As a primer on Tea Party psychopathology, nothing could be more succinct and instructive than a paid advertisement in today's New York Times by a self proclaimed "fat cat" named Norman Lizt.
He must have paid the Times a lot for this full page paean of self aggrandizement--they didn't even print the usual "Paid Advertisement," notice, so you are tricked into reading halfway through it, before you realized you'd been suckered into reading this looney tune.
Before I get to Mr. Lizt, a brief story. I knew three men in Washington, DC who were real estate developers who bought up several blocks of territory intending to develop them, but then a huge corporation bought them out and built its headquarters where they were planning on building. They each became multimillionaires overnight, in their early forties. One retired to an estate in hunt country, Virginia. The other two continued their development company. I asked the one I knew best why he continued to work, when it actually put him at risk, as many businesses do. He shrugged and said, "Well, I could go sailing and play golf and travel, I guess. But, it's just, we've got about 40 employees and I figure, I can do this for them, and for their families."
Then there is my father, who was born in a cold water flat on the lower East Side of Manhattan and who, sitting in his lovely home in Bethesda, Maryland, wrote out his check to the IRS every April 15th with a grin, saying, "I never thought I'd make so much money I'd have to pay this much in taxes. But I'm a closet patriot. Real patriotism is never painless."
So now, to Mr. Litz. What he tells us in his full page of the New York Times is: 1/ He has made "eight figures" for the past seven years, so much money he could never spend it all, as a "private equity investor." 2/ He is an admirable man in that he does not live lavishly and he plans to give $50 million to charity. 3/ He has a fiancee who wants him to stop working so hard for other people, and for charities and to "smell the roses" with her. (I suppose, that means spending money on her.)
But all Mr. Litz's plans to do good for others, for the charities he plans to patronize, for his six employees, are going to be derailed by that nasty, radical President Obama who wants to raise Mr. Litz's taxes to 39%. So, just to spite President Obama, Mr. Litz will close his company, send his 6 employees out to look for jobs which Mr. Litz says happily will never be as good for them as his company has been, and Mr. Litz will put his money in US Treasuries, and let the government support him with their low yield.
Those employees, those charities, all the people who have benefited by this major six job creator be damned, Mr. Litz will show President Obama a thing or two about re distributing wealth. Cross Mr. Litz, will you? He'll show you scorched earth.
What do you think will happen with Miss Rachel, the finacee? Will she stick by her man, who is no longer making "eight figures?" Will President Obama phone Mr. Litz right away and promise not to re distribute wealth? Will the Democratic party admit the folly of caring more about the 99% than it cares about Mr. Lintz and other wealthy men who will wind up paying 4% more in taxes if the Democrats win?
Will the rich creator of 6 jobs, the petulant Mr. Litz sink the futures of his 6 employees and invest the $50 million he would have given to charity in US Treasury bonds?
Will the rich creator of 6 jobs, the petulant Mr. Litz sink the futures of his 6 employees and invest the $50 million he would have given to charity in US Treasury bonds?
Stay tuned.
PS: What I really like about Mr. Litz is the six employees. I mean, just think how the President is destroying those job creators who really keep this economy going.
So my question is, does the NYTimes vet paid contributions like that? NO? Why not?
ReplyDeleteGood question.
DeleteOn the other hand, I'm glad in this case I got fooled into reading this.
Maybe, that's what the editors were thinking, "Oh, this is too good not to share."
--Phantom
Lizt is an awful, nasty person. His diatribe fits perfectly into the caricature of a greedy, simple-minded tea party 1 percenter. Thank goodness for people like Warren Buffett who really has the right spirit and attitude toward wealth.
ReplyDeleteIs he a real person? Or was this written as a satire by someone trying to capture the essence of this sort of vulture?
Delete--Phantom
Phantom,
DeleteLoved your piece. Unfortunately Lizt is a real flesh and blood insane person. He runs an investment outfit in southern California (La Jolla) with flunkies in San Francisco as well.
ifyoucanreadthisyourelying.blogspot.com
Yikes! It's worse than I thought. There really are people like this.
Delete--Phantom
Mr. Lizt must be really angry if he would shutter his business and put his own son out of work. And he must be completely mad if he would deny charities a tax-deductible contribution (worth more if rates go up), and deny himself the "challenging and intellectually stimulating work" and mentoring that he claims to enjoy. Mr. Lizt fails to indicate how much he travelled during the clinton years when tax rates were where Obama proposes to let them return. Sad to lose another private investor, who, as we all know, invest only in America. Or China. or anywhere else.
ReplyDeleteWhat did not strike me initially is this is all over a 4% hike in taxes. Is this not true? Are we talking about going from 35 to 39%? I must be missing something. This is all higher math to me.
Delete--Phantom
"Whenever a Coketowner felt he was ill-used - that is to say, whenever he was not left entirely alone, and it was proposed to hold him accountable for the consequences of any of his acts - he was sure to come out with the awful menace, that he would 'sooner pitch his property into the Atlantic.' This had terrified the Home Secretary within an inch of his life, on several occasions.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the Coketowners were so patriotic after all, that they never had pitched their property into the Atlantic yet, but, on the contrary, had been kind enough to take mighty good care of it."
-- Charles Dickens, Hard Times
Good grief, this blog may actually ascend to literature.
DeleteThis is a pretty wonderful bit.
Dickens is a mixed blessing, but I'll have to open Hard Times, which has been sitting in a pile on my desk, along with other good intentions.
--Phantom
Really, only one "Anonymous" moron who thinks they represent the 99%. Your an idiot. Have you ever worked a day in your life?
ReplyDeleteObviously, never worked as hard as you. And presumably, you work harder than any Democrat has ever worked, and with no one to help you along the way. Taught yourself to read and write and walked 5 miles to school every day while working full time in a coal mine at night. I'm sure you don't use electricity or the public sewers, fiercely independent as you are.
Delete--Phantom
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIs that you Lizt? The writing style is similarly juvenile.
DeleteThis "letter" underscores the self-loving jerk that Norman Lizt and his kind are. They want to keep their money to support (tax deductible) that which provides them with an aura of patronage of the arts--rather than allow the government to help the poor, aged and sick. Saving jobs-please. I'm ashamed of this representative of the 1 percent. If this is what they stand for we must support Obama and get those 90 million folks to stand up and VOTE.
ReplyDeleteP.S. I believe in the arts but we don't need Lizt's money.
I have to refer you to the respondent just above you--I am a lazy moron who has not worked a day in my life and live off the public trough, so I am not qualified to comment.
DeleteOn the other hand, I agree with your sentiment.
--Phantom
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWhat's more interesting is the fact that Obama wants to raise the capital gains tax to 23% (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-05-30/capital-gains-fault-line-as-obama-romney-tax-plans-differ). If investment allows companies to expand and provide more jobs (WHICH IT DOES), decreasing the potential for profit which would increase risk would decrease investment in these companies that provide millions of jobs. Which is better? Giving money to an inefficient government to divide amongst public services (which i totally agree we need) and welfare (which we need JUST TO A LESSER DEGREE) or giving the money to companies to increase jobs. Although I disagree with many of Romney's policies, he does plan to completely rid the capital gains tax for all households that make less than $200000, which would allow the middle class to invest, increasing their income thereby increasing the amount of revenue the government receives from taxes and the amount of jobs companies can provide. Now all we need is an educated public that understands that the bank's interest rate is less than inflation, so you lose money all day, 365 days a year—that's 100% risk. Investing is the only way to attempt to offset the effects of inflation on your income.
ReplyDeleteWell, after hearing Mr. Romney in the debate, I'm not sure what he plans to do. He has suddenly become the champion of government regulation, which, he now says a free market must have. And he does plan to tax the billionaires, now, at least he did that day a week ago. So what is is plan for the capital gains tax? Or, I suppose, we should ask what is his plan, this week?
DeleteAs for the assertion government is always inefficient, just give me that inefficient Medicare, and I'd take it over any of those streamlined commercial health insurances in a heart beat. Give me the Internet, radar, the polio vaccine, social security, all those products of inefficient government any day.
--The Phantom