Mend The Estate Tax, Don't End It

Back from the dead?

2006-06-09T15:10:00.000-07:00

No rest for the wicked. I should have read closer closer this morning. See this from the Times:

Republicans are now debating whether to give up on their goal and attack Democrats in the coming midterm elections as obstructionists on a measure that they say has considerable support, or settle for a bipartisan measure that would stop short of eliminating the tax entirely.

Just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in!

Now we know for certain why Republicans are the elephant party -- they never learn.

Hear anything moving on the Estate Tax front? Send me an email at the address in the upper lefthand corner. This we'll have to watch.

Victory!

2006-06-09T11:21:00.000-07:00

Well, I would have updated this yesterday, except that Blogger was bloggered and I couldn't log in. I'm sure I wasn't the only one with this problem.

Anyway, if you've seen the news at all since yesterday afternoon ... well, the Zarqawi mess has pretty much dominated everything, but if you looked around the edges, you might have seen headlines along the lines of:

Estate tax repeal fails in Senate
Measure sought permanent end to levy due back in '11

Some more details via Senate.gov, and I apologize in advance for the crummy formatting. What can I say, I'm a noob ;P

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to Consideration of H.R. 8 )
Vote Number: 164 Vote Date: June 8, 2006, 10:51 AM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture Motion Rejected
Measure Number: H.R. 8 (Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2005 )
Measure Title: A bill to make the repeal of the estate tax permanent.
Vote Counts: YEAs 57
NAYs 41
Not Voting 2
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Not Voting
Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Not Voting
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Talent (R-MO), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

D-Day

2006-06-07T07:00:00.000-07:00

I've heard from a very knowledgable source that the vote is scheduled at 12 noon today.

I must say, I am a bit more encouraged the more I read... Republicans are even less sure of passing this than I first thought. But that uncertainty goes both ways, of course.

I'm going to try to get away from work to catch this, but if I don't, consider this an open thread. Two hours to go. Let's hope this vote is as "symbolic" and as much as a failure as the anti-gay amendment was yesterday.

(I know, there's HUNDREDS of you just waiting to sound off in the comments here.)

UPDATE: Wrong! The DEBATE will begin at 12 noon today. The vote? Not so sure. So maybe not today, so maybe there's still time to call. These people can help you get through and these people have all the facts.

Apocalypse Postponed?

2006-06-06T11:53:00.000-07:00

I can't tell from my vantage point. Senate.gov says today the first agenda item is to consider a judge for the federal bench (not holding my breath) and the next is, once again:

"Thereafter, resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S.J.Res.1, the Marriage Protection Amendment."

So what this probably means is Bill Frist and John Kyl won't be introducing their estate tax repeal today. I think. After work I'll be watching C-SPAN to see, just in case they sneak it in later.

Unlucky for Kyl, perhaps -- his op-ed ran in the USA Today today, predictably and irresponsibly slamming it as a "death tax." Grr.

Bad as that is, on the upside something I never thought I'd see happen happened: The conservative Salt Lake Tribune came out swinging against the repeal:

Despite reams of data that show that the estate tax only touches the top 1 percent of U.S. taxpayers, and despite the fact that the Mom and Pop businesses and family farms of the sort that earn our sympathy simply are not affected by this tax, the repeal has already passed the House and was near approval in the Senate last year before Hurricane Katrina disrupted everything.

If the government took the money and burned it, then one could argue that the tax on estates worth more than $2 million was just punitive class warfare. But because the money pays for things that benefit everyone, the government's 90-year history of taxing the transfer of large pots of money from one generation to the next is both reasonable and fair.

Wow! Reality based in SLC? I'll take it!

On the other hand, the netroots seem to have dropped the ball all of a sudden. Nothing on the front page of DailyKos, nothing at MyDD, and nothing on the front page of FireDogLake. Nothing!

Fiddling while Shrub burns the place down...

What a difference a week makes

2006-06-05T10:01:00.000-07:00

When I launched this blog in late May, I was afraid no one would notice the Estate Tax until it was gone. Well, tomorrow looks like it may still be the day, unless today's pointless gay baiting bill takes longer to fail.

