Bill and Hillary Clinton have provided  a timid peak at how they’re doing since they left the White House.  Not too badly, if you consider $109 million over eight years to be a decent return on investment.  I know I do. 

The Clintons released their tax returns, save for 2007, yesterday, a Friday, designed no doubt to minimize attention, as noted by Turley.  Jonathon is no doubt correct, as every politician knows the news cycle better than they know their own kid’s name.  While it may be an attempt to hide from Bill’s failure to live up to his own vision of charitable giving, I suspect that their reluctance is much more basis.

It’s hard to sell to the American public that you care about them when you’ve made over $100 million.  The number is just too hard to swallow.  It’s too much.  It begs the question, if they cared to much, why aren’t they giving it back.  Why does Hillary take her Senate paycheck?  Why does Bill take his White House pension?  They don’t need the money. 

One of the epithets that has been used effectively is “limousine liberal.”  That’s the rich fellow who espouses deep, abiding concern for the poor and downtrodden, as he gets into the back seat of his long, black limo to be whisked off to some black tie affair. 

There’s a smell of hypocrisy about it. If they want to give something to the poor, let them start with their own money, the argument goes.  They can afford it.

There’s an element of truth to the complaint.  To enjoy vast wealth, while asking others who have decidedly less, to give, sounds disingenuous.  Some, like Bill Gates, give away enough to fund small cities.  But then, Bill Gates won’t be missing any meals in the near future.

The problem in politics is being caught in the conundrum of holding heartfelt beliefs while holding a healthy bank book.  Despite the apparent odor, there is no rational correlation between financial success and concern for others.  Why must wealthy people be selfish and self-centered to be perceived as honest?

On the other side, why must people who care about others divest themselves of rewards of their personal financial success?  There is no logical argument to support the notion that one must be impoverished in order to truly “feel the pain.”  Empathy has no financial qualifications.

But it is valid to question just how much wealth one requires before acting upon those heartfelt beliefs.  It’s fine to say that a person is entitled to enjoy a comfortable lifestyle while recognizing and appreciating the situation of those less fortunate.  Where to draw the line of “a comfortable lifestyle” is awfully hard to do. 

The problem for the Clintons is that most people would agree that $100 million in the bank is probably over the line.  Even if Chelsea ends up being needier than anticipated, they will still have more than enough money to take good care of her.  Hillary can afford as many pantsuits in pastel colors as any woman could want.  Bill doesn’t look undernourished.  What if they gave $50 million away, and only had $50 or so left in the bank.  Would they suffer?  I doubt it.

Of course, it costs a lot of money to run for the Democratic nomination.  It costs a lot to run for President if you get the nod.  This is not for pikers, and the Clintons, who may have been anticipating a run for a while now, could be saving their pennies to cover the cost of donuts on the campaign trail.  It could happen.

But I have no doubt that Bill and Hillary Clinton understood that the minute they let the public know how they were doing financially, a backlash (that she doesn’t need at the moment) would happen.  Whether she deserves it has yet to be seen, but $109 million is still a whole lot of money.