|
|
Underwhelmed by Gore's generosity
By Daniel Price
Bowing to tradition, Vice President Al Gore released
copies of his 1997 tax return to the public last week. On the same form that he
listed his income of $197,729, he reported that he managed to find room in his
family budget for only $353 in charity. This is less than one-fifth of one
percent of his income.
Before you read any further, think about how much money you earned last year.
Add up every last dollar. Now, divide that by 560. Those few dollars of your
income, almost certainly less than what you have in your wallet right now, is
the equivalent of what Gore managed to spare from his very healthy six-figure
income. Chances are you have given more than that away over the past year. In
fact, you have probably given more than that just to the homeless people
selling flowers on the street.
If the nearly microscopic sum Gore donated does not turn your stomach, the
excuses proffered by his aides probably will. The Vice President, they whined,
spends so much on tuition for his three children (two at Harvard and one in
private high school) that he could not afford to be more charitable.
As we know from firsthand experience, Gore is not the only person with large
tuition bills. He is, however, in a very select group: people who make nearly
$200,000 and still have trouble making ends meet. And don't forget about the
Vice President's fringe benefits, like free rent on a rather nice mansion, a
large staff to cook and clean for him, limosines, helicopters, and a luxurious
jet. I don't mean to suggest that the Vice President of the United States
should not be well-compensated or live in the vice presidential mansion. His
claim of economic hardship, however, is clearly in the realm of the absurd.
For all of Gore's lack of generosity, he certainly has no moral objections to
asking ordinary Americans to reach into their own pockets and give to his
campaign. Indeed, he has continually drawn criticism for being too
willing to ask others. When caught red- handed "dialing for dollars" from his
White House office, Gore reported that it was acceptable because "there is no
controlling legal authority." Well, Mr. Gore, "there is no controlling legal
authority" in this case either--just a controlling moral imperative.
Throughout my childhood, there was a constant emphasis in my family on giving
to those less fortunate. My grandfather started giving 10 percent of his annual
income to charity each year at a young age, when he was working to help support
his family and putting himself through college and law school. I look to my
grandfather as the epitome of a leader-- he led by example.
All of us, regardless of how much money we have, are direct beneficiaries of
the gifts of others. The $30,000 we pay to Yale each year does not come close
to covering the cost of our education. Yale depends on donations, whether from
the Sterlings and Basses or from the vast majority who certainly cannot afford
to get their name affixed to a building, but give as much as they can. Their
gifts are just as big a sacrifice as the millions given by the names we all
recognize, and thus we owe these lesser known contributors an equal debt of
gratitude.
Perhaps I am naïve, but I would like to think that my leaders will hold
the same respect for others that my grandfather holds--and that they will lead
with the same sort of honorable example. Gore certainly talked the talk when he
told me and the rest of the nation that "I feel your pain," but when it came
time to, quite literally, put his money where his mouth was, the Vice President
could not find anyone less fortunate than himself. Poor Al Gore: $75,000 in
tuition bills and only $200,000 to pay them. How will he ever make ends meet?
Daniel Price is a senior in Trumbull.
Back to Opinion...
|