On Friday's "Nightline," ABC reporter Bianna Golodryga filed a segment on the "super rich" who are untainted by the tough economic times and once again highlighted left-wing investor Warren Buffett's calls for more taxation. Without ever labeling Buffett as liberal (he has endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for president), Golodryga cheerfully proclaimed that the billionaire is "concerned about the burgeoning wealth gap." The ABC reporter then parroted Buffett's claim that his cleaning lady is paying more in payroll taxes then he does on capital gains. "She doesn't have a lobbyist," the investor complained
Of course, neither Buffett nor Golodryga pointed out that the top one percent of earners pay 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes. In fact, Golodryga has touted Buffett's liberal economic policies before. On November 15, 2007, on "Good Morning America," she lauded the investor for coming out "on behalf of fairness in taxes," in relation to his calls to retain the estate tax and (liberally) reform capital gains tax policy. She rhapsodized to viewers that Buffett was on "your side over taxes and fairness."
On Friday's "Nightline," Golodryga also surveyed the lifestyle of investor Paul Parmar and attempted to deride wealth creators as out of touch: "As many Americans watch personal investments like their homes go belly up, many of the super rich have seen their fortunes only grow." After noting the gourmet tastes of Parmar's dogs, she whined, "What about people that may be looking at you and saying how is it fair that I'm supporting a family of five and this guy's five dogs live better?"
Golodryga talked with "Wall Street Journal" reporter Robert Frank, author of "Richistan," about the current economic situation. She allowed him to deride the "super rich" and dismiss the idea that they create wealth by spending. After asking her one tough question, what's wrong with the wealthy enjoying their money, Frank condescendingly responded this way:
ROBERT FRANK (Author, "Richistan"): If you're a self-made guy and you made your money honestly, then you should enjoy it. What's wrong about it is when you say, well, I'm buying this to benefit the larger economy. Or look at all the jobs I support. Forget it. You know, trickle down has its limits. And if you're living in a 45,000 square foot house, you're doing it for yourself, not for the rest of us.
Becoming more extreme, Frank later speculated that the rich should be "concerned" about revolution. He alarmingly speculated, "If you don't want a revolution in America, you should be quiet about your wealth." Of course, "Nightline" spent much of the segment touring investor Parmar's mansion, so maybe that criticism should be directed at ABC.
A partial transcript of the segment, which aired at 11:35pm on May 16, follows:
CYNTHIA MCFADDEN: Good evening, I'm Cynthia McFadden. We begin tonight with a question. Do you think the country is in a recession? Ask economists and CEOs and you'll get a lot of different answers. But if you put the question to the people, how are you doing, well, according to a new ABC News poll of consumer confidence out just this week the people are pessimistic, more so than at any time in the past 15 years. Lots of people are struggling to keep their homes and fill their gas tanks. But not all people. Bianna Golodryga reports.
PAUL PARMAR [Taking Golodryga around his house.]: That ceiling was done maybe three times. These are all one of a kind made.
GOLODRYGA: Wow. That is quite some fish tank. Wait a minute here. What about all this recession talk? Are you affected at all by the current economic times that we're facing right now?
PARMAR: Not really.
GOLODRYGA: You probably don't recognize this man. His name is Paul Parmar and he is one of the fresh new faces of the super rich.
PARMAR: We're selling to all their doctors.
GOLODRYGA: How often do you check your own net worth?
PARMAR: It's because I'm so invested in private equity it's very difficult to check it.
ROBERT FRANK ("WALL STREET JOURNAL"): Since the 1930s, more than half of America's wealth came from inherited wealth. So we all know about the Rockefellers and the Astors and the DuPonts. But in the last ten years, it's all new money.
GOLODRYGA: Robert Frank is the personal wealth columnist for the "Wall Street Journal" and the author of 'Richistan.'
FRANK: The super rich are unaffected. They truly live in their own world or their own country that I call Richistan. And even I underestimated the degree to which the wealthy are almost oblivious to the fact that we are in a recession.
GOLODRYGA: Paul Parmar is an example of this modern-day multimillionaire. He lives a life many of us can only dream of. [Referring to bowling alley.] How much does this cost to put in?
PARMAR: It's not that bad. I designed it like a Roman ruins.
GOLODRYGA: And how often do you come here?
