creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Mark Shields
Mark Shields
19 May 2012
A Price Tag on Patriotism

Will Rogers was wrong. The legendary humorist, speaking of the responsibilities each of us has as a citizen … Read More.

12 May 2012
Shortcuts for 2012 Campaign

Please accept the following as a small token of appreciation from your semi-faithful correspondent, who knows … Read More.

5 May 2012
Slinging Mud

Indiana Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels was characteristically candid when speaking to the Indianapolis Star's … Read More.

So Much for Loyalty

Share Comment

On Friday, July 13,1962, in what would come to be called his "Night of the Long Knives," British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, desperate to reverse his own sliding political fortunes, abruptly fired seven of his cabinet ministers, including Selwyn Lloyd, the chancellor of the exchequer. The British politician Jeremy Thorpe said of Macmillan's sacking of Lloyd, "Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his friends for his life."

The acid wit of Thorpe would have been appropriate in 2010 Washington when, stung by criticism from House Democrats that he had caved in secret negotiations with Senate Republicans by abandoning his long-held opposition to extend tax cuts to the wealthiest 2 percent of taxpayers, President Barack Obama uncharacteristically lashed out at those who had been his most steadfast allies over the last two stormy years.

Sometimes criticized for failing to publicly show emotion, a petulant Obama chastised fellow party members of yearning for the "satisfaction of having a purist position and no victories for the American people."

Let the record show that nobody in the White House lost a job because of the election returns on Nov. 2. The past two years have basically only cost the president a couple of dozen points of popularity in the Gallup Poll. But having to cast politically painful votes on President Obama's initiatives in heath care, economic stimulus, financial reform and cap-and-trade put at least 100 House Democrats at re-election risk. Sixty-three of them paid with their jobs.

On each of those career-threatening votes, Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., has stood with Barack Obama. In the first three days after what critics branded "the Obama-McConnell deal" was announced, Welch and 53 House Democrats had signed a letter opposing the deal for being both "fiscally irresponsible " by adding another $900 billion to the$14 trillion national debt (does anyone recall last week's "historic" Presidential Deficit Reduction Commission report?) and "grossly unfair" in advantaging the already advantaged.

He argues that by agreeing in the deal to the lowest inheritance tax rate since Herbert Hoover's administration, the president's compromise would unjustly reward "39,000 families with $25 billion." That's quite accurate.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the proposed inheritance tax would apply to only 0.14 percent of estates in 2011 and collect just $11.2 billion. If the current law were to take effect, the inheritance tax would reach 1.76 percent of estates and the federal revenues would be $34.4 billion.

In the final analysis, character is destiny. Of every conservative political leader, American voters have the same question: Does he have a heart, is he capable of compassion? Of each liberal political leader (from whose ranks Obama comes), American voters have another question: Does he have steel in his backbone? Is he tough enough?

After the president announced the tax deal, Democratic pollster Peter Hart addressed that very matter. "What the America public is looking for and what they are trying to understand is his backbone. ... Where will this man stand up, and where will he fight?"

Concerning the perception of the president's being more eager to switch than to fight, Hart said: "The difficulty with what happened is that instead of going eyeball-to-eyeball (against the Republicans) and then blinking, (people) saw him — at 40 yards — blinking."

Hart, who supports the deal Obama struck — even though he believes that Obama reached it both "too early" and "too easily" — analyzes that voters are still unsure, almost halfway through President Obama's term, just "how firm, how tough he is — and two years in, unlike (with) other presidents, they don't have a good measure of that."

Of this whole tax-cut episode, somebody, not Jeremy Thorpe, said, "You can tell an awful lot about how big a man is by what makes him angry."

Amen.

