Finally, the Return of The Duke of Earl; And a Karl Rove Reprise

Sadly, the United States Constitution prevents the United States from granting any Title of Nobility. And for those clever folks out there who think – "That's okay – State's Rights!" I've more bad news: the Constitution also prevents any State from issuing Titles of Nobility.

And yet, don't we all yearn for true nobility? Watching the Queen wave gracefully to the crowd, her Corgi in her arms. Watching the beautiful Princess Diana as she made us think that fairy-tales really can come true. Bowing down before royalty while we bask in the glow of the royal smile. Reading about the stately Prince Charles and his less-than-stately affair. And of course, calling our local stores to see if they have Prince Albert in a can. "Well if you do, let him out! nyuck nyuck nyuck!" (Wait, no, that was from my childhood of what then passed as juvenile delinquency.)

Not much later than my childhood, in the 1960's, drunk on beer, friends and I sang along with Gene Chandler as he sang the Duke of Earl:

Duke, Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl

Duke, Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl

Funny, the words seemed a whole lot more meaningful back then. But surely in their determined, hopeful repetition ("Duke, Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl, Duke, Duke ….), it was a calling-out by an angst-ridden nation of the deep yearning for a higher power here on earth to whom to look up from our grim hopeless lives, from the daily grit of our everyday grind, to see them walk, clad in ermine and lace, sporting emeralds and pearls (and maybe, for the youngish female ones, sporting a little bit of cleavage), high above our common lives, their lives writ large before us.

So if you, like me, are jealous of England for it's royalty, then cheer up. I have good news.

Drunk on money instead of beer, we are bringing back the Duke. Not the Duke of Earl, but almost-real Dukes this time. And not just Dukes, but Earls too! And Counts, Barons, Viscounts, Earls, and Sultans. Remember the Marquis de Sade? We'll get more "noblemen" of his ilk too. Well, noblemen of a sort.

Because of the namby-pamby Founding Fathers, we can't have the traditional, European-style titles of nobility for which we all yearn. So we can't use those actual names. But constitutional prohibitions notwithstanding, the Senate is poised to join the House of Representatives in voting to give us the modern-day equivalent, by eliminating the Estate Tax.

I was taught in law school that the purpose of the federal Estate Tax is not so much to bring in money, as it is to prevent the accumulation of vast fortunes which are passed on from generation to generation, creating a moneyed class that has all the trappings of nobility except for the titles themselves.

Even today, no one pays Federal estate tax if their taxable estate is less than $1,500,000. And for married couples, any competent estate planner can ensure than $3,000,000 passes free of any federal estate tax. Where I come from, $3,000,000 is serious money. But in 2006, the estate-tax credit goes from $1,500,000 to $2,000,000, meaning that married couples can ensure that taxable estates of $4,000,000 are totally free of estate tax. And finally, in 2009, the estate-tax credit is going up to $3,500,000, meaning that for married couples, a total of $7,000,000 can be protected, totally free of estate tax.

This isn't enough for the House and Senate, who want to repeal the Estate Tax entirely.

The Seattle Times characterizes the battle as being between "the very rich and the merely rich." [Rich battling over estate tax, Sunday, August 14, 2005, page A10.] It said in that article that "Small-business owners – the merely rich – want to exempt from taxation inheritances of up to $10 million. The very rich – people whose estates are worth tens of millions to even billions of dollars – want instead to reduce the tax rate on assets passed on at death. A $10 million exemption isn't nearly enough for them."

The Seattle Times article points to what has been a focal point of the debate: that a sharp reduction in the estate tax would deprive the federal government of tens of billions of tax dollars each year. The New York Times reports the amount, once the estate-tax is fully repealed, to be "$70 billion a year in today's dollars. Over the first ten years of full repeal, the cost would total more than $700 billion, plus interest. Assuming that the government is still running an annual deficit in 2011, which is more likely than not, the total ten-year cost would be close to $1 trillion." ("Death Tax? Double Tax? For Most, It's No Tax, nytimes.com, 8/14/2005.)

Wait a minute. $70 billion in one year? $1 trillion over ten years? Can the federal government afford to give tens of billions of dollars a year to the rich, at a time of steep federal budget deficits?

Should the federal government return $70 billion a year to the rich, when social programs are starving for money?