PARMAR: To this bedroom?
GOLODRYGA: Yeah.
PARMAR: Probably never.
GOLODRYGA: Parmar's fortune is spread across a diverse portfolio of investments, from finance--
PARMAR: My private equity fund we haven't raised anybody's money so it's my own wealth that I have invested in companies.
GOLODRYGA: --to aviation...
PARMAR: We have a very large charter company.
GOLODRYGA: --and movies. Both Bollywood and Hollywood. Most recently, he produced the movie "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead."
["BEFORE THE DEVIL KNOWS YOU'RE DEAD" clip)
GOLODRYGA: His new area of investment - healthcare.
PARMAR: What segment can we make a major impact in? And if you look at healthcare, it's completely broken. It's fragmented. It's inefficient. So we see us as somebody that can - if we can make an impact on that inefficiency--
GOLODRYGA: We tagged along on a recent weekend with Parmar and his girlfriend Amanda. A whirlwind trip, both business--
PARMAR: You need to, like, have fun with your business and stuff.
GOLODRYGA: --and pleasure. His private jet took us to Orlando. We were picked up by a Rolls Royce. And stopped at an exotic car club where you can rent a car so rare you can't even fill it up with regular gasoline.
PARMAR: You can definitely put jet fuel in these cars and you'll be fine.
GOLODRYGA: Then it was off to Anguilla for a two-hour business meeting, all before returning back home to New York. As many Americans watch personal investments like their homes go belly up, many of the super rich have seen their fortunes only grow.
FRANK: The median income in America is still around $48,000 and that's been flat for about the last ten years. Meanwhile the top one percent of Americans own $17 trillion in wealth, which for perspective is greater than the GDP's of Japan, Germany, the U.K. and France combined.
GOLODRYGA: Even the top one percent's dogs live well. Parmar's five pure-breds are fed chicken and steak. What about people that may be looking at you and saying how is it fair that I'm supporting a family of five and this guy's five dogs live better?
PARMAR: I just think it comes back to core fundamentals of how I invest. I didn't go rob a bank. But you have somebody that has immense wealth and he keeps growing and then somebody that has, let's say, $100,000 and it keeps shrinking. The guy that has immense wealth is very confident about himself and knows what they're doing. So they will not put it into savings. The $100,000 guy, his best investment is a savings account. So he's trying to protect it while it shrinks.
GOLODRYGA: But even the world's richest man is concerned about the burgeoning wealth gap.
WARREN BUFFETT: My tax rate is courtesy of the United States Congress. And the people that pay very - the high taxes, like my cleaning lady who pays more on her payroll tax than I pay on capital gains. She doesn't have a lobbyist.
GOLODRYGA: Warren Buffett's estimated wealth hovers around $60 billion.
BUFFETT: This has been a prosperity that's been great for the super rich and it's been bad for the middle class. And, you know, I think that should be changed.
GOLODRYGA: So Buffett has lived in the same modest house for more than 50 years and has pledged to give most his fortune to charity. Here is someone who is giving his money away at the end of the day, most of it.
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
And, who is this Banana
May 19, 2008 - 16:59 ET by Warner Todd HustonAnd, who is this Banana Goldroogya again?
Wasn't she an extra on
May 20, 2008 - 11:30 ET by mattmWasn't she an extra on Baywatch? She should be...
Socialistic propaganda
May 19, 2008 - 17:08 ET by Jerry MackThis is socialistic propaganda at its' finest.
Lobbyists
May 19, 2008 - 17:10 ET by geoff.galeBuffet's statement only reinforces my belief that lobbying is the one thing that this country will need to get a handle on before there is any return to sanity. Modern liberals go bannas over the wealth of the corporations and those who pilot those corporations. And yet, it was the liberal expansion of lobbying back in the 1960's that has produced the ratio of six lobbyists for each congresscritter in DC.
Of course corporations deserve to have their views considered on pending legislation, just as do you and I. But the paid lobbyist system has produced largely negative outcomes for us - tyranny by minorities, corporate greed, congressional and government malfeasance. In the days before the explosion of lobbyists, corporations still had their say in shaping the laws, there were hearings on meaningful issues and they had the power to communicate directly with the members of Congress. But then, in the '60's the liberal activist agenda swept through DC, and everyone and their uncle saw the need to badger Congress until they got their way.
