Stosh Battles Media Bias

The Detroit Free Press Sunday front page screams the news that Michigan has a higher percentage of millionaires than America. Woo-hoo, we are in the pink after all.

I snatch the paper from Maggie. I gotta see this. Surely there will be charts and graphs that I crave with my coffee.

Nope. No charts, no graphs, not even a fun-fact except that 3% of USA households have assets over $1 million but 4% of Michigan households do. Much ink over nuthin.'

But I read on. And on. Through the huge inside continued. It turns out, the article is actually about Anyone Can be a Millionaire, Through Hard Work. This is not on Border's out-sized Self Help Shelf, but the front page lead of Michigan's big paper. One guy in Bloomfield Hills made it by the time he was 26, working "90 hours a week." The careful reader notes that his name sounds familiar; turns out that his pop owns a huge car dealership out in the burbs somewhere.

Hmm. A millionaire begets a millionaire. Maybe that could be news. So I move my coffee to the computer and pen a helpful suggestion.

Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 10:13 AMTo: Tompor, SusanSubject: Millionaires

Ms. Tompor,

I read your millionaire piece with interest. Interesting that 3% of USA households have $1 mil or better in assets, but 4% in Michigan.

I have a critique to offer, which leads to a suggestion for another piece.

In a long article, you have only one clause with a clue on the #1 reason for the growth in the number of millionaires ("wealthy families passing along their money to children and grandchildren...")

I would suggest that most of those millionaires got there by that method, and fewer by the means you indicate in the article: hard work.

They inherit money from parents and grandparents; working folks often instead financially take care of parents or grandparents. Big difference.

Long before inheritance time, they also have trusts and gifts to put their kids thru college; free down payments on a house as a nice wedding gift to avoid any debt; same for cars, private schools for the kids, smooth sailing thru college and law school, money passed along if they get into some difficultly or have an illness, you name it. Working folks dont often have those benefits.

And this doesnt even get to the connections that wealth brings, connections that bring more wealth.

As you indicate, 500 GM management people have $1 mil or better in just their 401(k), while 5 hourly workers do. Interesting ratio. How many of those management folks got up that high simply by "hard work" and how many came from well-to-do families?

Punchline: I think it would be interesting to do a piece on this factor of wealth-thru-inheritance. With stats on what percentage of millionaires got the bulk of their wealth by such transfers. Interesting, and informative, on such issues as the inheritance tax debate. If most rich people worked hard 90 hrs a week collecting pop bottles to get there, then the inheritance tax may seem unfair. If most are just lucky-by-birth, even if wonderful folks -- though there are plenty like Paris Hilton -- then the inheritance tax looks a lot different.

I hope this is of interest.

Stosh Pulaski
Detroit

And I got this response:

Thanks for your note. I appreciate your comments.
Susan

My Very Own Sicko

If I made a movie about American healthcare, I would not make France the positive example. Too alienating to the American mainstream. Not only did they go to France, but then the director squished his fat self into a teeny-weeny frogmobile to head out on a "house call" (Americans do not want doctors coming to their house; they barely let their neighbors come there.)

And I would think twice before having one of my stars mention that some American doctors want five fancy cars. Too alienating to the middle class left; that's my core audience.

Speaking of stars, would I make the film's political guru a Labor Party has-been, who speaks in that stiff British accent we love to mock? Don't think so.

And for chrissake the last frigging thing I would ever do is put Cuba in the damn thing. What was he thinking?!

That's what I would do. A clean case, straightforward, on the mark. No distractions.

No one would come to see it. Weekend gross would be exactly zero. My friends would glumly accept a free DVD and tell me it was good, the way you tell your mom her meatloaf is good.

This is why I do leaflets and Mike Moore does films. They are tightly scripted for sure, but they veer off course. I suspect that the mass demo scenes in France (no way would those get in my movie) were actually conceived by the unscripted remarks of one of the interviewees.

I think the Canada-England-France-Cuba odyssey made the film. The first half of personal stories of American medical evils, that part was good. But some seemed over the top. Like a woman's policy was cancelled after the fact, sticking her with five-figure bills, because she previously failed to disclose she had a yeast infection. (I have a five-figure medical bill lying around here somewhere, and I am not fearing that Blue Cross will say I failed to disclose my childhood measles. Then again, perhaps I should be.) The personal stuff was good, but the case for every-other-country-does-it-better, in its Moore-ish trek and screwball manner, made the movie. Yes, including the wacky, inappropriate Cuba ending.

It made the case for socialized medicine in a real way, without charts and graphs.

So the Nation review (interesting, and positive to be sure) says the Cuba part spoiled the movie, by turning off all the anti-commies. I'm giving that a thumbs down. It makes me realize that the only thing more boring than my movie would be one made by the editorial board of the Nation. Even the foundation that gave them the grant wouldn't watch that puppy.

$4.6 million the first weekend. I dont know if that is on track with Fahrenheit or not. Hope so. It's his most important film yet.