To find out more about Mark Shields and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

COPYRIGHT 2010 MARK SHIELDS


Comments

16 Comments | Post Comment
Right you are, Mark. One of Jimmy Carter's favorite words was "outrage". Where in Obama is the outrage? I'm sorely disappointed and I'm not alone.
Comment: #1
Posted by: avery st clair
Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:06 PM
I have never understood how liberals think that the inheritance tax is "fair". My husband and I work 12-, 14- and 16-hour days as we try to build our (currently) tiny small business into something more substantial. Someday if we succeed, I think we will deserve it! Do not tell me for one second that most people work this hard. They don't. Few people outside of business owners do. But if all of our hard work pays off someday, we should be allowed to at least pass our business down to our children without it being taxed YET AGAIN. Our income is already taxed, and then everything we buy is taxed. Then you'll tax us again when we die and try to give our children what we worked so hard to create? Why do you work so hard to destroy every incentive there is for productivity in this nation?
Comment: #2
Posted by: Kim
Fri Dec 10, 2010 1:34 PM
Re: Kim. Your kids didn't earn it any more than a welfare mom's kids are at fault for their poverty. We are really talking God's will here, aren't we?
Comment: #3
Posted by: Masako
Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:20 PM
Thanks for not jumping on the bandwagon on this Mark. A trillion bucks more in the hole and it isn't even true stimulus. What a bunch of memory-free hypocrites those Republicans who were so worried about the deficit were.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Masako
Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:24 PM
Since when does any of this money belong to the government. The only people entitled money are the people who earn it, and if I earn my money and pass it to my children that is my business not the government's. Libs act like the government is writing the rich welfare checks, but it is not the government's to begin with. The House Dems lost their jobs because of this kind of greedy government, that is indication enough that they should have no say in this matter or any other going forward.
Comment: #5
Posted by: zach
Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:30 PM
More trickle down economics. The only thing trickling down around here is the rich piddling on the rest of us.
P.S. Kim, the estate tax is an egalitarian measure designed to prevent families from accumulating too much wealth and influence in this democracy. You might want to check out history books about the undue influence that particular families have had in world and American history. Moreover, I would bet dollars to dough nuts that you would be shocked to know just how much money you would have to accrue to even be eligible under the estate tax. I wish you luck in your business, but someone once called the estate tax the tax that applies to virtually no one, but that everyone wishes applied to them. You have been convinced to be outraged by something that in all likelihood will not ever affect you or your heirs by people who will definitely be affected by it. I would suggest that the well to do have the resources to fight the battle without your misplaced support.
Comment: #6
Posted by: John
Fri Dec 10, 2010 7:54 PM
Oh, and BTW Seth. If you don't like government services then I suggest you treat you own sewage, control your own air space, inspect your own meat, pave your own roads, fetch your own water, and (this should fry your noodle) enforce your own contracts. "Wait...what?" you say. I'm sorry you must be one of those who thinks the main purpose of the justice system is to put away the crack dealer on your corner. Well, it may surprise you to know that the more important role of the justice system is to enforce contracts. We could not have a market economy if it didn't. And whom does this function of the justice system serve the most? That's right, big business and the well off. If you get services, you should pay for them and if you get more, you should pay more. Thanks for trying, though.
Comment: #7
Posted by: John
Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:10 AM
Your article about trade articulated all the thoughts I've had in your perfectly written style. I wonder why Americans don't quietly stop buying Chinese goods. All the items I bought that were made
in China were disappointing: Electric blanket stopped working after 1 year and said "please recycle"
Can openers did not open cans, and nail clippers that fell apart and left nails straggely and in bad shape.
I did not have a choice between made in America and made in China.
Thanks for this article and the inheritance tax article; I never thought about influence of richest families.
gail
Comment: #8
Posted by: Gail Moreland
Sat Dec 11, 2010 2:23 PM
As I recall, this event resulted in Harold Macmillan acquiring the nickname of "Mac the Knife"
Comment: #9
Posted by: Raymond Aiken
Sat Dec 11, 2010 4:34 PM
Re: Kim
So Kim you are better than everybody else, and you work harder than everybody else. My don't you have a high opinion of yourself. Your conceit sickens me!
Comment: #10
Posted by: FLGibsonJr
Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:53 PM
Ok, Kim, let's see. You went to grade & high school to learn basic skills you would need in life and college. Paid for by taxpayers. Then you went to college to learn business skills. Also largely subsidized by taxpayers. You took out student loans along the way with the interest largely paid for by tax payers. When your got your business plan started up, you took out a small business loan that was guaranteed by taxpayers. The money came from banks kept afloat by the good will of taxpayers. Along the way, you purchased things needed to run your business and deducted them from your taxes allowing the cost to be born by taxpayers. Now, you say you should not have to pay taxes on your personal success that you earned without anyone's help. You are an ungrateful hypocrite!
Comment: #11
Posted by: Mike Ohr
Sun Dec 12, 2010 9:26 AM
As an Independent, I think the president is doing a bang up job of making everybody mad, which is exactly where he should be -- not caving in to either party, but forging historic compromises from the pits of contention. Say what you like about the deal, but don't accuse him of weakness. What Obama did here TAKES GUTS.
Comment: #12
Posted by: Honor Girl
Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:10 AM
Kim, I hear your cry. I pray this tax will someday affect you. Because anyone who invests the kind of hard work I heard you describe deserves to reach such a high level of success. But I believe it was John D. Rockefeller who said the only thing worse than paying (exorbitant) taxes is not having to pay (exorbitant) taxes. If you reach that level of success you will have become a multi-millionaire. In that case I would hope you'd love this country so ecstatically for giving you such a huge opportunity that you'd feel it your patriotic privilege to give back generously to help others less fortunate. From the bottom of my heart, I hope you get there.
Comment: #13
Posted by: gerry phillips
Mon Dec 13, 2010 10:33 PM
Kim - I am with you. The estate tax is illegal in principle. Period. And if you think I am conceited in believing that I should be allowed to have inherit money that my parents worked to build up? You can all piss off. My parents came form nothing with nothing. In that tradition, I paid for my education so they would not have to and have made my way in the world on my own. Any money they leave to me and my siblings is ours because my parents elected to give that money to us. And oh by the way, it has been taxed already. Twice if not three times in some cases. Now my children will enjoy the fruits of their grandparents and parents labor and won't have to pay for their education and won't force the TAXPAYER to either. And another note - any time taxes have decreased in the last 100 years federal revunues have increased because rich people put their money out in the market. If you increase taxes the very people whose pockets you want to pick will hide their money becasue they know how to. Taxes go to many good things. An over-reaching government is not one of them. One only hast to Europe to see how those social democracies are panning out.
Comment: #14
Posted by: Charles
Tue Dec 14, 2010 6:37 AM
I am amused by the false debate on this page.

