Senator Sellout

If left-liberal bloggers have any influence on the Democratic party, they should use their muscle right now to block a grotesque sellout--handing Republicans an odious victory on the inheritance tax.

Giving the GOP its way would hand a fabulous reward to the country's wealthiest families but, worse than that, create a $1 trillion hole in future federal revenue. If this happens, forget about universal health care or other major social reforms and public investment that Democrats are promising to pursue.

Yet leading the rush to appeasement is Senator Max Baucus of Montana, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee and the party's number-one Quisling. Baucus tips over easily to outrageous deals with Republican tax-cutters. Back in 2001, he sold out on Bush's reactionary tax reduction package. Now he is working to organize a rump group of Democratic senators for "compromise" on the estate tax. That is, give the Republican sponsors most of what they seek and, in the process, cripple possibilities for the future.

Democrats do not need do anything about the estate tax at this point since the Bush version expires automatically in 2011. Let the next president decide what to recommend. For now, Dems merely need to hold the 40 votes to sustain a filibuster. The caucus overwhelmingly supports that position. The problem is the handful of potential deserters.

The first chore for activists is to bang on Baucus--quickly and mercilessly--because a Senate vote is expected next week. More to the point, grassroots Democrats need to bang on the handful of wobbly Democratic senators disposed to go along with Senator Sellout or flirting with the idea. These include the two Nelsons (Bill of Florida, Ben of Nebraska), Salazar of Colorado, Lincoln and Pryor of Arkansas and--most shocking--Washington's two usually progressive senators, Cantwell and Murray. Their state includes a bunch of techie billionaires and the family-owned Seattle Times that hammers them on the supposed injustice of the estate tax. They need to know a price will be paid for defection.

The second great task for grassroots Dems is to confront the party leaders on their own cowardly acquiescence. Why do they allow this one disloyal rogue to undercut the party's position and yet escape any punitive consequences? If Democrats should win back Senate control this year, Baucus will become Finance Committee Chairman again--free do more outrageous tax favors for his wealthy pals.

The Democratic caucus and minority leader Harry Reid ought to inform Baucus--right now--that, if he proceeds with this sellout, he can forget about ever being chairman again. The legislative fight may sound like inside baseball and it is, but this is a central test of character for the party. If incumbent Democrats are unwilling to upset their "club" by punishing this wayward jerk on such a decisive matter, then maybe the "club" deserves to retain its minority status.

Comments (45)

1. Is anyone else noticing that the tax cuts being pursued by the Bush admin and other GOP types are not very good stimulus for the economy?

   They have sold their plans to the american people as economic stimulus, but a much better was to stimulate the economy would be to raise the federal income tax exemption.

   Allowing billionaires to pass on billions to their heirs won't do squat...

   Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/02/2006 @ 1:11pm

2. This is about a tax cut....something that is easily changed or altered.

   Why does Mr Grieder think that on THIS issue, the "bloggers" can effect Max Baucus' vote...

   when they couldn't do it on something with MUCH longer ramifications, like the John Roberts vote or the Feingold filibuster of Sam Alito????

   Posted by Mask at 06/02/2006 @ 1:13pm

3. Because, MASK, the closer we get to election day, the more the politicians listen to the voters....

   Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/02/2006 @ 1:20pm

4. ILP,

   More bad jobs numbers out today, plus a downward revision for the jobs situation in April. Sounds like the problem is that we haven't cut taxes enough. With the increase in gas prices, the operating price of a new 500-hp Ferrari is just out of my reach now. With the knowledge that my full inheritance will reach my hands as soon as my parents keel over, I might just go for it. And then trickle down and trickle down and trickle down...See?

   Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/02/2006 @ 1:46pm

5. TJB

   Where exactly are the soup lines? if things are so bad, i keep looking at the sky to fall like the enlightened liberals tell me, but sorry it is still up there. When EXACTLY is this thing going to fall?

   The only thing falling is the unemployment rate to 4.6% down from 7, now i know only 75,000 new jobs were added, but over 200,000 people last month, found work(going inside the numbers). True wage growth slowed, slightly, but that has the added benefit of helping to keep inflation in check.

   It seems as if things in the economy are going very well, slow and steady, not boom and busty like the 90s.

   Posted by CPT at 06/02/2006 @ 2:02pm

6. for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction.

   get rid of the dynasty tax...

   you get dynasties

   say goodbye to economic opportunity everyone

   Posted by Will C. at 06/02/2006 @ 2:18pm

7. bye bye

   Posted by Will C. at 06/02/2006 @ 2:18pm

8. Bad job numbers??? Liberal...PLEASE! The nation's unemployment rate dipped to 4.6 percent, the lowest since the summer of 2001. That's great!!! GDP barrels ahead by 5.3 percent which is the fastest growth in 2 1/2 years. More tax cuts! Woo!

