so marginal to the couple's actual financial situation, that he doesn't even take a deduction for interest on his home mortgage. Presumably Cindy does, since disclosure forms indicate that she has several mortgages.
Wesker is one of McCain's big fundraisers.
Sheesh, I'm sure Matthew, Barack, Howie Dean, and all the other Democrats will turn out to be forensic accountants, eager to disqualify McCain. It is rather fun watching you guys tilt at windmills, though.
Uhhhh...right. Don't you idiot Democrats know that only YOUR candidates are required to disclose their finances? It's not only wrong to expect our candidate to do the same, it's DELUSIONAL TO EVEN ASK BWAHAHAHA!
I guess I prefer it when you people give up all pretense of arguing in good faith, but I'm still taken aback by it now and then.
Al, I also don't remember John Kerry as being listed as owning virtually nothing, but maybe I'm "misremembering".
Still, if he took advantage of Theresa's money and/or assets (like use of a private jet) as part of his campaign, then she should have supplied her financial records. The public has the right to know who somebody's campaign is being financed.
We know a little about John McCain's campaign finances. We know he got a loan for promising to take public money if he needed it to pay back the loan, and we know he was given a sweetheart deal on a plane from his wife's company. Interesting actions for a man who wants Obama to take "public funding".
John McCain's tax return is so anemic, so marginal to the couple's actual financial situation, that he doesn't even take a deduction for interest on his home mortgage.
And probably lines up behind Meghan to receive his weekly allowance.
Southpaw: I agree - which is why I said that, IMO, Cindy should disclose the info.
My objection is to Matthew's misogynistic characterization of the situation. John has "stashed" anything anywhere. The assets are Cindy's. Matthew apparently can't contemplate the idea of a woman actually owning assets on her own without a man "stashing" them there.
So I read this post and I see Matt take a shot at McCain (he had it coming I'm sure), make a Resident Evil joke, and ask what evil thing from pop culture that McCain could have invested in. So I say "oh boy, can't wait to see some funny comments about what odd esoteric financial skeleton McCain is hiding in his closet." No, I didn't see that though. You all just decided to be a bunch of wankers and argue about Arizona property laws. Screw you people and your substantive discussion. I say he's hiding stock in North Central Positronics. Look it up.
Clearly, here is an example where "citizen journalists" need to rush out and go look at the countertops of the parents of 12 year olds who benefit from medical aid programs.
Wesker is one of McCain's big fundraisers.
I'm not even being snarky about McCain: it's a basic biographical fact his entire life has been spent in environments where stuff gets issued to you.
So it's no surprise that his finances are the way they are, but that's shielded him from all manner of basic experience for those whose lives are spent outside the government-issue world of the armed services and public office.
What Cindy owns, she inherited, apparently.
And saying "stash" is hardly misogynistic.
But whatever - McCain can't be Mr. Clean and yet not release his wife's tax returns.
Not after he little drug stealing escapade.
Not after the Keating 5 scandal which he got off the hook on by throwing her under the bus.
Not after using her corporate jet to get around campain finance laws he wrote.
Seriously, the hypocrisy is overwhelming.
And it makes McCain look like a joke.
So after more than two decades of making a hefty six-figure salary, a salary that puts him among the top income-earners in this country, McCain has managed to save no more than $15-50K in a savings account? Really? If that's how poorly he handles his own finances, how can we possibly trust him with the American worker's hard-earned money? The man's obviously a financial incompetent.
Aside from a Wachovia checking account, in which he keeps between $15,000 and $50,000 (wouldn't some of that money earn more interest in a certificate of deposit?), all of the couple's assets are in Cindy's name. John McCain's tax return is so anemic, so marginal to the couple's actual financial situation, that he doesn't even take a deduction for interest on his home mortgage. Presumably Cindy does, since disclosure forms indicate that she has several mortgages.
I wonder if Cindy just leaves the money on the nightstand for John every morning.....but then again I'm sure that she can take comfort that since she's got the money, he's not just gonna cut and run from her and her kids the way he did the last family he swore to be faithful to.
Following on Stefan's comment, given the budget proposals we've seen from McCain it actually may not be that far fetched that this is all he has left:-)
"And it's probably a good idea to avoid mentioning philanthropy, considering Barry and spouse "gave" only around one percent on average for the disclosed period, while JMac donated more than ten percent of his income to charities."
