advertisement
On The Insider: Photo Gallery: Love Rihanna's Looks
Find Articles in:
all
Business
Reference
Technology
News
Sports
Health
Autos
Arts
Home & Garden
advertisement

Content provided in partnership with
Thomson / Gale

George Bush's tax return - distortions in Donald Barlett's and James Steele's book 'America: What Went Wrong' about the inequality of tax laws as exemplified by George and Barbara Bush's 1991 tax returns

National Review,  May 30, 1994  by John H. Hinderaker

<< Page 1  Continued from page 1.  Previous | Next

It didn't take much investigation to find out that it isn't. The Bushes' 1991 tax return was made public when it was filed, and a number of news stories were written about it at the time. That return was newsworthy because the couple's income that year was three times as high as in any other year of Bush's Presidency.

Most Popular Articles in News
The Ten Best Laptop bags
Tata plans cheapest-ever car for Indian market
GLOBALIZATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT OF THE THIRD WORLD
Corn is good for you; Corn is not only a tasty treat, but also a cereal that ...
THE 50 BEST STYLISH HANDBAGS TO CARRY
More »
advertisement

Why? Because Barbara Bush earned $889,176 in royalties on Millie's Book, a humorous look at White House life written from the point of view of the family dog. And why were the Bushes' taxes relatively low, compared to their income? Because Barbara Bush donated substantially all of the proceeds of Millie's Book to charity--$818,803, or 62 per cent of the couple's income that year. They contributed to 49 different charities, everything from Ducks Unlimited to the United Negro College Fund, but the main beneficiary was the Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy, which received $789,176. After giving away more than 60 per cent of their income to charity, George and Barbara Bush had $505,653 left, of which they paid $239,063--47 per cent--in taxes.

Barlett and Steele must have known these facts, yet chose to mislead their readers by portraying George Bush as a greedy, tax-dodging rich person. We wondered why. In fact, we tried to find out why. We left numerous messages for Barlett and Steele, but they declined to return our calls. We faxed a letter to them asking a number of questions, including why they failed to disclose the Millie's Book income and the Bushes' extraordinarily generous charitable contributions. But they declined to respond. We also asked them for copies of their 1991 tax returns. Needless to say, we did not get them. But we think it highly unlikely that these tireless campaigners against greed have ever donated 62 per cent of their very large incomes to charity.

COPYRIGHT 1994 National Review, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group