Those are policy questions, but they are distinct from what I understand to be the policy basis behind the federal Estate Tax: to prevent the formation of a moneyed elite, a ruling class. But that argument is not even being raised in the debate.

What is likely to happen? I'd go with the prognostication of the Seattle Times, which opined that "Thanks in part to lobbying by the heirs of Wal-Mart stores, Mars candies and Campbell soup, the estate tax is close to becoming extinct."

In Alice in Wonderland, the Duchess gave Alice a baby to hold, but the baby turned into a pig. That is a fitting analogy for a proposal that the rich cherish as though it was their own child. And that they want middle-class taxpayers (not just Alice, but every taxpayer Tom, Dick and Harry) to cherish it as though it were their own. But taxpayers beware: when you look down at the child you'll be holding in your arms, you'll see instead, pig-like, the beady eyes of next generation of American aristocracy.

You don't have to be a Democrat to defend the Estate Tax, any more than you need to be a Republican to attack it. To defend the Estate Tax, all you need to have (if you are looking at this issue solely from its financial effect on you personally) is an estate between you and your spouse that is below $4,000,000, which would mean that starting next year, with competent estate planning when you and your spouse have both passed on, neither of your estates would have paid an Estate-Tax dime to the feds.

Don't actually like the thought of a permanent moneyed elite, created by the elimination of the Estate Tax? Tell your Congressmen and Senators that. And tell your friends and family, here and in other states, to tell theirs. Time is short: the Senate is expected to vote on this within the next few weeks.

PS: a Reprise Regarding Karl Rove: In an article a few weeks ago, I was very critical of Karl Rove. You also may have read a few letters critical of me for my criticism (as well as another letter which supported my position). For those interested in the subject, read the recent article by the Los Angeles Times and duplicated on Yahoo, called A CIA cover blown; a White House exposed , or use advanced search on Yahoo, looking for it on August 25th, on Yahoo, with the key words "Karl Rove."


[more..]

The Global Warming Dilemma

We all remember the parable of the seven blind men, each trying to describe an elephant. I recently found it instructive to re-read the parable. Perhaps you will also:

In the farthest reaches of the desert [the parable goes] there was a city in which all the people were blind. A king passing through that region camped outside the city. The king had with him a great elephant. The people of the city had heard of elephants, but never had the opportunity to know one. Out rushed 6 young men, determined to discover what the elephant was like.

And we all remember what the young men found: each grasped just a single part of the elephant and drew their conclusions about what the elephant was like from that one touch. Each young man was satisfied with his quick first impression and headed back to the city to tell the others.

But what I did not remember was the ending of the parable:

But finally, an old blind man came. He had left the city, walking in his usual slow way, content to take his time and study the elephant thoroughly. He walked all around the elephant, touching every part of it, smelling it, listening to all of its sounds. He found the elephant's mouth and fed the animal a treat, then petted it on its great trunk. Finally he returned to the city, only to find it in an uproar. Each of the six young men had acquired followers who eagerly heard his story. But then, as the people found that there were six different contradictory descriptions, they all began to argue.

The old man quietly listened to the fighting. "It's like a wall!" "No, it's like a snake!" "No, it's like a spear!" "No, it's like a tree!" "No, it's like a rope!" "No, it's like a fan!" The old man turned and went home, laughing as he remembered his own foolishness as a young man. Like these, he once hastily concluded that he understood the whole of something when he had experienced only a part.

This parable teaches one not to jump to conclusions too quickly. Indeed, that is what I have been accused by two correspondents to this paper of doing with respect to our unpleasant Mr. Rove. I deny the charge -- although I cheerfully admit that many of us (including not just me, but also perhaps the two correspondents in question) on occasion jump to conclusions too quickly. And that also is exactly what environmentalists have been accused of doing with respect to global warming.

In a recent political discussion with a conservative friend about global warming, he first was skeptical of the evidence, and second, was skeptical that we know what the "right" temperature is for the earth, even if we humans are in fact driving the temperature up "Maybe," he said, "the ‘right' temperature really is five degrees warmer than it is now."

Okay, so the wise among us recognize that we don't necessarily know what we think we know. But "maybe the right temperature is five degrees warmer than it is now"?