The money McCain gave to charity went to the John and Cindy McCain Foundation. Pretty much all of the money the foundation gets is from the McCains, and the main beneficiaries of the foundation have been schools attended by the McCain children. Not particularly objectionable IMO, but not particularly laudable either.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/02/hbc-90002519
Judging by the high ratio of trolling posts on this thread, this line of inquiry really draws blood.
Assuming McCain's being honest, that means all the money he's made as a Senator and a book author has disappeared. Or, we assume he's lying, and that money is stashed in one of his wife's assets. Which sounds more likely to you?
Well, in defense of the "truth telling" possibility, McCain was never known for being an intellectual powerhouse. I'm pretty sure that going into a career in investment banking or financial management was not really in the cards for him.
Though I delight in pointing out that Cindy McCain is a HOMEWRECKING WHORE, I may have been negligent for failing to point out that Songbird McCain (google it) is an aging gigolo.
My apologies.
McCOIN.
The front page of The Atlantic has a picture of McCain meeting black people with the caption "Behind Enemy Lines."
Seems a bit over-the-top.
Interesting discussion (and yes I love the minutiae of Arizona community property law).
Man, I'd love to know the details of McCain's prenup, most prenups expire after a set term (usually 10 years) and this one still keeps ticking. But then Cindy's dad was a tough old birg, and since he didn't trust the aging gigolo who had Jedi mindtricked his only child and heir-- I bet that prenup is brutal.
Oh by the way Matt, sometimes I forget you're a genius...
the father of McCain's wife, James Hensley, was convicted by a federal jury in U.S. District Court of Arizona in March 1948 on seven counts of filing false liquor records. Hensley also was charged with conspiracy to hide from federal authorities the names of persons involved in a liquor industry racket with two companies he managed, United Sales Company in Phoenix and United Distributors in Tucson.
The umbrella company, United Liquor, at that time held a monopoly in Arizona, organized and managed by Kemper Marley, who was accused of mob ties by a reporter who was murdered in 1977.
http://www.democrats.com/john-mccain-married-to-the-mob
Cindy McCain is a HOMEWRECKING WHORE
My, with a divorce rate of 40-50%, god knows how many cohabitating couples splitting up and affairs going on, one might be forced to conclude that the US is full of both male and female "homewrecking whores".
This dovetails with McCain's apparent ignorance that most retirement accounts aren't subject to capital gains tax. Why? Because he's never had to contemplate such things. He's a commissary, canteen and govt-issue guy.
It'd be nice if some non-starstruck journo were to ask him when he last did the following: complete his own tax return, shop for health/life insurance; read the small print on a mortgage agreement; etc.
Any long-term Senator is going to be somewhat immured in the world of government provision, but McCain's career and marriage has sequestered him more than most from the basic financial realities of most people's lives.
I love how all the conservatives know the full details of the pre-nup. Has it ever been realeased? Has it expired? If it keep all of Cindy's assetts hers and then income generated from those assetts hers then it is 1) pretty abusive, 2)contrary to community law states. Anything earned after the marriage from whatever source is community property. For federal tax purposes, McCain can designate some as hers and some as his for reporting purposes, without any impact on his claim to it. Thus, regardless of the tax return, McCain almost certainly owns much more, which he is hiding.
The hypocrisy belongs to anyone who faults someone for committing acts you allow yourself. The RightWing Noise Machine shouted "View Halloo!" over Heinz back in 2004.
As a member of the RingWing Noise Machine, Al, you can kindly go SQL Inject yerself. Thanks.
"contrary to community law states. Anything earned after the marriage from whatever source is community property"
This is just not true. You can write a prenup in a community-law state that explicitly delineates who will get what income from what source. In other words, you can agree that each person will, at the end of the marriage, walk away with what they earned during the marriage (or, to be more exact, what they saved from what they earned during the marriage). That's perfectly legal and it's hardly "abusive."
So, from reading the comments above, the sense I get is:
* Insofar as Matt is describing the assets Cindy McCain came into the marriage as assets John McCain owns but has "stashed" with her, he's being a sexist pig.
* Insofar as McCain's arrangement with his wife involves her holding everything in her name except this one checking account, while he retains rights to (some of) the money he's earned, they're engaged in an abusive scheme to hide McCain's assets from public view.
* Either way, Cindy McCain ought to disclose her tax returns. She's married to a guy who's running for President, and that's just part of the package.
Comments closed May 12, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
+1 for the Resident Evil reference.
Posted by Levi | April 28, 2008 5:25 PM