This month 10 Democratic senators pushed for a tax break for multimillionaires.

From a letter today from Robert Borosage at the Campaign for America's Future.



There are more resources at the website and ways to take action.

Don't Get Teabagged By The Super-Wealthy



We are retired, and our taxes keep going up every year. Maybe these 10 Democratic senators would like to help us average everyday people out a little. I do not understand why these 10 Democratic senators voted for this in times like these.

Good for Robert Borosage and the Campaign for America's Future for calling attention to this.

all on their corporate shill faces if I could afford a ticket to washington.

Landrieu is especially sinister.

... and still get re-elected in Louisiana. Believe it or not, she does a better job at representing the will of the majority of her constituents than almost any other senator in the nation. People down here don't really give a shit about what's going on with the big financial companies, because they're too worried about the refusal of the feds to plunk down the money required to protect the southern part of the state from another major catastrophe, and she has championed that cause.

If she voted along the lines of Kerry or Dodd, they'd throw her out on her ass in a landslide, and then we'd have another Northshore crackpot like Vitter to deal with.

Who have they been taking money and instructions from . . . ???

DLC . . . ??

I suspect that Cantwell and Murray voted the way they did because of the demise of the Seattle Post Intelligencer and the fact that William Blethen, publisher of the Seattle Times, has been a very vocal advocate of repeal of the so called "death tax."

Murray, the mom in tennis shoes, is up for re-election in 2010 and Blethen would endorse her opponent, whoever that might be, had she not voted the way she did.

As for Cantwell I'm not surprised at her vote. The only reason she's in the senate is that she ran for office at the behest of the former state democratic party chair who had a personal vendetta against Deborah Senn, the odds on favorite, and she could finance her own campaign. As I recall Cantwell spent $10 million of her personal funds to buy the election of 2002.

in Congress -- HOWEVER ....

we can't fail to notice that the corporate agenda has applied too often even in

the Democratic Party in selection of candidates-!

Yet -- I still don't get Murray or anyone up for relection because I think the public

is very aware of the tax cuts for the rich -- and the bailouts ... i.e., welfare for

the rich at the expense of taxpayers!

Right now, IMO, capitalism is a rotting fish and the stink has reached the public's noses!

:kick:

Every Republican plus these 10 Democrats: Evan Bayh (IN), Max Baucus (MT), Maria Cantwell (WA), Mary Landrieu (LA), Blanche Lincoln (AR), Patty Murray (WA), Bill Nelson (FL), Ben Nelson (NE), Mark Pryor (AR), and Jon Tester (MT).

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/3851

There are so many conservatives in the Senate in both parties that I despair of much good coming from there.

corporate-Democrats -- DLC . . . "Blue Dogs" . . . etc.

Government and elected officials have long been for sale --

anyone mentioning that anymore?

patti murray wasn't when she ran to begin with....

max baucus is from a very wealthy montana family

Gates Sr. is a crusader for KEEPING estate taxes: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0214-01.htm

Bill Gates (Jr.) is on track to give away most of his fortune before he dies.

As a Washingtonian, I am DISGUSTED that my senators would vote this way. It is now 5:30 PDT, and their offices are closed. Tomorrow they shall be open, and I will call both of them to register my displeasure.

Once again it goes to show that certain members of Congress answer to a higher power than that of their lawful constituents.

There's a good reason that Gates set up shop here. As a percentage of his income, he pays 1/5th in state and local taxes than a low income person.

We're exhibit #1 as to why sales taxes suck.

Cantwell and Murray are cognizant of their gravy train, but especially Cantwell.

:dem:

-Laelth

:shrug:

I suspect Obama will veto, and there won't be enough votes to override it. If that's the case, these Senators are just making "safe" votes. I have no love for blue dogs or DLC Dems, as you know, but it's O.K. for them to cast votes like these when we can't actually be hurt by them.

:dem:

-Laelth

I posted a link to Senateors personal PAC's a few days ago, and IIRC most if not all these Dems had their own, and many rich consitiuents to stuff them with cash.
We have the finest politicians money can buy.
mark

x(

oppose healthcare reform - they want the rich insurance companies who pay them so well the get richer, while the Senators continue to get those lovely free benefits.

mark

in the not too distant future. We the people never seem to learn.