Now, the (warmongering, Bush-supporting) Washington Post deserves everything the netroots throws at it (see the brilliant Jamison Foser this weekend) but check out conservative columnist Sebastian Mallaby, who makes a conservative argument I think we can agree with about why to save this tax:

If the abolitionists succeed, some other tax will eventually be raised to make up for the lost revenue. So which tax does Congress favor? The income tax, which discourages work? A consumption tax, which hits the poor hardest? The payroll tax, which is both anti-work and anti-poor? Really, which other tax out there is better?

And not a reference of "death tax" in the whole thing! Plus, although hidden behind the NYT's pay wall (no link, sorry) The Shrill One goes to town with it:

Any senator who votes to repeal the estate tax, or votes for a "compromise" that goes most of the way toward repeal, is in effect saying that increasing the wealth of people who are already in line to inherit millions or tens of millions is more important than taking care of fellow citizens who need a helping hand.

Meanwhile, finally the big guns of the progressive blogosphere are getting hip to the subject:

Brad DeLong
Christy "Reddhedd" Smith
The NDN Blog
Main Street USA
Steve Benon
And Ezra Klein and Kevin Drum, who so far have been better on this issue than most.

P.S. And thanks for the mention, eriposte!

Ask Bob Kuttner

2006-06-04T13:31:00.000-07:00

how the Republicans are trying to put one over on us this week. Some key points:

The recent cuts in the estate tax expire in 2011. Republicans, who expect to lose seats in November, want to enact permanent repeal now, while they still have the votes.

This is *almost* good news. They're obviously expecting to lose in the fall, and they should be. But this probably also means a flurry of bad legislation -- e.g. the pointless, meanspirited and by all other means idiotic gay marriage vote.

More of the same:

Republicans also want to get this done fast before the newly appointed Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson, chief executive of Goldman-Sachs, faces potentially embarrassing confirmation hearings. Paulson is allegedly a deficit hawk. With a personal net worth of about $700 million, he's also a poster child for why the super-rich can well afford to have their estates taxed.

Everyone including Senator Schumer seems to think this guy's totally the awesomest. OK, he likes the outdoors and he's got a bit of Audubon Society in him. That's nice, but let's see what he can or will actually do in this Administration before we give him a Good Guy badge.

Kuttner offers one way to see this through:

Democrats could go to town on this issue. As Paulson makes his round of Senate courtesy calls, they should press him to oppose estate-tax repeal.

Are your fingers crossed?

Welcome, Kevin Drum readers!

2006-06-02T13:39:00.000-07:00

He's right on the money -- literally and figuratively both.

If you've come here to stay up-to-date on the estate tax and the atrocious Kyl bill that would effectively neuter it, then you're in the right place.

If you do one thing to help the fight today, please visit this CNBC page where rightwing hack Larry Kudlow is asking WHAT DO YOU THINK about the estate tax?

If enough of us get over there and click NO to the question of abolishing the estate tax (it's a small miracle he doesn't call it the "d--th tax") we can set him up for a real surprise.

Come again soon! This blog's mission is to be a resource for information about defending the estate tax, and we'd better be ready to go to the mattresses here. Are you listing, Senate Democrats?

Finally, some movement

2006-06-01T17:14:00.000-07:00

Am I irrelevant already? I realize next to no one reads this, but already I see the issue is gaining some steam at Daily Kos. Here's ElaineN, writing in a diary:

According to my daily tax service (BNA Daily Tax Report, by subscription, sorry), Senator Baucus is floating a compromise that "threatens to complicate the already complex process by which the Senate will take up estate tax repeal next week and settle on a relief deal that can win 60 votes."

BNA reports that the Baucus proposal includes "a progressive tiered approach that would impose a higher estate tax rate on larger estates, with the top rate at 35 percent" and an exemption of $3.5 million per person.

This is competing with a Kyl proposal to raise the exemption to $5.0 million with a 15% rate, the same as the capital gains rate. Kyl thinks he's close to 60, but he doesn't have it yet, and the Baucus proposal will probably pull back some Dems that wanted cover.