Buffett is right, the common schlub only has that one vote every four or six years and however many letters/emails (s)he can send to their Senator/Representative. That pales when compared to the lobbyist flush with cash, trips, parties, booze, hookers etc.
Back in the day Eisenhower era, it was known in the press as "influence peddling" in the press. Gee, I guess even the MSM was honest back then!
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
- Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
www.conservativeboot...
Control
May 19, 2008 - 18:57 ET by JDWBut the paid lobbyist system has produced largely negative outcomes for us - tyranny by minorities, corporate greed, congressional and government malfeasance.
I disdain the 'corporate greed' brainwashing. The idea that people earning a significant sum of money is detrimental to our country is preposterous.
People as well as companies make the best deals.
How often is Christmas portrayed as, unlike the remainder of the year, a time for bargain hunting? Imagine how strapped our shoppers are during the holiday!
Corporations are dealers, they must compete with a market of people who are shopping for price and quality. Liberal government is doing it's best to interfere with success bias, taxes, regulations, and oil.
JDW
If you mention ANWR it means you don't care about the environment but when congress says ANWR it means you don't care about the gasoline prices
You Say Tomayto, I Say Tomahto
May 19, 2008 - 22:52 ET by geoff.galeIt's not about being successful and earning a lot of money, it's a matter of not caring about anything but the shareholders and the bonuses. I completely agree that the profit motive is not a bad thing. However, that said, left to it's own devices, capitialism and corporations will breed their own set of ills in order to "make the best deal". Child labour during the early days of the Industrial Age is a good example. Enron is another. The refueling tanker fiascos of recent years are but another.
There comes a point at which the interests of the corporation and the interests of the country and its population diverge. For example, when GM made their decision to abandon Flint, MI after 60 years of completely dominating the labour market in the area and wresting tax abatements from the city that gutted the city coffers, they threw away a trained workforce in favour of cheaper labour, first in Southern US plants, then in Mexico. When the union started costing them too much, when the factories they owned there were beyond their useful economic life and they could no longer take capital loans on them, and when the tax abatements expired, they left like a thief in the night. What they left behind in Flint was a human and social strip mine, an area that won't recover economically for decades. And no, I'm not a former autoworker, and no, I'm not a Michael Moore fan, I just lived through twenty years of the rotting of Flint. A little corporate compassion could have gone a long way.
As with most things in life, there's a balance to be wrought between the competing needs of individuals, corporations and political entities. To wit, one of the most economically productive decades in our history was the post-war boom of the 1950's when the government used the Marshall Plan to stimulate industry and the GI Bill to keep the returning glut of soldiers from overwhelming an industrial sector that needed a couple of years to re-jig for peacetime. When done well, individual needs, corporate needs, and political needs can be quite harmonious.
To paraphrase: absolute capitalism corrupts, absolutely.
None of this, however, lessens or constrains my disdain for paid lobbyists.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
- Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
www.conservativeboot...
Control R2
May 20, 2008 - 08:43 ET by JDWleft to it's own devices, capitialism and corporations will breed their own set of ills in order to "make the best deal"
And Marxism, communism, Czarism, liberalism...? Confiscation of wealth creates a better environment? Government ownership, no income or property taxes. Better education, labor, agriculture... No absolute capitalism to corrupt.
JDW
If you mention ANWR it means you don't care about the environment but when congress says ANWR it means you don't care about the gasoline prices
Red (sorry for the pun) Herring
May 20, 2008 - 13:19 ET by geoff.galeAll of those "-ism's" you list weren't part of the original equation - why bring them in at this point? I don't think anything I've said could be construed as advocating for the imposition of addtional government controls on corporations such as might be found under any of the -ism's on your "-ism" list.
This conversation started about paid lobbyists. My original hypothesis was that there are times when corporations (and other organisations too, to be fair) use lobbyists to divert, subvert and pervert the
legislative process to their benefit and to the detriment of the collective "good of the nation".
What I have proposed as a corollary is the premise that corporations are neither inherently good nor bad - along with the benefits they can, and do, confer on people and economies, they can, and do, engage in acts that are not helpful to people or economies. As such, they can no more be trusted than can governments, churches or any other form of human organisation. The common fatal flaw in any human organisation is that its behaviour is the product of human judgments which are sometimes driven by less than hounourable motives.