"Michael Kinsley summed it up: "To save these very few very wealthy people a small fraction of their estates, these senators are willing to hand their party's president an embarrassing defeat. Why on earth?"

No good reason. They claim to be protecting farmers and small business, but the law protects legitimate farm families and small business owners. The New York Times editors summarized these arguments in technical terms: "This is swill."

Today, Fox News and other right-wing pundits will tout corporate lobbyist-sponsored "tea parties," where conservative activists will rail that returning the top income tax rate to Reagan-era levels is somehow "socialism."

It is time for a little common sense. As inequality rises, the tax code should become more progressive, not less. A hard-pressed middle class should get a break. The wealthy now pocketing the rewards should pay a greater share. You can't complain about deficits and give a tax break to the heirs of the wealthiest American families.

They say that money talks in Washington. Well, now it is time for the people to talk. On this tax day, tell your senators — we've had enough with cutting taxes for the wealthy paid for by cutting services for working families."

http://www.ourfuture.org/action/2009041614/dont-get-teabagged-super-wealthy

From a recent Bob Herbert column:

The seeds of today’s disaster were sown some 30 years ago. Looking at income patterns during that period, my former colleague at The Times, David Cay Johnston, noted that from 1980 (the year Ronald Reagan was elected) to 2005, the national economy, adjusted for inflation, more than doubled. (Because of population growth, the actual increase per capita was about 66 percent.)

But the average income for the vast majority of Americans actually declined during those years. The standard of living for the average family improved not because incomes grew but because women entered the workplace in droves.

As hard as it may be to believe, the peak income year for the bottom 90 percent of Americans was way back in 1973, when the average income per taxpayer, adjusted for inflation, was $33,000. That was nearly $4,000 higher, Mr. Johnston pointed out, than in 2005.

Full article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/opinion/10herbert.html?_r=2

The income share of the wealthiest 1% of Americans over the same time period (1980- 2005) increased from 8.5% to 21.2%. Link: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Where do we go to stop the buying of government and elected officials -- ???

And the DLC?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/opinion/08wed2.html

"Published: April 7, 2009

Last week, as the unemployment rate hit a 25-year high and nearly one in 10 Americans was receiving food stamps, 10 Democrats in the Senate joined all 41 Republican senators to cut estate taxes for the wealthiest families. The provision would funnel an additional $91 billion over 10 years to the heirs of megafortunes, money that would otherwise have been paid in federal taxes or donated to charity.

With economic pain and suffering on the rise, how do the senators justify a big tax cut for multimillionaires? By asserting that an estate tax cut is just what struggling Americans need.

Senator Blanche Lincoln, a Democrat of Arkansas, co-sponsored the measure with Senator Jon Kyl, a Republican of Arizona. She said it was critical to creating jobs through small businesses. “With all the money we’ve spent to help the economy, very little of it has filtered down to Main Street and family-owned businesses,” she said.

The implication is that upon the death of an owner, estate taxes typically devastate small businesses and the jobs they provide. That is swill."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-greenstein/senate-to-uber-rich-help_b_186165.html

"Sixteen months into the recession, the pace of job losses is worse than in the deep 1981-82 recession, a growing number of families are making excruciating choices with their shrinking pocketbooks, and the federal government is facing stunning budget deficits as far as the eye can see. So, is this the time to spend about $90 billion over the next decade to give the nation's wealthiest households a new, multi-million-dollar tax cut?

The U.S. Senate apparently thinks so. Earlier this month, it voted 51 to 48 to add to its 2010 budget plan a proposal by Senators Blanche Lincoln and Jon Kyl to substantially weaken the estate tax. Only the wealthiest 1 of every 400 people who die -- the top one-quarter of 1 percent -- would benefit from this proposal, since they're the only ones who owe any estate tax under current rules, according to the Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center."

And more: Not a done deal yet.

"This isn't a done deal. The House budget plan doesn't include this proposal, and Congress won't make its final decisions on the estate tax until later this year. But with the nation in two wars and a serious recession, and facing forecasts of damaging deficits for decades to come, the Senate vote is breathtakingly irresponsible just the same.