I don't know quite what this means. Baucus is too conservative for me, but if his deal can manage to avert the total crisis of Kyl's bill, that's got to be a good start. I'm on pins and needles. I hope adigal is right:

It appears as though most Democrats are poised to block this, using the filibuster if they must. But a "moderate" Republican is trying to peel off 6 or so Democrats to provide a filibuster-proof number so it can pass. His "compromise" would only add 500 to 600 billion dollars to the debt from 2011 to 2021. This, while we have an aging population, and real wages are going down."

Time will tell. I see the Coalition 4 Americas Priorities also has a diary, with links to the same pages I wrote about earlier. Go! Click! Call! Citizens of the netroots, we're our only hope.

Harold Meryson Knows What's Up

2006-05-30T19:46:00.000-07:00

The man speaks:

The Senate, meanwhile, is scheduled next week to take up legislation by Arizona Republican Jon Kyl that would permanently repeal the estate tax on the wealthiest Americans. If enacted, Kyl's bill would plunge the government another trillion dollars into the red during the first decade (2011-2021) that it would be in effect.

Behind the scenes, the action has been on the Democratic side in the Senate, as the party's leadership has sought to dissuade Montana's Max Baucus, ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee, from forging a halfway-house compromise with Kyl that would deplete revenue by only $500 billion to $600 billion during that decade. The Republicans would need Baucus to bring roughly a half-dozen Democrats along with him to reach the magic number of 60 votes required to overcome any filibuster that the vast majority of Democrats would mount to block any such measure.

Even a paltry $500 billion, of course, is a lot of money to drain from public coffers just when boomers are going onto Social Security and Medicare and the number of employers providing health insurance, if present trends continue, might have dropped to a virtuous handful. To cover those and other needs, Congress will either plunge us deeper into debt or increase some other levies -- payroll taxes, say -- that will come out of the pockets of the 99 percent of Americans whom the estate tax doesn't touch.

Hey, "Anonymous," are you listening? I bet you're a wingnut shill, but of course I can't prove it. If you don't think the wingnut allies are going to respond, you better get ready to deal with it.

This is going to be a major fight. At least I hope so. What we need are more Lamonts and less Liebermans. What I'm afraid of is that too many Democrats will be like Lieberman.

Myerson calls it "lunacy." If you ask me, that's too easy. To take a page from the wingnut playbook, I'd call it "evil".

Gary Farber = shrill, shrill, shrill

2006-05-30T18:18:00.000-07:00

Well said by Amygdala:

The Republicans have sold this thing by lying about it doesn't just affect the immensely wealthy, but affects small farmers, which is nonsense. They've convinced a lot of people that they or their children, will ultimately be in danger of having to pay this tax when, in fact, unless you're a member of one of thes efamilies, that isn't going to happen.

You might want to look into it, and spread the word. Not paying down the deficit takes that trillion dollars away from everyone's children.

Word. Up. He also links to a Raw Story PDF from Rep. Henry Waxman's office that seems to have been the basis for the Common Dreams article I linked to earlier.

It's too early to say that momentum is building in opposition to the Estate Tax repeal... I just hope it's not too late for this opposition to work.

Investing to Divest from the Common Good

2006-05-30T17:13:00.000-07:00

The first major blogger weighs in, so far as I know, and it's the esteemed Ezra Klein at Tapped, the blog for the American Prospect:

THAT EXPLAINS IT. If you're ever confused about the GOP's puzzling determination to eliminate the broadly supportable estate tax, this report showing that George Bush, Dick Cheney, and their cabinet will personally gain between $90 and $340 million dollars from the tax's repeal clarifies things considerably. As for amassing the political will for the battle, a recent Center for Public Integrity report found that a handful of superrich families had spent $490 million lobbying against the tax. If they succeed, these same families will gain almost $72 billion. Now that's what I call a good investment.

Who could be puzzled by this I'm not sure, except maybe the 101st Fighting Keyboarders who probably support obscene divestments of the public funds to the layabout IIIs and IVs of this country, but any reasonable person shouldn't be surprised.

How to stop the Big Corporate Giveaway

2006-05-30T13:02:00.000-07:00

From Common Dreams:

New Report Reveals Estate Tax Repeal Would Give Over $200 Million Windfall to Oil Company Executives

WASHINGTON - May 30 - Next week the Senate is scheduled to consider legislation (H.R. 8) to repeal the estate tax. Repealing the tax, which has been law since 1916, is estimated to cost $1 trillion from 2011-2021. Although the tax affects few Americans, repeal will give some families extraordinary windfalls. The CEO's of major oil companies, for instance, would get enormous benefits if H.R. 8 were enacted. The family of one oil executive, Lee Raymond (the former ExxonMobil CEO), alone could receive a tax break worth over $160 million.

