Death to the Death Tax?

Author: Howard Kurtz

Published: April 15, 2005

In reading about the House repeal of the estate tax, one sentence jumped out at me.

By a 238-194 vote, the House rejected a Democratic alternative that would have shielded $3.5 million of an estate's value from taxation -- enough to exempt 99.7 percent of estates from the tax, according to the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution.

Seems like a dream for Democratic talking points.

In most tax debates during this administration, President Bush and the GOP say their tax cuts will help everyone, the Democrats say they will disproportionately benefit the rich, everyone trots out their charts and the argument rages. Democrats say trickle-down, Republicans say class warfare, yadda yadda yadda.

But here we have a case in which the Republicans have gone on record as trying to protect the top 0.3 percent, the richest households by far in the US of A.

I'm not taking a position on the estate tax, but I do think the vote on this little amendment clarifies a pretty fundamental difference between the parties.

I doubt, though, that this is a big voting issue. The people who care about what the GOP calls the "death tax" care passionately -- and are generally well-heeled enough to write checks to politicians.

The people who will never have a big enough estate to worry about taxation don't spend much time agonizing over the issue, as opposed to the state of their kid's school and whether the local doctor will accept Grandma's Medicare. In fact, some of them may like the idea of not taxing estates because they aspire to be rich someday.

But I'd be surprised if we didn't hear more from Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and friends about the top 0.3 percent, particularly as the measure moves to the Senate.

Washington Monthly's Amy Sullivan sounds disgusted:

"House Republicans voted overwhelmingly to permanently repeal the estate tax -- at a cost, let's remember, of nearly $300 billion over the next decade.

"So, to sum up: Actual prescription drug relief? There's no money. Armor to protect our troops? There's no money. The funds to back up the mandated reforms of No Child Left Behind? There's no money. Doing away with a tax on super rich kids? Plenty o' cash to spare.

"But, silly me -- I'm forgetting what's at stake here. Remind us, Congressman Cox: '[Supporters of the estate tax] want to pry lots of cash out of the cold, dead fingers of America's deceased entrepreneurs.' That's your Congress. The demagoguery they just throw in for free."

Matthew Yglesias defends Paris Hilton:

"Taxing estates doesn't really seem like a great plan. If I die with a $10 million estate and want to give $5 to 2 million different people, there doesn't seem to me to be a good reason why the estate should be taxed. Better to tax inheritance since the actual concern is that I'll give $10 million to my son and he'll be rich, rich, rich without ever having worked. Second, perhaps it's politically effective, but I'm disquieted by the Paris Hilton-bashing. The problem is that not every wealthy heiress is a Paris Hilton. But every wealthy heiress ought to pay tax. Implying that the decadence of Miss Hilton is somehow integral to the case clouds the issue."

Josh Marshall links the debate to his favorite issue, Social Security:

"Republicans say they care about Social Security but claim there won't be enough money to make good on the money (your payroll taxes) borrowed from the Social Security Administration.

"House Republicans voted overwhelmingly to abolish the inheritance tax, a tax that, by definition, only impacts people who inherit money from extremely wealthy forebearers. If passed by the senate this new legislation, which would come into effect in 2012, will cost the Treasury $745 billion dollars during its first ten years. Figure in associated interest on the added debt and the number comes closer to a trillion dollars.

"That is about a trillion fewer dollars in the US Treasury over the course of the same decade in which the Social Security Trustees say the SSA will begin (2017) to start drawing on the Treasury notes in the Trust fund to cover scheduled benefits (2020, if you go by CBO estimates.)

"There's no hidden complexity here. It's a zero-sum game. They say Social Security is in trouble because we don't have enough dollars to make good on the Trust Fund (which today holds roughly $1.7 trillion in Treasury notes). And here they are voting to take a trillion more dollars off the table.

"In other words, they could not care less about Social Security and everything they say on the subject is a joke."