..."President Obama has proposed making permanent the estate rules that are in effect for 2009. The Lincoln-Kyl proposal, in contrast, would increase the exemption from the current $7 million per couple to $10 million and weaken the tax in other ways. This would cost $91 billion more than the Obama proposal during the first decade when Lincoln-Kyl's full budgetary effects would be felt, 2012-21.

..."they portrayed this tax windfall for the wealthy as an essential lifeline for small businesses and farms. The Lincoln-Kyl proposal would provide "crucial support and protection to small businesses, family ranchers, and farms," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell asserted on the Senate floor.

That's sheer nonsense."

It's not enough to just have a (D).

:puke:

to only care about the rich (himself) and their fucking estate taxes.

the next time they're up for re-election.

Fuck. :(

Lets use the power of the InterNet to organize a national effort to replace him in the Democratic Primary.
It worked on Lieberman even though he was able to slither back in through the Old Boy's Backdoor.

We CAN send a message to "Centrist" Democrats who vote with Republicans.

Evan bayh Leaving No Multi-Millionaire Behind. The rest of you -- F*CK OFF!

This needs to be kicked because it is important- I do not want this to be lost in teabags and pirates....

:)

Oops. K&R

:shrug:

on Blue Dog Democrats to have their blue noses up the rich ass of the Republican Party. They actually insure that the Republicans retain de facto legislative control even while in the minority.

are representing (the "important" part of) their constituency. The others are just plain old DINOs.

:shrug:

That's the argument we always hear when Democrats cross the aisle to vote with Republicans.

That's why it is supposed to be a good thing for them to do.

:shrug:

The Campaign of the Super Wealthy to Kill the Estate Tax
Congress Watch
April 2006


Public Citizen’s Congress Watch & United for a Fair Economy: Spending Millions to Save Billions
14
Section II: How the Super-Wealthy Families
Have Fought for Repeal
The super-wealthy families pressing for repeal of the estate tax have marshaled a tremendous
lobbying juggernaut that has reported nearly a half-billion dollars in lobbying expenditures
($490.3 million) since 1998, the earliest year for which lobbying disclosure data is available
online.
17
The absence of precise lobbying disclosure requirements makes it impossible to
calculate the amount spent lobbying specifically on the estate tax, but the total would almost
certainly come to tens of millions of dollars.
The families have also helped finance groups that have spent millions of dollars on
advertisements in an attempt to sway public opinion.
These families have served as the engine of the anti estate tax campaign by:
• Providing money to outside groups that have lobbied members of Congress on the estate
tax or run anti-estate tax ads, a practice commonly known as grassroots lobbying;
• Hiring lobbying firms with money from their own fortunes or deploying their companies’
lobbyists to press the case for repeal on Capitol Hill;
• Helping coordinate the anti-estate tax lobbying efforts of the trade associations to which
their companies belong; and
• Helping form, then riding the coattails of, a massive anti-estate tax business coalition
consisting primarily of trade associations.
The Super-Wealthy Families Have Financed Outside Groups
The families identified in this report have provided funding to at least four outside groups – the
Policy and Taxation Group, the American Family Business Institute, the Club for Growth, and
Citizens for a Sound Economy (now FreedomWorks) – that have either lobbied on the estate tax,
run anti-estate tax advertisements, or both.
A fifth group, the Free Enterprise Fund, was founded by the former president of the Club for
Growth and partnered with the American Family Business Institute on a $7 million ad campaign
in 2005.
18


