Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun: GOP’s wedge issue

Tuesday, Sept. 5, 2000 | 9:59 a.m.

Brian Greenspun is the editor of the Las Vegas Sun.

Welcome to after-Labor Day.

This is the time when summer officially ends -- except for every parent in town who knows the summer ended when it was time to get the kids ready for school -- and the good citizens of this great country are supposed to start paying attention to the drama that unfolds every four years and which, for most of us, is the single most important civic event of our lives: the presidential election.

Whatever has come and gone before this week is merely a warm-up for the big event in November because the experts -- the folks who run campaigns for a living and know more about us and our voting and other habits than we know about ourselves -- know that we have more on our minds during the summer than who is going to win three or more months from now. So now it is for real. It is time to pay attention.

So, what is first up to the plate of public consumption? The estate tax. It is a tax that affects the few but bothers the many because it has the words "tax" and "death" associated with it, an inevitability we all understand but refuse to accept. Last month the Republican-controlled Congress sent to President Clinton a plan to eliminate the estate tax. He vetoed the bill last week. The Republicans will try to override that veto this week. And, therein, lies the first big attention-getter of the presidential sweepstakes.

What are estate taxes? They are a levy upon the value of a person's assets he or she owned at death. Right now the government takes up to 55 percent of a person's net worth, a significant reduction from what it once was but, in most people's minds, still an obscene amount. In some cases, family businesses have had to be sold by the heirs in order to pay the tax man, and everyone should agree that is not only bad policy but bad, period. Hence, the tax talk and now the action.

On its face, what Congress sent the president sounds good because no one I know is in favor of taking away a person's hard-earned wealth just because of a death in the family, or forcing the heirs to sell just because the cash on hand is too short to meet the tax bill. But lurking under the surface of this bill is nothing more than the smoke and mirrors of a good campaign ploy, designed to fool as many people as possible -- but only until the day after the election.

If members of Congress were sincere about resolving the issue of estate taxes, they would have grabbed the deal that has been on the table, announced victory for the American farmers and small businessmen, and gone on to the next big issue knowing that they had done their jobs to the best of their ability. I wrote the details of what President Clinton offered to handle the estate tax inequity earlier this summer. Since then I have discussed that "offer" with dozens of people, usually strangers I overhear discussing estate taxes. To a person, that means without exception, each person agreed that the compromise was not only "fair" but "right" and a great solution.

What puzzles me is that if ordinary Americans, the people who have to pay the estate taxes and deal with their consequences, can agree that the president's offer is a good and sound one, both from a practical and policy standpoint, why is it so difficult for the Republican-controlled Congress to reach the same conclusion?

The answer, of course, is as plain as the date on the calendar. Labor Day has now come and gone and the time is right to make political hay, not good public policy. If the GOP can use the president's veto as a wedge issue to attract independent-minded voters for just one day -- Election Day -- they believe they will have an advantage when the votes are tallied. There will be plenty of time for apologies after the swearing in.

So, if it is attention we must pay, let's take a brief look at the bill that was sent to the White House for signature. Contrary to what we are being told by the sponsors, very few Americans will benefit until 10 years from now. I say if estate taxes are so bad, why not eliminate them now and get on with life? The answer we are not being told is that by eliminating the tax today, the treasury will take a hit in the hundreds of billions of dollars, an amount no sane voter will accept in this time of an expected but not a proven surplus.

By extending the elimination time 10 years out, the supporters of this bill know two things will happen. First, the loss of revenues for nine years will be minuscule and can, therefore, be sold to the voters. And, second, any future Congress can and probably would act sanely by adjusting the law to something sensible, which would ultimately make for good public policy. In other words, today's Congress will get the public relations benefits and someone else will have to clean up the mess.

That works fine in a purely political setting but, my friends, this country and its policies have to be about much more than that. We expect our representatives in Washington to go back there and do the best job they can for us, not the best they can do for themselves and their political careers. What many of them refuse to accept is the fact that, as voters, we are pretty smart and recognize good policy when we understand it. We are not going to send someone home who is doing a good job representing what America needs. We will, however, send them packing when they take us for fools.

That is what is happening with this estate tax issue. President Clinton has done the right thing by vetoing this ridiculous bill. With any luck, Congress will not override that veto and will come to its senses and do what is right for small-business people and families. And that is to pass a responsible bill that the president will be only too happy to sign.

It is after Labor Day. Pay attention. Otherwise, it will cost us dearly.

archive