Governing is about more than personal wealth or health

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 17/09/2016 (3484 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Does the public have a right to see Donald Trump’s tax returns? Or Hillary Clinton’s health records? If so, why? In Canada, we historically respect the privacy of politicians. In the United States, privacy is not honoured to the same degree.

Why should Trump release his tax returns? The theory, simple as it sounds, is that it provides voters with an insight into the candidate’s financial background and dealings. Why does this even matter?

President Harry Truman left office literally bankrupt. President Bill Clinton had to take a loan, and almost required a co-signer, to buy his New York home in 2001 after leaving office. Of course, Bill and Hillary are doing quite well these days as their tax returns reflect.

Trump has not released his tax returns. He has said that he would do so, after “an audit was complete.” I’m not entirely sure what media pundits hope to achieve in obtaining his tax records. My suspicion, completely unfounded, is we may find he actually earned a lot less than the blowhard braggart would have us believe.

As a private citizen, Trump’s personal approach to taxes may reflect that of most people — pay as little as legally possible. Whether this is through the use of multiple holding companies, or family trusts, or whatever tax dodge his lawyers and accountants devise, as long as he is obeying the law, is this germane? Perhaps if we could fully understand the sources of the candidates’ incomes, then we may have something. Short of knowing these details, we really don’t know much.

In the case of the Clintons, their tax returns underscore the manner in which they have leveraged their fame to earn a massive income. We know Hillary received $675,000 from speaking to Goldman Sachs, but we don’t know what she said. Was she selling access? Is there a quid pro quo involved? We know Trump had Goldman fund some of his properties. Again, does this buy access?

When it comes to health, should candidates be required to release their records? Again, there is no easy answer here. Why should voters, beyond strictly prurient interest, need to know the details of Hillary or Donald’s health? Some may suggest it speaks to a candidate’s ability to serve. If this is accurate, then Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson or John F. Kennedy should not have been allowed to serve.

Johnson had already suffered through a heart attack while serving in Congress. Roosevelt, we know, was a victim of polio, anemia, and probably snored. JFK’s ailments are now legion, including Addison’s disease, ulcers, colitis and back issues. We now also know far too much about his licentious behaviour.

Are we setting the bar too high?

Why should financial and health records matter? While they are interesting, and fulfil our gossipy itch to know about celebrities, do they either qualify or disqualify people for public service? Should great health be a qualifying factor? If so, should I save my vote for Olympic swimmer Ryan Lochte’s eventual presidential bid? Should personal tax returns be a qualifying factor? We’re not talking about Al Capone being jailed for tax evasion.

One regular reader called me with an idea — what about candidates being required to have medical exams and have their tax returns examined prior to being allowed to run? If performed by recognized professionals in both fields, this would remove all the smoke and mirrors as well as ugly partisanship.

In my opinion, we make far too much of financial success as a determinant for political success. Bill Clinton was a pauper when elected president, and oversaw a tremendous growth in the U.S. economy during his term. George W. Bush was a multimillionaire and yet his administration’s economic performance was subpar. Governing is about far more than personal wealth and health. In an election that is chockablock with important issues, are these the best we can focus upon?