#Page 15

Public Citizen’s Congress Watch & United for a Fair Economy: Spending Millions to Save Billions
15
Figure 3: Anti-Estate Tax Groups Financed by the Super-Wealthy Families
Group
Known
Family
Funders
Group Has Reported
Lobbying On the
Estate Tax?
Group Has Run Ads
Against the
Estate Tax?
American Family
Business Institute
Harbert family has
contributed more than
$500,000.
Yes ($1.5 million in
reported expenditures,
solely on the estate tax,
since 1998)
Yes (Group has
sponsored or co-
sponsored at least three
ad campaigns, including a
$7 million campaign in
summer 2005)
Citizens for a Sound
Economy (now Freedom
Works)
Koch family foundations
have contributed more
than $12 million.
Yes (Group has reported
lobbying on the estate tax
in five years since 1998)
No
Club for Growth
Stephens family has
contributed nearly $1.4
million.
No
Yes (Group has run at
least two anti-estate tax
ad campaigns)
Policy and Taxation
Group
Allyn-Soderberg,
Dorrance, Gallo, Koch,
Mars, Mayer, Sobrato
(amounts unknown)
Yes ($4.1 million in
reported expenditures,
solely on the estate tax,
since 1998)
No
Policy and Taxation Group
Pat Soldano, an Orange County, Calif., estate planner is invariably cited in accounts on the estate
tax campaign as a pioneer in the movement. She formed a non-profit policy group – the Center
for the Study of Taxation – in 1992. A few years later, she formed the for-profit Policy and
Taxation Group (PTG) to lobby against the estate tax.
19
Soldano also played a leading role in the
formation of the Family Business Estate Tax Coalition, a massive alliance of trade associations.
20
Soldano has taken on at least seven of the families listed in this report as clients. Soldano listed
members, or companies, of the Allyn-Soderberg, Dorrance, Gallo, Koch, Mars, Mayer and
Sobrato families as clients of the Policy and Taxation Group from 1998-1999.
21
Since 2000,
Soldano has chosen to mask her clients’ identities by reporting the Policy and Taxation Group as
lobbying on its own behalf, just as General Electric or General Motors would. This secrecy,
taking advantage of a lax lobbying disclosure law, is by design. “We don't disclose our
membership to anybody,” she says.
22
The Policy and Taxation Group has received at least $4.1 million in revenue since 1999 to lobby
on the estate tax.
23
The group has, in turn, paid $420,000 to the powerhouse lobbying firm Patton
Boggs to assist its lobbying efforts. Its separate Center for the Study of Taxation reported
$213,070 in revenue in 2004.
24
The Policy and Taxation Group also claims to “assist ‘think-tank’ organizations such as Citizens
for a Sound Economy, The Heritage Foundation, CATO Institute, The Tax Foundation and
others to distribute information about the damaging effects of estate and gift taxes.”
25
Soldano said in 2003 her group’s “membership” consisted of about 65 families in 25 states.
26
Given that Soldano has claimed to represent 65 families, she may represent other families listed
in this report and it is likely that she represents mega-millionaires or billionaires not identified in
this report.

#Page 16

Public Citizen’s Congress Watch & United for a Fair Economy: Spending Millions to Save Billions
16
American Family Business Institute
The AFBI, a 501(c)(6) non-profit group, was formed in 1992 by Harold Apolinsky, an estate
planner whom the AFBI’s Web site dubs the “Godfather” of the repeal campaign.
27
According to
Time magazine, Apolinsky was also the “co-author” of estate tax legislation proposed by Sen.
Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)
28
Apolinsky has received significant financing from at least one of the wealthy families profiled in
this report. In the mid-1990s, Apolinsky began receiving contributions from John Harbert, the
only person in Alabama who was in the Forbes 400.
29
AFBI put that money toward a grant of
approximately $200,000 to the Heritage Foundation, which resulted in a study, “The Case for
Repealing the Estate Tax,” that was influential in gaining Republican support for repeal.
30
John’s son, Raymond Harbert, now serves as a leader and benefactor of the group. He is AFBI’s
“funding chairman” and has personally contributed $500,000 to the AFBI.
31
The AFBI says its
members own a total of 507 businesses, but the group discloses no specific information about the
identities of its members.
32
Apolinsky said in 2005 that three of his clients are billionaires.
33
The AFBI has campaigned for repeal of the estate tax with a series of advertising campaigns:
• The group financed television and radio ads attacking then-Senate Minority Leader Tom
Daschle (D-S.D.) for his opposition to estate tax repeal when Daschle was up for re-
election in 2004.
34
• The group paired with the Free Enterprise Fund to run a reported $7 million ad campaign
in the summer of 2005. The campaign included ads pressuring Sens. Max Baucus (D-
Mont.), Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to vote for repeal, and
thanking Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe (both R-Maine) for their support of repeal.
The campaign also targeted senators in Arkansas, Louisiana, Nevada, North Dakota,
Washington, and Hawaii.
35
• In April 2006, the group launched a new round of anti-estate tax ads, targeting Sens. Max
Baucus (D-Mont.), Olympia Snow (R-Maine), and Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln
(both D-Ark.)
36
The group has also made substantial lobbying expenditures. Since 1998, the AFBI has spent
nearly $1.5 million lobbying. The estate tax is the only issue on which it reports lobbying.
37
Club for Growth
The Club for Growth, a group registered under Section 527 of the tax code, has received nearly
$1.4 million since 2000 from the Stephens family, owners of the Stephens Group, a holding
company.
38
Following the acrimonious departure of former leader Stephen Moore, former Rep. Pat Toomey
(R-Pa.) took over the reins of the Club, which had raised $1 million for Toomey and spent
another million on advertising to aid him in his narrowly unsuccessful primary challenge to Sen.
Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) in 2004.
39