   Posted by woodyee at 06/02/2006 @ 2:19pm

9. Estate Tax is just wrong---Make up for its loss somewhere else if you like, but this particular method of taxation is horrible.

   "I'm gonna keep on working hard ---- Make my money the old-fashioned way ----- I don't wanna piece of someone else's pie ----- If I don't get my fill on life I ain't gonna blame no one but me-- You do your thing, I'll do mine"---- Montgomery Gentry

   Posted by Len Mosse at 06/02/2006 @ 2:25pm

10. Ahhhh...I got it. The NY Time's stock has dropped so low and I read somewhere that the Washington Post was laying off workers. Also, Air America is hanging by a thread (will lose their NY station in August, low ratings, talk of cuts, talk of anchors getting cut, etc). I guess to liberals in the media the economy does seem bad.

    Posted by woodyee at 06/02/2006 @ 2:25pm

11. Hyenas are out again looking for any perceived bad news to bite into. In this case revised economic numbers down from excellent to really good. That's what Hyenas do---they just wait for any hint of bad news hoping that they can benefit.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/02/2006 @ 2:29pm

12. len

    you never answered the question

    Why do you want to force our children to eat their own shit

    Posted by Will C. at 06/02/2006 @ 2:33pm

13. The estate tax may be the most American of all taxes. It doesn't tax you for the money you earn, only what you inherit, and then only over a pretty high threshold amount. The Founding Fathers our conservative friends like to talk about were for the opportunity for a man to rose on his own merit. They were against entrenched power and wealth. All attempts to eliminate the estate tax are about greed and an attempt to protect wealth for generations - in short protecting a permanent upper class.

    Posted by noparty at 06/02/2006 @ 2:33pm

14. No one forces Hyenas to eat their own poop. It's in their genetic code --they are predisposed to do the things they do.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/02/2006 @ 2:38pm

15. Because, MASK, the closer we get to election day, the more the politicians listen to the voters....

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 06/02/2006 @ 1:20pm | ignore this person

    Uh, ILP....when is Baucus up for re-election?

    Posted by Mask at 06/02/2006 @ 2:39pm

16. "The Founding Fathers our conservative friends like to talk about were for the opportunity for a man to rose on his own merit".

    The Founding Fathers were about protecting property not stealing it in the name of the state. No such tax was instituted during the years of the Founding Fathers. It was instituted in 1916 as one way to pay for WWI. It should have been eliminated at wars end.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/02/2006 @ 2:43pm

17. No one forces Hyenas to eat their own poop. It's in their genetic code --they are predisposed to do the things they do.

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 06/02/2006 @ 2:38pm

    but len. You're calling my children hyenas. And human children don't eat their own shit unless someone like you forces them to..

    Why do you want to force my children to eat their own shit len?

    Is it fun for you?

    Posted by Will C. at 06/02/2006 @ 2:47pm

18. The Founding Fathers were about protecting property not stealing it in the name of the state. No such tax was instituted during the years of the Founding Fathers. It was instituted in 1916 as one way to pay for WWI. It should have been eliminated at wars end.

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 06/02/2006 @ 2:43pm

    you never heard of the whiskey rebellion.... or how good old George Washington sent the army in to "steal" some property

    Posted by Will C. at 06/02/2006 @ 2:50pm

19. CPT,

    Have you checked the deficits recently? They aren't just theoretical. They are genuine losses that our nation has been sustaining. Our MBA president seems to have a problem with this most basic of financial fundamentals.

    You reacted like a crazy person to my post. I shall let you rant on your own. But I challenge your numbers from April. What does "inside the numbers" mean? Do you have a source within Elaine Chao's office who has access to a secret stash of tens of thousands of workers unknown to the rest of the country?

    And yes, tra-la!, wages are stifling inflation! Except you're wrong. Inflation has been creeping up every more quickly as wages have slipped. This is good? Really?