As examples, I bring you:
In the same vein, corporations can engage in greedy acts based on the wishes of the leaders of the corporation. The headlines are full of evidence of this. Enron, the big Pharma group, Bear Stearns, etc.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
- Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
www.conservativeboot...
The Buffet Mystery
May 19, 2008 - 17:18 ET by allanfI fail to understand Mr. Buffet
My guess is that Mr. Buffet
May 19, 2008 - 19:41 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveMy guess is that Mr. Buffet does this so the "little people" will believe that he is on their side and that they will line up to invest in his companies either directly or through mutual funds, 401k plans, and IRAs.
It's purely for his personal gain. He's a billionaire for a reason. Good for him. Good for anyone that works hard and becomes independently wealthy...it's the American dream. Just don't patronize those that haven't been as fortunate.
If he's really as concerned as he purports to be and wants the rest of us to believe he is (and as much as the left/media thinks he is), there is much more that he can do to ease the financial burdens of his useful idiots.
It's always easy to give other people's money away...and it gets even easier when you have (several orders of magnitude) more money than 99.9% of the world's population. It's also pretty easy to fool people on the subject of taxes because our tax code is so damn complex.
Larry Elder did an article on Buffet's yappin' about taxes.
It's a good read.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." --Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon", 1942
EAT THE RICH...
May 19, 2008 - 18:13 ET by danybhoyI wonder what Brianna Golodryga thinks of the 'super rich' who bankroll her employer? Look, there are good & bad rich people, just as there are good & bad poor people, but I've never worked for a poor person. It is hard to feel too bad about rich people, but if they are pissed on enough, they take their money & invest elsewhere.
"...it's still We The People, Right?" Megadeth
Yes by all
May 19, 2008 - 18:19 ET by rbosqueYes by all means, Golodryga. You and the rest of the looney left won't be happy until everyone in this country is equally miserable and the Democrats are permenantly in charge, isn't that right?
Nothing else matters and anything that stands in the way of that goal is "evil", "nazi", "homophobe"... whatever right?
Go to Cuba and see what your "vision" amounts to.
She's another useful fool
May 19, 2008 - 18:50 ET by celatorShe's another useful fool carrying the water of the MSM Left to promote class warfare. She's too dumb to recognize that, I suppose.
Not since the roaring 20's, Bianna.
May 19, 2008 - 18:55 ET by Gary HallGreat stuff Scott (where did you find her?) (;~>
This "burgeoning wealth gap" which Bianna Golodryga is speaking of may or may not be a significant
story to many, but it is not a story of the Bush years, rather it was a story of the Clinton era.
Even the NY Times' David Kay Johnson understood that. In a piece a few years he showed us when this group of very rich got very richer - In the chart, it's easy to see that this rapidly accelerating income growth occurred during the Clinton era, and instantly, in 2001, reversed as Bush took his seat in the White House: Not Since the 20's Roared (look carefully at the chart - most liberal readers looked at it and instantly hated Bush). Where was the concern then, Bianna?
And Bianna mentioned those damn CEO's. Bad Bush. Oh, wait, was that Bull Clinton once again?
Remember Bianna, Bush destroyed the economy. You can't have it both ways.
But then again, President Bush does have those corporations paying their share of federal taxes, does he not?
Corporate tax revenues soared 155% in 4 years following the Bush tax cuts.
And Bianna, you might want to note to viewers next time, that the end result of the Bush years, is that the percentage of income tax paid by the "top 1% of income earners has increase from 19% in 2000 to 39.4% in 2005 (last time I saw the numbers, compliments of the IRA and the Tax Foundation).
My god what a beautiful
May 20, 2008 - 01:42 ET by mostlymoderateMy god what a beautiful woman.
And if you're living in a
May 20, 2008 - 13:31 ET by Jack BauerYou mean like Al Gore, Barbra Streisand, Norman Lear, Arianna Huffington, Larry David, David Geffen, Steven Spielberg, John Edwards, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie Bruce Springsteen, Tom Hanks, most of liberal Hollywood, et al?
Well, if they think they're paying too little tax, they could always VOLUNTARILY PAY MORE.