Sunday, May 28, 2006
Peter Beinart is shrill
I can't believe I just wrote that.
Nobody who knows a thing about blogging thinks much of Peter Beinart, but it turns out that earlier this month he wrote a column that hit it on the head about the estate tax. It's not just about this particular section of code in US law. It's about the future of this country:
Hey, stopped clocks, right?
One note of dissent, though. Beinart raises the fact that Paris Hilton is just the kind of person who would benefit from the repeal of the estate tax. And who doesn't hate Paris Hilton? (Mmaybe except for Gawker, they need her.) Many progressives have used the "Paris Hilton" line before, and I think this might be a mistake. She may be just too frivolous to bring into the debate, when conservatives will try to talk about family farms instead. The fact that no one takes Paris Hilton seriously might actually detract from our argument, since mentioning her name might make us sound too ridiculous. Instead we should focus on Bush and Cheney and their oil buddies. Everybody hates Paris Hilton, but ultimately she's harmless. And her approval ratings are probably higher than theirs (Cheney's for sure). And Bush and Cheney, Halliburton and KBR, T. Boone Pickens and Kenny Boy -- they're anything BUT harmless. Why would we want to put more money in the hands of these people who have caused actual, noticeable, real harm to this country? Paris Hilton is just incidental. It's the bigwigs and the bigwig jrs. that are the problem.
But maybe I'm wrong here. Thoughts?
Nobody who knows a thing about blogging thinks much of Peter Beinart, but it turns out that earlier this month he wrote a column that hit it on the head about the estate tax. It's not just about this particular section of code in US law. It's about the future of this country:
Later this month, in all likelihood, congressional Republicans will again try to repeal the tax on inherited wealth. If they succeed, they won't stop there. The assault on the estate tax is a stalking-horse for something much bigger: the assault on progressive taxation itself. Already, a national "fair tax" movement--endorsed by House Speaker Dennis Hastert--wants to replace the income tax with a national sales tax, in which rich and poor pay the same rate. If the estate tax falls, it is the income tax Democrats will find themselves defending next.
Hey, stopped clocks, right?
One note of dissent, though. Beinart raises the fact that Paris Hilton is just the kind of person who would benefit from the repeal of the estate tax. And who doesn't hate Paris Hilton? (Mmaybe except for Gawker, they need her.) Many progressives have used the "Paris Hilton" line before, and I think this might be a mistake. She may be just too frivolous to bring into the debate, when conservatives will try to talk about family farms instead. The fact that no one takes Paris Hilton seriously might actually detract from our argument, since mentioning her name might make us sound too ridiculous. Instead we should focus on Bush and Cheney and their oil buddies. Everybody hates Paris Hilton, but ultimately she's harmless. And her approval ratings are probably higher than theirs (Cheney's for sure). And Bush and Cheney, Halliburton and KBR, T. Boone Pickens and Kenny Boy -- they're anything BUT harmless. Why would we want to put more money in the hands of these people who have caused actual, noticeable, real harm to this country? Paris Hilton is just incidental. It's the bigwigs and the bigwig jrs. that are the problem.
But maybe I'm wrong here. Thoughts?
# posted by Mend It Don't End It @ 6:54 PM 