    As to your "boom and busty" '90s, well, all I can say is that you must be getting your economic information from Larry Flynt.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/02/2006 @ 2:58pm

20. Look, as a slave holding plantation owner I'll be damned if I'm paying any of those inheritance taxes.

    Posted by freedomplease at 06/02/2006 @ 3:00pm

21. Whiskey Rebellion was over a 9 cents per gallon of tax on distilled Spirits. The Rebellion was caused by western settlers who were attacking the tax collectors. Washington went in an put the rebellion down. To equate a 9 cents per gallon tax on distilled spirits to a 49% tax on inherited wealth is a stretch to say the least. In fact it makes me wonder if you have been partaking in said distilled spirits.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/02/2006 @ 3:01pm

22. i think we established on another thread that the dynasty tax only goes up to 20%

    and nine cents was a shit load of money back in the late 17 hundreds

    and back then even the indians didn"t force american children to eat their own shit

    why you len?

    why now len?

    does it make you smile?

    Posted by Will C. at 06/02/2006 @ 3:08pm

23. Ahhh the wonders of government statistics. You can make numbers say nearly anything you want them to. For those wondering how the numbers can actually be what the government says they are given the situation around you, you may be right.

    Read Shadowing Reality [gillespieresearch.com] and Manipulating the Masses [tinyurl.com] for a good take on how this administration (as well as every previous administration) manipulates these commonly touted figures.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/02/2006 @ 3:13pm

24. Uh, ILP....when is Baucus up for re-election?

    Posted by MASK 06/02/2006 @ 2:39pm

    It is closer than when Roberts was confirmed, which was my point. I thought a smartass - er, I mean, a smart guy like you could figure that out.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/02/2006 @ 3:16pm

25. Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 06/02/2006 @ 3:16pm | ignore this person

    ILP, come on....Baucus not up for re-election for TWO AND A HALF YEARS, in a Rocky Mt. state where the Dems DESPERATELY need to hold a seat. He and Schweitzer part of those evil "DLC centrists", but they're the only thing that can win in Montana.

    And that's BIG RANCH country too, perfect place to play up the "saving family farms from double taxation". Plus, you think Harry Reid is going to "inform Baucus--right now--that, if he proceeds with this sellout, he can forget about ever being chairman again"?!??!? Harry Reid???

    Posted by Mask at 06/02/2006 @ 3:22pm

26. "You can make numbers say nearly anything you want them to."

    Posted by HMAN23 06/02/2006 @ 3:13pm | ignore this person

    Doesn't that ALSO mean that those with an opposing view from the Government can make them say whatever THEY want?

    Posted by Mask at 06/02/2006 @ 3:24pm

27. in a few mounths we'll know if we "desparately" need to hold a seat anywhere

    Posted by Will C. at 06/02/2006 @ 3:24pm

28. Good links, HMAN. It's nice to know that we can proceed blindly through the months and years believing that "unemployment" is based on consistent principles, as long as we understand that those principles are that we should never ever be worried about unemployment.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/02/2006 @ 3:28pm

29. Sure Mask. Fudging or masking the numbers is a bipartisan endeavor. And I guess if you think John Williams (in the links I gave) is trying to make the numbers say what he wants them to, you can read his bases and draw your own conclusions if you like. I happen to think he lays out a pretty good case. Indeed, Williams claims that the government hides the reality and actual methodologies used (and changed) in small print and footnotes (not that the government is LYING), so I guess you could verify Williams' figures if you like.

    I guess if you think Williams is a crank just making the numbers say what HE wants, I would ask you for what purpose is he doing that? He even admits that politically he is a conservative Republican, but pretty much slams everyone from Kennedy forward on this. Does he hate all government in general? Or is he a pessimist by nature? You tell me.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/02/2006 @ 3:52pm

30. MASK -

    Follow up. Because I agree that both sides can play with the numbers to a certain extent (I doubt any administration could make 25% inflation look like 5% for instance), polling data of the population is probably the most accurate economic indicator of any.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/02/2006 @ 4:00pm

31. Posted by HMAN23 06/02/2006 @ 3:52pm | ignore this person

    HMAN....YOU said that "You can make numbers say nearly anything you want them to."

    If Williams is dubious of Government economic statistics going back to JFK, then when does he think we EVER had a good economy?

    Posted by Mask at 06/02/2006 @ 4:03pm

32. TJB

    The numbers were based on the report for unemployment 4.6 it did say that only 75,000 NEW jobs were added, but accordingly that 200,000 people found work, according to the renowned household survey. Wage growth was still up but slower than predicted, which is not all together a bad thing in relation to inflation and keeping it in check.

    The defeicits? to be sure I have voiced my disapproval over them, and of course know they are not a good thing, however, it is also not the oracle of imminent doom. They need to be gotten under control. But i stop short of saying that all is lost, our economy generates about 20 trillion dollars in GDP, the national debt is 8 trillion. Clearly worrisome, though not a death sentence.