Supposedly, on inheritance taxes, there are only these two sides to the issue (both of which are oversimplified and totally irrelevant) - that inheritance taxes are bad, because it takes away years of hard work, and that inheritance taxes are good, because it pays for government services and gives back to the rest of society.

No people, you need to be more analytical and not get drawn into arguments of purely empty emotional grandstanding.

The inheritance tax is a situation which results in double taxation - incomes that were already taxed in the years past were taxed again in the present. Most tax codes have the basic provision to avoid double taxation issues, which is why dividends are often tax-free in most countries. The real problem is not just the redundancy, but the fact that it is capital assets and not income that is being taxed. Incomes from the years past are already invested by people into assets. Such as houses and one's own business. It would have been easier if only the cash and short-term securities inherited were taxed. But are we arguing that capital goods should be liquidated and businesses sold off just to pay to the government? During a recession with high unemployment?! That is madness. If I were a communist, I would have told you the exact same thing, because communism at least supports industrial production and allowing capitalism to develop to its full industrial capacity before natural socialism takes over.

As it is, inheritance taxes have done zero - absolutely ZERO - to reduce family privilege and power of old money. That's because inheritance taxes are exempt for political donations in most of the world, thus allowing political dynasties to come up so often.

I bet you are loving your inheritance taxes.
Comment: #15
Posted by: Prateek Sanjay
Tue Dec 14, 2010 8:03 AM
Obama should have traded no inheritance tax for undoing the Bush tax rate cuts on the rich, and it's not too late to do so. I'm more than happy to allow the rich to pass their wealth on to their families as long as the income that their families receive from that wealth is taxed appropriately. Remember the old "noblesse oblige" phrase - from those to whom much is given, much is expected? That is the simple justification for progressive taxation. And don't say that "nothing has been given" to the rich. Markets, infrastructure, citizenship in a free country: these and more they receive. Sustaining that country for their kids and ours is their obligation - not just ours.
Comment: #16
Posted by: john
Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:43 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Mark Shields
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Roland Martin
Roland S. MartinUpdated 20 Jun 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 May 2012
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 27 May 2012

25 Sep 2010 America Without Optimism

9 Feb 2008 Liking Mike

18 Apr 2009 My Kind of Sermon