Let's not get too carried away by the Buffett/Gates philanthropic merger. While no one should doubt the philanthropic commitment of both titans, there are some very troubling dimensions to this, including these:

1. Much of Buffett's public commentary has been that he chose the Gates Foundation based on size, equating size with effectiveness. The Washington Post subsequently editorialized that "smallish" foundations (the term used by the Post) were somehow inherently less effective and accountable than big foundations. There's no justification for this, but that's been much of the commentary that has ensued.

2. There are accountability problems here. The Gates Foundation has all of three trustees--Bill, Melinda, and Warren. Somehow, people are assuming that because these are two tremendously successful business titans, they are inherently trustworthy. But three trustees that represent hardly a diversity of opinion much less any other kind of diversity means simply trusting these people because they're rich and successful. And that's the argument many in the press have made, epitomized by a Boston Globe columnist who concluded that the mega-rich are simply smarter and better than the rest of us, and therefore better able to be successful philanthropists.

3. While the Gates Foundation had some much good work, do realize that Gates's management of Microsoft earned him anti-trust litigation in the Clinton Administration, ended only after the George W. Bush won the presidency (softly supported by Gates). Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway has long been known for being among the more secretive, less transparent business ventures. Remember that Microsoft was the first corporate donor to Rick Santorum's Operation Good Neighbor Foundation, hardly a reputable charity, and the Gates Foundation made a six-figure grant to Tom DeLay's eponymous foundation, which had no mission connection to the foundation.

4. Buffett's defense of the estate tax has been fine, but he couched his planned donation to the Gates Foundation with a pretty strident attack against the idea that the public sector was able to deliver as well as philanthropy. There are many things that philanthropy can do that the public sector can't, there are good reasons to give to foundations, but the strident anti-public sector sentiments voiced by Buffett were troubling. The estate tax is not meant to primarily incentivize bequests for foundations and charity. It has a public sector revenue-generating purpose as well, which Buffett seems rather hostile to.

5. Both Gates and Buffett have to be careful about government actually looking to philanthropy to replace government spending. Already in Bush's FY07 budget proposals, the Administration justified its cut in the small schools program (in the Education Department) by claiming that resources were already being well provided by the Gates Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation. With Buffett's anti-government rhetoric, that's a signal for Bush-like lawmakers to suggest that mega-foundations like the doubled Gates Foundation (larger than the next 9 foundations combined) should provide some needed services and programs. The CEO of the Gates Foundation, Patty Stonesipher, has already spoken out on her intention to guard against this, but Buffett's rhetoric doesn't help.

6. The right wing has hardly coalesced against Buffett as a class traitor for his philanthropy. They don't like family's support for women's reproductive rights, for example, but at a Hudson Institute forum on June 30th in Washington, the head of the Philanthropy Roundtable, the trade association of conservative foundations, was virtually beside himself extolling the Buffett donation as the epitome of American capitalism. To him, this was Buffett acting to keep his money away from government, using it for philanthropy during his (or actually Bill and Melinda's) lifetime (remember, Buffett's gift is conditioned that the money is never subject to taxation and that the money flows annually to the Gates Foundation only so long as at least Bill or Melinda is still alive).

There's more to be said about the problematic aspects of this gift, particularly the issue of the concentration of so much philanthropic capital in one gargantuan foundation. At the Hudson Institute program, I presented a counter to the Philanthropy Roundtable's idealization of the Buffett gift and I have a piece coming out in this week's on-line Philanthropy Journal. It's fine that the Gates Foundation is doing some good work, but there are aspects of this gift that should trouble liberals as well as conservatives.

Thanks, Rick, for your thoughtful comments. I agree with most of what you say, although I would add that the issue of accountability pertains not only to Buffett and Gates, but to most foundations, and the foundation philonthropic exercise in general.

You will certainly not find any "idealization" of the Buffett gift in either my blog or my personal thinking; as such, my comments on Buffett's pro estate tax stance should not be conflated with that notion. (In fact, I refer to Buffett's comments on "dynastic wealth" as being juicier than the philonthropic story in the first paragraph). I think money that goes towards addressing world health issues is, in general, a good thing. That's about as far and nuanced as my support for the Buffett/Gates collaboration goes.

Your critique of Buffett's philanthropy is an astute one. I, on the other hand, was using the Buffett gift in a narrow way to exploit Buffett's comments that go against what would be considered his class interests. (There are several conservative pundits who rail against his stance on the estate tax). Any time the country's second richest man lives a (relatively) modest lifestyle, calls out some of his rich colleagues for being greedy, likens trust funds to a form of welfare and calls for keeping the estate tax, in my opinion, that warrants some progressive comment as well. On the policy side, it also helps to counter the ridiculous conservative notion that we are all starting from the same level playing field. "If only those poor people would get off their lazy asses", etc.

You're right, the problems of accountability apply to all foundations, and the problems of size applied to the Gates Foundation before the Buffett gift (the Gates Foundation was already 2 or 3 times as large as the next largest foundation). The idealization of the Gates/Buffett philanthro-merger has been widespread (with some observers competing for the wittiest catch phrase to play up to the Gates Foundation administrators). It has been a little unseemly to say the least.

I do realize that you were focusing on the estate tax, and many of us have applauded Buffett's stance on the issue for quite some time. My organization, NCRP, did some of the original work outlining the impact of a possible estate tax repeal on charitable bequests, for example. But I do worry that Buffett's commentary in favor of philanthropy and against government within the mantle of the estate tax carries a troubling message. When we get challenged by conservatives about the estate tax, our position is that the estate tax's incentive for charitable bequests is only a useful and attractive by-product; the importance of retaining the estate tax is both its role as one mechanism against unbridled dynastic wealth, as you correctly note, and its importance as a revenue-generator in the federal budget.

Of course, it's important to note that Buffett had hardly impoverished himself or his kids. The July 2nd New York Times article on the three children ("Buffett Children Emerge as a Force in Charity") describes their lives briefly and notes that each will receive $1 billion apiece for their individual foundations. That may pale in comparison to the donation to the Gates Foundation and even to the donation to the foundation named after their mother, but $1 billion is a pretty hefty sum for a foundation.

There is one more point to be noted. The Gates Foundation holds a significant amount of its wealth in Microsoft stock, and now will add to that with huge infusions of Berkshire Hathaway stock. Rather than simply being two guys who met and bonded while playing Internet bridge, Gates and Buffett are shrewd and connected businessmen. Gates was elected to the Berkshire Hathaway board of directors in 2004 and holds a sizable share of Berkshire Hathaway stock. Now you have a philanthropic institution holding a large concentration of stock associated with the organization's only three boardmembers, a practice that is generally frowned upon--though increasingly ignored--in philanthropic practice.

As you note, Mark, there are issues of philanthropic accountability to be plumbed here, and my typical area of investigation is exactly that. So, please note I wasn't criticizing your commentary, but adding some of the dimensions of this unprecedented philanthropic action that cause me and some others (see today's Financial Times article by Holly Yeager) a few itchy moments.

(PS: Sorry if I mistakenly sent a blank response just now, but storms in DC are playing havoc with internet connections here...)