    But we are in fundamental agreement that deficit needs to be gotten control of, it wont happen effectively until a line item veto is passed. Congressmen are beholden to the districts and states that elect them, no way they cut their own earmarks, while as much as anyone complains about them, no one is wanting to cut them especially consituents who benefit most from them.

    But a line item veto gives the Prez the right to veto any part of a legislation that has earmarks, a Prez is not beholden to the voters of any ONE state or district. Then you will know who is a true fiscal conservative and who is not.

    But for the time being nothing we can do about it. Unless you want to cut social security/medicare for a year.

    And liberals dont want that.

    Posted by CPT at 06/02/2006 @ 4:04pm

33. Posted by HMAN23 06/02/2006 @ 4:00pm | ignore this person

    THAT I agree with....it's psychological.

    Info I've seen said that the 1991-1992 recession was over by early 1992, yet Bush-41 tarred and lost on "worst economy in 50 years" and Carville's famous quote.

    Posted by Mask at 06/02/2006 @ 4:04pm

34. TJB

    Ok the boom or busty 90s could not help the pun

    Posted by CPT at 06/02/2006 @ 4:08pm

35. But we are in fundamental agreement that deficit needs to be gotten control of, it wont happen effectively until a line item veto is passed. Congressmen are beholden to the districts and states that elect them, no way they cut their own earmarks, while as much as anyone complains about them, no one is wanting to cut them especially consituents who benefit most from them.

    Posted by CPT 06/02/2006 @ 4:04pm

    what makes you think that a president who is afraid to veto a single spending bill will suddenly find the courage to strike out single lines.

    Posted by Will C. at 06/02/2006 @ 4:08pm

36. I'll bet my $2.5 Million dollar inheritance....

    that Baucus-

    A. isn't terrified by the left-wing bloggers into supporting the estate tax, or a filibuster of any cut or repeal.

    B. gets easily elected again in November 2008.

    Any takers?

    Posted by Mask at 06/02/2006 @ 4:24pm

37. I don't gamble

    I leave that to the "virtuous"

    Posted by Will C. at 06/02/2006 @ 4:27pm

38. HMAN....YOU said that "You can make numbers say nearly anything you want them to."

    If Williams is dubious of Government economic statistics going back to JFK, then when does he think we EVER had a good economy?

    Posted by MASK 06/02/2006 @ 4:03pm

    Well, I guess that all depends on your definition of "you." I meant it as anyone.

    And, did you even read his interview? Williams is dubious of the stats; it doesn't mean he thinks the economy has always been bad, just consistently overstated to a degree. From his comments on a few recent adminsitrations, I would surmise he thinks things are worse under Bush II; not as booming as it appeared under Clinton; and inflation was actually worse than it appeared under Carter. Basically the econmony is worse than the government says (to varying degrees), but if the economy is good at times, the government figures likely will say it is VERY VERY good.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/02/2006 @ 4:50pm

39. So if there were 75,000 jobs added to the economy and 200,000+ people acquired a job, then 125,000+ were laid off, I presume. Current estimates are that 150,000 are needed for the economy to keep up with population growth. That's 150,000 jobs. Anything less is a bad month. Anything more is a good month. 75,000 is bad. Very bad.

    Combined with the virtual lack of any increase in wages, this is not a good sign--if it continues--for our economy. Wages go up, theoretically, when the demand for workers gives workers more leverage. With a lack of new jobs out there, workers have no bargaining power. This could be great news for investors who see workers as costs. For those of us who see workers as citizens, it blows.

    If the household survey is accurate, great. But the markets, the Fed, and others what got the power don't give it much credence. If it makes you feel better that things are rosey for the civilians, go for it.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/02/2006 @ 5:46pm

40. I know it seems as though the wingnuts support for an Estate Tax repeal is just another example (as though we needed one) of the dumb-as-a-stump, knuckledragging Red Staters' pig-ignorance. But really, it's worse than that. Behind all the echoed talking points and goofball logic these mouth-breathers blather, there's the secret fantasy that one day they will be RICH! RICH! RICH! And when that day comes, they want to be able to pass on their humungous pelf to their spawn in all its glorious entirety. That's why they aren't really upset by loopholes and offshore scams and gross corporate fraud; they secretly dream that they will one day be in a position to lie, cheat, and steal on that level and they want the current laws and lack of enforement to continue.

    Posted by bookmanjb1 at 06/03/2006 @ 07:04am

41. BTW, when I say "pig-ignorance" I mean no offense to pigs as a group, just the ignorant ones.

    Posted by bookmanjb1 at 06/03/2006 @ 07:07am

42. There are so many arguments in favor of maintaining an "Estate Tax" which are rational and economically sane it's hard to know where to begin.