Rick Duncan at Red State Lawblog can't understand why Jim Leach was the sole House Republican to vote against repeal:

"Why would Leach want to penalize a guy for dying? Isn't it kinda like piling on? A guy pays about half of what he earns to government for one kind of tax or another during his life, and then they want to take a big chunk of what's left when he dies. Shame on Leach! He ought to change political parties and move to Massachusetts!

"Of course, the Democrats played the Marxist class-warfare card and said this legislation would only help the dirty, stinking rich. Actually, it is a very egalitarian law that ensures that no one will pay death taxes. What is wrong with equal treatment?"

Chalk up another one for the GOP Congress:

"Congress gave final approval today to an overhaul of the bankruptcy system that will require more insolvent Americans to pay at least some of their debts," says the Los Angeles Times .

"Proponents said the changes would curb abuse of the system and critics said it would tighten the screws on already hard-pressed families. The bankruptcy legislation, a top priority of credit card companies for nearly a decade and the first rewrite of the Bankruptcy Code in a quarter-century, was passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 302 to 196. . . .

"Democrats split on the legislation, with roughly one-third . . . crossing the aisle to vote with the Republicans in favor of the bill."

The New York Times provides the winners and losers: "The legislation is the culmination of years of intensive lobbying by the nation's largest banks, credit card companies and retailers, which have complained about what they say is a rising tide of abusive bankruptcy filings.

"It is a big victory for Mr. Bush, who supported the measure, and a sharp setback for civil rights organizations and consumer groups."

In the ongoing battle between The Hammer and Big Media, Mark Halperin is showing some sympathy for Tom DeLay. Check out The Note

"1. There is an iron triangle of liberal interest groups, Democratic congressional staffers, and media jackals (both investigatively minded and liberally oriented) who have never identified with or liked Tom DeLay (and what he stands for) and are enjoying every minute of their conspiring to bring him down.

"2. Almost every accusation swirling around DeLay involves actions by him that have exact analogues among other members of Congress of both parties (See, for example, Thursday's front-page Los Angeles Times page-turner about MOCs employing relatives to do campaign work.).

"3. If having close ties to self-interested and restaurant-owning lobbyists disqualified someone from a leadership position on Capitol Hill, it would be a body of all Indians and no chiefs. . . .

"4. And/but without a functioning House ethics committee, there is no natural forum in which Leader DeLay can clear up the legit unanswered questions about some of his conduct. And/but his unwillingness to do it in the feeding frenzy of a packed press conference seems reasonable. May we suggest an interview with The Note, Dan Allen?"

So -- the whole thing is a pitch letter?

Attorney Jeralyn Merritt of TalkLeft doesn't think much of DeLay saying he had made "inartful" remarks on targeting judges:

"If one of my clients gave this kind of apology at a sentencing, the judge would throw the book at him. . . .

"He's not sorry for the content of his intemperate remarks, only for the way he phrased them. That's like saying he isn't sorry for the crime, only that he got caught."

Howard Dean, who had pretty much dropped off the radar screen, has reemerged:

"Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean says his party needs to do more to appeal to voters who have been lost because of unease over 'values,' including people who oppose abortion and parents who are dismayed by TV programs they find offensive for their children," says USA Today ..

"'We need to be a national party, we need a national message, and we need to understand why people in dire economic straits -- people who certainly aren't being helped by Republican policies -- why they vote for George Bush,' he said. 'We need to respect voters in red states who want to vote for us, but we make it hard for them by not listening to what they have to say.' . . .

"But the message Dean outlined was a contrast to the one in his campaign, which was fueled by opposition to the war in Iraq and drew mostly liberal support. What Democrats need to do now, Dean said, is recast the debate on issues including abortion and win back voters who might be drawn to the party for its stands on economic issues and health care.

"Democrats get 'caught' in defending abortion, he said. 'Well, there's nobody who's pro-abortion, not Democratic or Republican. What we want to debate is who gets to choose: (House Majority Leader) Tom DeLay and the federal politicians? Or does a woman get to make up her own mind?' "

DeLay -- There's that name again.

