Reaction to the Death Tax Vote
Dan Clifton of the American Shareholders Association just sent me a very well-written email about the Death Tax vote. He's right on all accounts: bq. The vote to proceed to Estate Tax Repeal failed 57-41 falling short of the 60 votes required to even CONSIDER the legislation. Many members of the Senate have talked about how they are for reform but not repeal but today's vote showed this was just a red herring. You can not reform the estate tax if you vote against considering the legislation which is the vehicle to implement that reform. As such, a vote against considering the estate tax legislation today is an endorsement of the pre-2001 rates of 55 percent with a $1 million exemption, which go into effect in 2011. bq. Interestingly, Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, and Ron Wyden voted for full repeal in 2002. Today, they voted against even considering the legislation for some type of reform. Hence they went from supporting a 0 percent estate tax to a 55 percent rate. That's because this is not whether you support or oppose estate tax repeal. The Dems have actively traded votes to let their vulnerable members up for reelection support the legislation and have other members not up for reelection vote against the legislation, even if they support estate tax repeal/reform. This ensures incumbent protection while also ensuring 60 votes can never be reached. bq. As an example, Sen. John Breaux, the prime sponsor of the legislation for repeal, voted no in 2002 so Mary Landrieu can vote yes. bq. These three flip-floppers made the difference between 57 votes and 60 votes. Also Tim Johnson has not learned his lesson from the 2004 race in his home state where Tom Daschle, then sitting Minority Leader, was ousted in which this issue was used. How about Ken Salazar from Colorado whose campaign focused on a major reform due to the agriculture issues in their state? bq. But last and certainly not least is Mark Pryor from Arkansas who constantly speaks about the harmful effects of the estate tax. Well he was a no as well. bq. It is one thing to vote no on the legislation -- but it's a totally different ball game when you vote to ensure that the Senate cannot even CONSIDER legislation these Senators promised to their constituents in the past. bq. True to form Harry Reid held his caucus tightly together and we won't know the impact until after the fall elections.
