Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Rose Law Firm and Hillary's $25,000 Privileged Dollars
I was looking for something else and ran across a reference to Hillary's initial salary at Rose Law Firm - the privileged law firm that well-connected hubby Bill Clinton got her into in 1977. $25,000. Yep, between the 29-year-old Yale grad/Watergate committee vet and up-and-coming Bill they were earning a whopping $52K a year. Heck, Michelle's family was scraping by on only $42K at this time. And it gets sicker - look at her meteoric rise. Her income soared from $50,579
in 1981 (she became a a partner in 1979) to nearly $180,000 in 1992 - 7x her original salary in only 16 years!!!
She
also raked in $5,500 in speaking fees and $64,700 for serving on three
boards: the Arkansas- based $44 billion Wal-Mart and $321 million
frozen-yogurt chain TCBY, as well as $1.6 billion Lafarge, a Virginia
cement maker. (She remains an
unpaid director of nine nonprofits, including the Children's Defense
Fund, the Children's Television Workshop and Public-Private Ventures, a
Philadelphia group that helps teenagers.) Somebody should ask her about her excessive earnings.
Though I did notice something a little strange in Obama's tax records today. No investments until 2005. None. Nada. $0 interest, $0 dividend income. Then in 2005 aside from their home, it was 2 serious investments, one in AVI Biopharma and one in SkyTerra - overall $13K in mutual fund gains and $11K in stock losses on $1.7 million in income, $1 million after taxes & deductions. In 2006 on almost a million income, $550K after taxes and deductions (including $60K mortgage), he had $6K in interest & dividend income and a single $100K investment that paid nothing. Anyone ever heard what Obama's investment strategy is?
Comments (13)
Plans to get Cattle Future tips from Hillary.
May 13, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
liam is the first to comment.
No comment.
May 13, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I'm sure a lot of Hillary's rise in salary could be tied to her steps in seniority and possibly changes in billing practices, I also have to say that the price of legal services did increase considerably between the early 80s and the 90s. Back in the day, you could get a lawyer to write a letter for a hundred bucks, while just after the turn of the century, a similar letter would run you $250.
May 13, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The whole discussion about the financial status of the candidates has been skewed. Comparing the wealth of the candidates today is unrealistic. At the time the Clintons were the same age as the Obamas they had about half the personal wealth of the Obamas. Of course the Clintons got rich after the left office. So will the Obamas if he gets elected. He'll get at least the 10 million advance for his book as Clinton got for his. His speaking fees will be at least as high. 8 years after Obama leaves office he will be at least as rich as the Clintons are now. But now he's twice as rich as they were when his age. Even counting inflation he is probably a bit richer then they were. Where a person came from is more important to me then where they ended up financially. Its pretty much a wash there with Bill coming from the poorest circumstances and most struggling family as he was growing up.
May 13, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, perhaps I should explain the point, way too subtle I am. I keep hearing about Bill getting Hillary her job at Rose Law (like Rose wouldn't naturally by interested in a Yale grad with Watergate committee experience, teaching law, etc.?)
And the rewards for that job have described as pretty plush. Only one problem - Hillary was only making $25K at first, less than Bill's $27K as AG. Four years later she was making $51K - okay pay, but certainly not through the roof for a talented lawyer. So over the 16 years she worked with Rose, her income steadily improved, from $25K to $180K. Should Bill be credited with that increase as well, since supposedly he gave her all her other breaks?
(Of course she didn't triple her income in a year like some people, but we can't all hit the trifecta).
May 13, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a new one on me. When I hear about Hillary and the Rose law firm, the only old accusations that come to mind are about the missing billing records that suddenly turned up again, and questions about the extent to which she represented McDougal while there.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/arkansas/docs/recs.html
Googling for "Hillary" and "Rose Law" turned up various things, some of which I'd forgotten, but nothing about the assertion you're addressing here. One very anti-Hillary site had an article on her years at Rose Law that was actually surprisingly positive, about how everyone agreed that she was deeply committed to community service, etc. Hillary's wikipedia page mentions the above questions (missing billing records, representing McDougal's failed S&L) but nothing like what you're defending.
Also, $25k in 1977 dollars is about $90k in 2008 dollars.
May 13, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where do you get conversion of $25K to $90K? The income tables I see have it about $10K-$15K less.
May 14, 2008 2:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think a lot of it could've been natural. Everybody gets raises; An experienced lawyer's time is more valuable; The price of everything has gone up, but some of it could also be attributable to her "connection".
Jim Hunt, a very popular Governor of NC; So popular that they changed the Constitution where he could succeed himself and after sitting out for Jim Martin's two terms, Hunt was reelected for another two in a row. After he lost his Senate race, he was on the payroll of a high-profile North Carolina firm, but didn't practice law during that period and spent most of his time working with the DLC, a thinktank or two and he headed a national educational reform committee.
Basically, the impression I had was that they mostly hired him to get his name on their letterhead and because whenever he'd comment about some public issue, the employing firm's name also made it into print.
May 13, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Off topic. If Desidero Auroleu is your real name, I'm jealous.
May 13, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
oh my god. hillary only made $25,000 one year? was she on food stamps, or just dumpster diving to make ends meet?
was she forced to sell her body in dark alleys? does that explain some of the animosity towards black man?
May 13, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did the Clintons have large student loans that they had to pay back?
May 13, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Until 2005, the Obamas were paying on their student loans. I assume that once they paid them off, they invested that income. I would!
May 13, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are always these assumptions any time it comes to the Obamas.
Combined the Obamas pulled down $240K, $270K, $260K, $240K, $210K in the first 5 years of the 2000's. They likely had similar income for 1997-1999 when they were doing the same jobs. So roughly $2 million over 8 years. Just how big were their student loans? The average for undergrad & Harvard Law at that time was about $33K, so double that and it's only $66K.
May 14, 2008 4:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment