PHILANTHROPY | The Chronicle’s Pablo Eisenberg has a very sharply worded critique of the giving priorities of America’s billionaires and the media’s relationship to those priorities. Eisenberg specifically targets the Carlyle Group’s David Rubenstein who recently made large, well publicized gifts to both the National Zoo and the Washington Monument. (Chronicle, 1/25)
Eisenberg makes some provocative and interesting points, but it seems to me that he draws connections that might not be as obvious as he thinks. I’ll have my own longer response to his piece posted on the Daily, hopefully later this afternoon.
Coincidentally (or maybe not), the Post’s Courtland Milloy has a profile of Rubenstein today – For David Rubenstein, hitting economic jackpot began with education (WaPo, 1/25)
WORKFORCE | Microsoft, DC government to partner on jobs training, economic development venture (WaPo, 1/25)
SOTU | The Times has a useful breakdown of President Obama’s State of the Union address by issue area. (NYT, 1/25)
Related: President Vows Not to Deter Wealthy From Giving (Chronicle, 1/25)
TRANSIT | Chef Geoff, of Chef Geoff’s fame, isn’t pleased about some sneaky speed cameras near one of his restaurants. So he’s taking matters into his own hands. (WaPo, 1/25)
 |
Slowwwww news day. That said, I think everyone should read Pablo Eisenberg’s piece above. It packs a punch. I’d love to hear your thoughts on it – please share them in the comment section. If you read the Daily through an email subscription, you can add a comment by visiting the Daily directly here.
Eisenberg hits the nail on the head. The vast sum being misdirected to campaigns this year is akin to throwing money down a rat hole. I hope Buffett, Gates and Rubenstein see it. It will take someone like them to speak up and show the way to change gifting priorities.
Thanks for the response. I posted my thoughts here, but I didn’t talk about campaign contributions.
I disagree with just about everything Eisenberg wrote, but do I tend to agree with both of you that campaign contributions are money thrown away – at least as our political system works now. I do think there is value in supporting candidates that you believe will be able to leverage more resources in favor of certain causes, but that’s not really how things work at this point.