This report analyzes the impact that repeal would have on the families of the senior executives for the major oil companies. In 2005, the minority staff of the Government Reform Committee released a similar analysis showing that repealing the estate tax repeal would save the President, Vice President, and 11 cabinet members as much as $344 million.

The reports are available on-line at www.democrats.reform.house.gov.

That's our future the Republicans want to give away. Will you let that happen?

This weekend I found a site for a group that must be the only group out there that's paying attention to any of this, called Coalition 4 America's Priorities. They have phone numbers for your representatives in DC and in their home districts or states, and I encourage you to call as many as you can. I've already called mine, and think I might just call a few more.

Does anyone know much more about this group? Are they running ads or sponsoring anything in Washington? It would be nice to think my little blog isn't the only site trying to bring attention to this issue.

Bob Fertik Knows What's Up

2006-05-28T19:16:00.000-07:00

So far the netroots have been too silent about the impending estate tax vote, but not the estimable Bob Fertik at Democrats.com

Is Another Trillion Dollar Tax Cut for Millionaires A Good Idea?

Please block the proposed repeal or partial repeal of what's left of the estate tax, and condemn its supporters for this latest attempt to transfer working people's wealth to the super-wealthy. Senator Jon Kyl's (R-AZ) "reform" proposal would eliminate most of what remains of this tax, a tax that is needed to slow the division of our nation into permanent hereditary classes, and a tax that is desperately needed right now to pay for essential services like Medicaid and student loans. These services are under threat, as we are already facing enormous deficits driven by reckless spending on an illegal war and destructive tax cuts.

Go sign his petition.

Peter Beinart is shrill

2006-05-28T18:54:00.000-07:00

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:

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?

We Have Seen The Enemy...

2006-05-27T22:42:00.000-07:00

And it's these people.

They call themselves NoDeathTax.org, using the typical and unfortunately effective line that the estate tax is a "death tax." That's bullshit, and they know it. Dead people don't pay taxes, even if they're plutocrats. No, their inheritors are the ones who pay a tax upon the receipt of millions of dollars -- need we even mention those are the only people who pay this tax?? -- just as they would with any asset transfer this large.

And they're from the outright lie of a name "American Family Business Institute." Oh well, if they're an "Institute," never mind then!

Keeping the estate tax as part of federal law a no-brainer, which is probably why they're so afraid John McCain will do the right thing and vote to keep it. They're running a TV spot to try to convince him, which you should watch just so you know exactly what they're saying.

If you live in Arizona, please call John McCain's office -- (202) 224-2235 in DC, click here for the others -- and tell him to vote to do the right thing. It so happens that John Kyl, the other Republican senator from Arizona is a co-sponsor of the Frist bill. So once you've called McCain's people, you should call Kyl, too -- (202) 224-4521 in DC, (602) 840-1891 in Phoenix. He's not going to budge -- but we have to let him know we're here, too.

What's The Matter With Kansas?

2006-05-26T18:36:00.000-07:00

Apart from everything else we know, we can add to the list the fact that Kansas Democratic governor, Kathleen Sebelius, just signed a bill eliminating the state's estate tax.

Well, at least Kansas doesn't have an ongoing war to pay for, or a deficit in the billions or a debt in the trillions. Maybe a better question is, what's the matter with the US Senate?

666

2006-05-26T11:24:00.000-07:00

The sign of the beast? Well, duh.

But it's not just that -- it's also 6/6/06 -- that's the day Bill Frist and the Senate GOP have set to end the estate tax, also called the inheritance tax, which they have wrongly called the "death tax" -- forevever.

Are they really that diabolical, or just lucky?

Who knows. That doesn't matter. What does matter is the netroots have GOT to come together and let our represenatives know that we have to reform this revenue source, and cannot let the Senate sacrifice our future for the sake of Bush's golfing buddies.

Are you with us?