Bill Kristol is in "John Bolton is a friend of mine" mode:

"I worked with John Bolton in the first Bush administration. I know many people who have worked with him and for him in this administration. Carl Ford's characterization of Bolton as a 'kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy' is disingenuous. No, let's call a spade a spade -- it's dishonest.

"John Bolton is no 'kiss-up.' Quite the contrary. Over the last four years, he was famously willing to challenge his bosses, Secretary of State Colin Powell and Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage, at the daily 8:30 State Department senior staff meeting. He paid a price for this, especially by earning the enmity of Armitage. Carl Ford, the former State Department intelligence chief, was a close associate of Armitage.

"Nor is Bolton a 'kick down sort of guy.' In fact, Bolton has always had a reputation as a straight shooter, a good boss, and not a screamer. . . . This character assassination of Bolton is repugnant."

Columbia Journalism Review weighs in on the T-word:

"The media have been of two minds when it comes to the matter of who to label a 'terrorist.'

"Many things might fall under the label of "terror"; the U.S. State Department's 2001 annual review of global terrorism defines terrorism, in part, as 'premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.'

"In the case of recently captured bomber Eric Rudolph, the four bombs he detonated outside a gay bar, two women's clinics and at the Atlanta Olympic Games in the mid-to-late 1990s easily fall within these criteria. His goal was political and intended to influence an audience (he wanted Roe v. Wade overturned, and saw the Atlanta Games as the first step toward a 'New World Order'), and the attacks were most definitely perpetrated against noncombatants by a non-state entity. The situation seems at least as clear-cut as many acts regularly labeled terrorism in the media.

"In the coverage of his guilty plea to the bombing charges, however, many reporters have stopped short of labeling him a terrorist. The New York Times online never uses the word, in keeping with a story filed on Friday, in which the Times referred to Rudolph simply as a 'anti-abortion crusader and former soldier.'

"Similarly, an AP story which led most of the early coverage shies away from the 'T' word, although Rudolph planned and executed a series of targeted bombings in which two people died and over 120 were wounded. For its part, a Reuters wire story also failed to call Rudolph anything other than a survivalist and a fugitive. . . .

"In the end, does it really matter if a paper or wire service uses the word 'terrorist,' as long as they get their facts straight? Not necessarily -- after all, such labels are always going to be somewhat subjective -- but it would be nice to see some consistency (at least within news organizations, if not within the press as a whole) in who is labeled as such, and who isn't."

American conservatives are facing a dilemma in next month's British elections: Whether to support Tony Blair, whose domestic policies they abhor but who's been the staunchest U.S. ally on Iraq. Frum wrestles with it here, and former Bush aide Patrick Ruffini casts his ballot for the PM:

"I want to bring to your attention this shameful advert from the Tories, to be shown in movie theatres across Britain. It uses the WMD issue and Bush footage to attack Blair. Sure -- I'd expect this kind of crap from the Liberal Democrats, but not from the Conservatives. Sadly, I was mistaken. It's pure desperation, and another reason for American conservatives to back Labour on 5 May."

And finally, to keep you au courant on the culture front, Jeff Jarvis has breaking news on the technology front:

"Paris Hilton is going to podcast leading up to the release of her movie House of Wax. The fun starts April 29: 'Join Paris and friends as she shops, parties, poses and publicizes . . . ' Warner Brothers is even putting out a custom podcatcher (though I'm not sure why . . . these people are mad to brand anything). Anyway, if you didn't think podcasts were hot before, they're officially hot now."

I sense people clicking away right now!

"Ad Age (NOT ONLINE, NOT EVEN FOR A LOYAL SUBSCRIBER LIKE ME) that Superman Returns will also have a podcast.

"Anybody want to start the pool for the date of the first podcast-backlash story?"