Huey, Dewey and Louie's Revenge

Author: Jake Honigman

Published: April 21, 2004

One cool thing about America is that a plain old citizen can march down to D.C., wander into Congress, and demand to throw in his two cents. Which is just what I did last week with a pro-Israel group from Cornell (except we took a bus), pushing for the Jewish state's right to build a security fence and calling for ramped up efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear bombs.

My missions took me to both extreme ends of the partisan spectrum, and as a liberal who feels strongly about both of those issues, I was a little bit stung by the outcome.

The conservative Republican's office effectively rolled out a red carpet for us, and we were met with nothing but nodding as we encouraged co-sponsorship on piece after piece of legislation. The liberal Democrat's aide, on the other hand, was sympathetic, thoughtful, and engaging, but made it clear to us that we would achieve little success.

It's not that I was angered or hurt by the Democratic staffer's refusal to sign on to our issues -- in fact I understood his reasons. But I had taken a six-hour bus trip down to make my voice heard, and it seemed to be resonating a lot louder on the other side of the aisle.

So I began to reflect -- as I believe we all should from time to time -- on why I am where I am politically. I'll share one of the stronger convictions I was left with.

While I try to see both sides of controversial issues, I find it disturbingly hard to understand why the Republican Party has engaged, in virtual lockstep, in an assiduous crusade to repeal our nation's estate tax.

Chris Rock, in his new HBO special, talks about the difference between being rich and being wealthy. Shaquille O'Neal, he says, is rich, but the guy who signs his checks is wealthy. Being rich is nice, but if you're wealthy, your children and grandchildren will be also.

It's funny -- and not in the Chris Rock kind of way -- that in the United States of America, in 2004, we're comfortable with the idea of families of immense means effortlessly remaining moneyed for generations.

Royalty is for Europeans, and wealth without work is a habit we should have quit cold turkey in 1865. So why on earth is our ruling party trying to make the transfer of great wealth from generation to generation more complete and automatic?

The estate tax takes a little bit off of large fortunes before they're passed down. The threshold to even be eligible for this misfortune is over $3 million for a married couple leaving 10 percent to charity. It affects only tens of thousands of estates, but it supplies the budget with tens of billions of dollars a year.

And by taking a little bite out of the long-term concentration of vast wealth, it levels the playing field (ever so slightly) in its hilliest spots.

Bush can't stand it. His 2001 tax cut set it for phaseout in 2010. But proud that he has put this step toward aristocracy on our nation's schedule, the President is eager to do more.

He perpetually urges Congress to speed up the "Death Tax" elimination, and to make it permanent, which the House voted to do last year. In speech after speech he turns it into a misleading applause line, telling middle-class folks "we don't believe the IRS should follow you into your grave," and smiling as they cheer wildly.

For perspective grounded in reality, however, we're better off listening to Al Franken, who, in his recent book Lies And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, says "it is arguably more moral to tax an incredibly rich person who is dead than a middle -- or working -- class person who is still alive."

In some ways, we'd be better off if the estate tax rate were 100 percent. Why not end the practice of inheritance? We could afford to reduce earned income and payroll taxes, and, suddenly, the amount of money one had would have a lot to do with how much she earned. It'll never happen, but do we really need to be going in the opposite direction?

I know this is only one piece of the domestic policy puzzle, and one that virtually no one -- except maybe the guy who signs Shaq's checks -- would use to single-handedly determine for whom to vote. But it speaks volumes about motivation.

Anti-estate-taxers mainly say they want to protect small, family-owned businesses and farms. But Republicans have repeatedly rejected Democratic proposals that would keep the tax only for very large private fortunes and simply make small family-owned businesses and farms completely exempt. Besides, according to the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, only 2 percent of estates on which the tax is paid include significant business or farm assets. That will be 440 estates this year.

So the ostensible GOP motive is completely bogus. The real reason for working this hard to get rid of the estate tax is to serve the interests of the greediest members of the wealthiest echelon of our society, and perhaps drum up support from poorer people who don't understand the issue but simply think that any time taxes go down, it's good. It reinforces conservatism's worst stereotypes, and it gives me serious pause.

But more than just being unpalatable to me, I believe it really does run counter to the way most people in this country think. We value wealth based on work more than wealth based on wealth, and the idea of vast, commanding fortunes scares us a little, or at least is nothing to celebrate.

Maybe that's why you see more Americans wearing Shaq jerseys than George Steinbrenner batting practice T-shirts. But then again, I've never been to a Republican convention.

Jake Honigman is a senior in the College Arts and Sciences. Reasonable Doubt appears Wednesdays.