    But let's focus on the sheer HYPOCRISY of Republicans that support the elimination of said tax. You know, the ones that believe we should all stand on our own two feet, that we should be productive members of society--the same ones that are repulsed by the supposed 'welfare state' allowing all those users to do nothing but live off the state.

    In other ones the ones advocating 'tough love' for everyone ELSE but their own of course. What baloney.

    What the elimination of the estate tax does is simply concentrate more and more wealth in the hands of the chosen few. And of course those folks live like European royalty--creating nothing, doing nothing but utilizing as much resource as they can get their hands on.

    So who wants to argue that the Five Walmart heirs really should get to keep EVERY CENT of their $20Billion each inheritance from the old man. You know, the old bastard that used PUBLIC RESOURCES to help create that wealth--roads, tax breaks, state health insurance for his underinsured employees, the court system, public education.

    And please don't argue about the family farm and small business...there were already exemptions in the code for that and if anyone bothers to do any financial planning at all they can purchase life insurance policies to protect their heirs.

    So a little metrics...there are only roughly 20K tax returns filed any given year requiring an estate tax payment--roughly $20B to the Feds.

    But wait we should really have the middle class WAGE EARNER make up the difference right--tax the worker and let CAPITAL SLIDE.

    But otherwise sane folks actually believe that eventually they'll be in the position to pass on great wealth to their children and hence argue for elimination--that's what's really interesting about the topic...like the old saying about getting married a second time--the triumph of hope over reality...

    Posted by mikenorris at 06/03/2006 @ 5:47pm

43. The Estate Tax has been a corner stone of progressive tax policy since before WWII. The Nation has got this right, if the tax is extended beyond 2011, major government structural problems will appear. The wealthy of this nation work endlessly to avoid paying their fair share, it is only right that we get something back upon their deaths.

    Posted by terryday at 06/05/2006 @ 3:58pm

44. CPT,

    The household survey is known for wild swings and that's why it is not the official joblessness rating. It is a Bush tradition to quote it when its swings are favorable, and ignore it otherwise.

    The jobless rate is deceptive because it doesn't count total unemployed, only those collecting unemployment and looking for work.

    A much more informative figure is the Civilian Employment-Population Ratio issued by the St. Louis FED for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Since it is purely a percentage of the civilian population that is currently working, it doesn't suffer from all of the exceptions and oddities that afflict the jobless rate.

    Before 2001, the E/P rating had risen steadily for 50 years. The day Bush took office, 64.4% of the civilian population had jobs. It has fallen to 62.8% by the end of 2005. This indicates that some of the fall in the official jobless figure was due not to people getting jobs, but to them exhausting their unemployment benefits and giving up the search.

    That works out to somewhere in the neighborhood of 4.5 million fewer Americans currently employed than when Bush took office.

    The GDP is another number that doesn't tell the whole story. It is a macro-economic number that doesn't say anything about who is (and who is not) reaping the harvest of all that increased productivity. Most Americans have seen their wages stagnate or backslide over the past several years, so they are not being allowed to share in the growing pie. Fortune 500 CEOs, OTOH, saw a 54% raise in their income in 2004 ALONE.

    The top earner among CEOs earns around 250 million a year. The top 140 or so CEOs earn more than 10 million a year. The average salary for a Fortune 100 CEO is somewhere around $35 million a year.

    That works out to over $673,000 a week, or almost $17,000 an hour. The highest paid CEO, Richard D. Fairbank of Capitol One, makes a staggering $250 million a year, which breaks down to $4.8 million a week, or $120,192 an hour.

    Average income for American workers is deceptive, since the high-end earners pull the average way up. The median income for an American worker (the amount where half of the workers earn more, and half earn less) is a more accurate measure of realworld working wages. It is just over $29,400 a year, or about $566.00 a week, or $14.15 an hour.

    So, we know pretty well who is benefitting from the growth in the economy, and who is not.

    Posted by Nonny at 06/05/2006 @ 10:54pm

45. Amazing at who exactly the tax cuts will benefit, a small fragment who probably did not have to work so hard for that money and I am pretty sure it won't hurt them to pay those taxes. Look it up.

    Death Tax? I hate that coined phrase as well. It makes those who don't have to worry about paying estate taxes, believe that there is a tax for dying - so they give support to it simply because they are misguided and ill informed.

    Very sad.

    Posted by RickyBones at 06/06/2006 @ 1:21pm