Cynical thought about why Washington might want to "supervise" Buffett
Reader comment on: Supervising Buffett
Submitted by Mark Michael (United States), Jan 25, 2014 11:18
This is a cynical comment, admittedly, but maybe they're just looking at Buffett like they did Microsoft and Intel during the Clinton administration: too independent, too uppity of what they "owe" Washington (next to nothing - Bill Gates bragged Microsoft only had 4 part-time employees in DC advocating for Microsoft once) and they needed to be brought down a peg or two. The DOJ Antitrust suit commenced, led by Joel Klein. (Faster than you can say "Monopoly!" Microsoft became the largest corporate donor in the country, giving to both parties, but mostly to D's.)
Maybe Buffett and Berkshire need to "contribute" more to the Political Class in Washington! He claims to live in Omaha in order to stay out of the day-to-day hotbed of near-term thinking with respect to his investing. You'd think something similar would apply to the Ruling Class in Washington, too. His political positions usually lie up with the interests of Berkshire Hathaway: high estate taxes "encourage" people to buy various insurance products, for instance. Advocating a higher capital gains tax also encourages the purchase of insurance products. Recall his statements about his secretary paying a higher tax rate than he did, she attended a SOTU speech to illustrate that fact.
Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.
Comment on this item