Birthday Party Excess??
Senator Bernie Sanders posted the following on his "senatorial" Facebook page:
"Congratulations,
Mr. Schwarzman, on your 70th birthday and your ability to spend $20
million on your party. I hope you had a good time. You will certainly
make a fitting member of the Trump administration, which includes the
wealthiest cabinet in the history of the country.
While billionaires like Schwarzman get richer, the middle class continues to shrink and 43 million people live in poverty. And to add insult to injury, the Trump administration will be working hard to make life more difficult for the elderly, the children, the sick and the poor by cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and killing the Affordable Care Act.
Once again, Mr. Schwarzman, I hope you enjoyed your $20 million birthday party."
He was referring to the birthday party thrown by billionaire Stephen A. Schwarzman. Senator Sanders linked to an article in the New York Times about that party. If you read the article, its author takes pains to point out that the actual cost of Mr. Schwarzman's party was nowhere near the $20 million figure that Senator Sanders (or whichever staffer wrote this diatribe) quoted twice. I am not "defending" the expense or calling the allegation that it was excessive wrong. I'm just trying to offer perspective.
Reading about Mr. Schwarzman's party reminded me of what some considered an excessive birthday party thrown not quite 30 years ago. My late father's birthday is June 4 and in 1987 it was his 50th birthday. While he wasn't a billionaire, at the time he was wealthy. His birthday party that year was a four day celebration that he informed me cost in excess of $300,000. Adjusted for inflation, that same party would cost over $600,000 today.
I remember that party very well. I was still serving in the Air Force and had to fly in from my duty station at Nellis Air Force Base just north of Las Vegas. There wasn't room for me in the house so Dad put me up at a nice hotel. He paid the airfare.
It was quite a bash, with "name" entertainment on two of the three nights of the celebration. Great food and drink were everywhere. The 8,000+ square foot house in one of the ritziest areas of North Dallas was wall to wall people. Servers abounded. Valet parking.
So where did that $300,000 go? It went to the musicians, the servers, the valet parkers, the cooks, the people who set up and cleaned up and more. It isn't as if we had a bonfire and burned 3,000 $100 bills.
Was it excessive? That is a subjective judgment. Feel free to make it.
Mr. Schwarzman is worth a reported $11.2 billion. 10% of that would be $1.12 billion. 1% would be $112 million. Let's cut the Senator Sanders estimate of the party cost in half and call it $10 million. So a man spent less than one-tenth of 1% of his net worth on his 70th birthday party. Is that really all that excessive?.
Consider a 30 year old couple with no kids. Their net worth is $25,000 after we add up their assets and liabilities. To do the equivalent of what Mr. Schwarzman did, they would go out and spend $25 on the party for whichever one of them was turning 30.
I'm not saying fireworks, camels, trapeze artists and a performance by Gwen Stefani might not be a bit over the top. It is. But there is as Paul Harvey used to say, "the rest of the story."
Mr. Schwarzman gave $100 million to the New York Public Library. He gave $150 million to Yale University. He created a program similar to the Rhodes Scholar program for students in China and funded it with a personal donation of $100 million. All items mentioned in the New York Times article. So while he isn't as generous as Warren Buffet or Bill & Melinda Gates, he isn't miserly either.
The problem with what Senator Sanders is saying is that he's trying to use conspicuous consumption to criticize 45's cabinet and political agenda. The fact that the cabinet is extremely wealthy isn't the problem. The problem is their utter lack of qualifications to serve in the positions they've been given, and how their wealth and ties to nations and businesses cause conflicts of interest.
Highlighting the inflated cost of a birthday party has nothing to do with cutting social safety nets. Criticize the agenda. Focus on the problem with the unqualified and conflicted cabinet.
Then there is the real issue that makes such an extravagant birthday party seem so wrong. I've written frequently on the biggest economic issue we face moving forward. The ever-widening gap of income inequality. Take that on, Senator Sanders. Please.
While billionaires like Schwarzman get richer, the middle class continues to shrink and 43 million people live in poverty. And to add insult to injury, the Trump administration will be working hard to make life more difficult for the elderly, the children, the sick and the poor by cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and killing the Affordable Care Act.
Once again, Mr. Schwarzman, I hope you enjoyed your $20 million birthday party."
He was referring to the birthday party thrown by billionaire Stephen A. Schwarzman. Senator Sanders linked to an article in the New York Times about that party. If you read the article, its author takes pains to point out that the actual cost of Mr. Schwarzman's party was nowhere near the $20 million figure that Senator Sanders (or whichever staffer wrote this diatribe) quoted twice. I am not "defending" the expense or calling the allegation that it was excessive wrong. I'm just trying to offer perspective.
Reading about Mr. Schwarzman's party reminded me of what some considered an excessive birthday party thrown not quite 30 years ago. My late father's birthday is June 4 and in 1987 it was his 50th birthday. While he wasn't a billionaire, at the time he was wealthy. His birthday party that year was a four day celebration that he informed me cost in excess of $300,000. Adjusted for inflation, that same party would cost over $600,000 today.
I remember that party very well. I was still serving in the Air Force and had to fly in from my duty station at Nellis Air Force Base just north of Las Vegas. There wasn't room for me in the house so Dad put me up at a nice hotel. He paid the airfare.
It was quite a bash, with "name" entertainment on two of the three nights of the celebration. Great food and drink were everywhere. The 8,000+ square foot house in one of the ritziest areas of North Dallas was wall to wall people. Servers abounded. Valet parking.
So where did that $300,000 go? It went to the musicians, the servers, the valet parkers, the cooks, the people who set up and cleaned up and more. It isn't as if we had a bonfire and burned 3,000 $100 bills.
Was it excessive? That is a subjective judgment. Feel free to make it.
Mr. Schwarzman is worth a reported $11.2 billion. 10% of that would be $1.12 billion. 1% would be $112 million. Let's cut the Senator Sanders estimate of the party cost in half and call it $10 million. So a man spent less than one-tenth of 1% of his net worth on his 70th birthday party. Is that really all that excessive?.
Consider a 30 year old couple with no kids. Their net worth is $25,000 after we add up their assets and liabilities. To do the equivalent of what Mr. Schwarzman did, they would go out and spend $25 on the party for whichever one of them was turning 30.
I'm not saying fireworks, camels, trapeze artists and a performance by Gwen Stefani might not be a bit over the top. It is. But there is as Paul Harvey used to say, "the rest of the story."
Mr. Schwarzman gave $100 million to the New York Public Library. He gave $150 million to Yale University. He created a program similar to the Rhodes Scholar program for students in China and funded it with a personal donation of $100 million. All items mentioned in the New York Times article. So while he isn't as generous as Warren Buffet or Bill & Melinda Gates, he isn't miserly either.
The problem with what Senator Sanders is saying is that he's trying to use conspicuous consumption to criticize 45's cabinet and political agenda. The fact that the cabinet is extremely wealthy isn't the problem. The problem is their utter lack of qualifications to serve in the positions they've been given, and how their wealth and ties to nations and businesses cause conflicts of interest.
Highlighting the inflated cost of a birthday party has nothing to do with cutting social safety nets. Criticize the agenda. Focus on the problem with the unqualified and conflicted cabinet.
Then there is the real issue that makes such an extravagant birthday party seem so wrong. I've written frequently on the biggest economic issue we face moving forward. The ever-widening gap of income inequality. Take that on, Senator Sanders. Please.
posted by me at 7:20 AM
<< Home