The headline in the July 13, 2005 edition of the Seattle Times was "Warmer oceans may be killing West Coast marine life." Turns out that "coastal ocean temperatures are 2 to 5 degrees above normal, apparently caused by a lack of "up-welling" – a process that brings cold-nutrient-rich water to the surface and jump-starts the marine food chain." With the extra-warm water on top, the upwelling has slowed significantly, cutting off the food chain. The result: a massive die-off of marine life.

This spring, the Times reported, scientists have found a record number of dead seabirds washed upon beaches along the Pacific Coast, somewhere between five and 10 times the highest number of bird deaths seen before. This is not a cyclical event: "In 50 years," one scientist said, "this has never happened… If this continues, we will have a food chain that is basically impoverished from the very lowest levels."

The sea birds are found with atrophied muscles, and empty stomachs, showing there was nothing for them to eat. It isn't only the tens of thousands of sea birds that have starved to death that is the problem: the whole ecosystem of which they are a part is in trouble.

Many experts, the Times article said, suspect global warming is the culprit.

While the experts are concerned about the unusual ocean conditions, they are more concerned, said Bill Peterson, an oceanographer with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, "that people will not take notice."

Just because waves are splashing merrily on the shore doesn't mean that all is merry below the surface. And indeed, all is not well beneath the surface. "People have to realize," Peterson said, "that things are connected – the state of coastal temperatures and plankton populations are connected to larger issues like Pacific salmon populations."

We could do something about this. It would mean voting for whichever candidates are most likely to solve the problem. It would mean acting ourselves, on a daily basis, in ways that – if everybody did them – would help solve the problem. ("Think globally, act locally," environmentalists say.) And it would mean, as a society, spending a lot of money.

But here is a question some find troubling: even assuming that we are contributing to global warming, should we do anything about it? I have just finished reading an economic analysis of the evidence on global warming in The University of Chicago Magazine, . The most interesting parts of the article were the references to the work of Richard Posner, a former professor of my alma mater, the University of Chicago Law School, a conservative judge and a possible future nominee for the Supreme Court. Posner talks of two global warming possibilities.

First, gradual warming. If that's what is happening, then Posner proposes to leave the costs to future generations. "The problem," he says, "has to do with the economic notion of discounting: a dollar spent in the future is worth less than a dollar spent today. So even if global warming eventually might prove to be massively expensive for private firms, they are still acting rationally by not spending the money now to solve or ameliorate the threat. …"

"But," the article continued, "abrupt change is another matter. Climates, [Posner] pointed out, can flip very quickly. … Abrupt climate change could result in massive cooling of northern Europe, widespread flooding, drought, or any other number of catastrophic changes."

And so, as Posner points out in the article, here are two ways that perhaps skeptics on human-induced global warming can accept the importance of governmental and industrial expenditures now to fight global warming. First, "the costs incurred can be seen as a form of insurance, a way of hedging against the possibility of sudden, devastating losses." Or second, "they can be viewed as an "option," such as a studio might buy for a screenplay it was interested in developing, which "enables you to postpone a decision until you get more information," Posner argued. "If we impose emissions taxes now, that will be costly, but we can think of it as an option that will buy us time."

So, if gradual warming is coming, Posner suggests no action now. But if we're going to face abrupt change, then a strong case can be made for insuring against it, he says. The problem of course, is that no one knows for sure what is going to happen when. The "abrupt change" scenario is tailor made for what I fear we are facing now: bickering during the gathering storm, and then once the abrupt change hits, finger pointing in the midst of chaos when it is too late. (Why do I fear that the Democrats, the far better of two bad options on the global warming policy front, will nonetheless lose the finger pointing game to the Republicans, after the Republicans have blocked every attempt up to now to solve the problem?)

Whether it is to be gradual or abrupt, a broad majority of climate scientists agree that global warming has begun and poses a significant threat.

Uncomfortable with the increasingly violent hurricane seasons? Worried that the abrupt-change scenario might affect you? Or us? Tell that to your Congressional Representative, and to your Senators. And tell your friends to do the same thing. Remember that, as Bob Dylan sang in Subterranean Homesick Blues, "you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."




About the author: William Weissinger was graduated from the University of Chicago Law School in 1982, with honors. Since 1990 he has had a general law practice in the San Juan Islands, focusing on real estate and real-estate litigation, general business law, and estate planning. For more about the author, see sanjuanlaw.com.

[more..]