http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:SR1vlniQY6AJ:www.ci...

Scroll down on page for complete story.

Then let the ten explain to their constituents why the voted for it and why they think it's a good idea.
Love to hear their explanation.

Good idea. Perhaps the House won't pass it, and Obama will veto it.

They are DINOS and really should just become Republicans and be done with it.

They are the ones who make it seem like there is no difference between parties because they are not, in fact, Democrats. There are too many of these DINOS in Congress right now.

Raad- Republicans acting as Democrats.
The difference is so miniscule you need a score card and their tax returns to tell the difference.

What can we do in FL to get a real Democratic Senator?

That's a start at least.

God I hope he goes down next time he's up for re-election.

Wal-Mart family lobbies for tax cuts
April 05, 2005

Wal-Mart (WMT) drew broad scrutiny last year as its political spending soared in nationwide battles over health care, labor and other hot-button issues threatening the giant retailer's growth.
Now, in a little-noticed move, the company's founding family has plunged into a fight to pass income tax changes and other legislation that could preserve its grip on the USA's biggest business and the family's $84 billion fortune.

http://www.waltoninfluence.com/influence/news-archive/wal_mart_family_lobbies_for_tax_cuts

#1, big surprise. I am so many light years past done with him. It's pointless though, because it'll be the same crap in 2010. He'll win the primary handily, and what am I supposed to do then? Vote for the Republican? Ugh. Going blue once doesn't make voting in Indiana any more fun.

Blanche Lincoln (AR), Mark Pryor (AR), from Arkansas, the home of Wal-Mart Bentonville Ar.

Bush's Valentine to Wal-Mart: A Sweetheart Deal with its Department of Labor
Progressive Populist
by Nathan Newman
March 15, 2005
Just when you think the Bush administration's corrupt dealing with corporate America can't go any lower, they achieve the seemingly impossible and surprise you. Not content to just slap Wal-Mart on the wrist with a tiny $135,540 fine for violating child labor laws (a fine equivalent to about 15 seconds of sales for the company), the Bush Department of Labor (DOL) entered into an unprecedented sweetheart deal with the giant retailer to essentially exempt it from ever having to pay government fines for wage violations again.

http://www.nathannewman.org/archives/003182.shtml

The Corruption from the Republicans and the Bush administration will be felt for decades to come. The Billions will hurt the economy in lost taxes so the Rich can become Richer.

:hi:

Democrats want to make sure they can get reelected in their states, they're not worried about middle America.

sell irrevocable life insurance trusts! How dare you!

I will vote communist, liberal, socialist, even nazi before I vote for either of these 2.

own the country. Here in Texas there used to be no republicans elected. We had all Democrats. Of course the Democrats that mostly got elected (with big bidness help) were rabid conservatives who voted that way. It was just that only Democrats could get elected so they all ran as Dems. The rich buy their congressmen in either flavor. And unlike the public, they make sure that their bought and paid for congressmen do what they want them to. The public gets all excited about dogs and pirates and gay marriage. Business just keeps paying for votes to transfer funds from our pockets to those of the uber rich.

I must have rec'd it yesterday and forgot.

Thanks for posting it.

As a Washingtonian I am SO disappointed and shocked at this vote by our two "Democratic" senators. I keep thinking there must be some explanation that is escaping me?

I have written to them both to state my disappoinment and to request an explanation. In truth, I suppose it's simply politics as usual. Think they will admit that?

Thanks for the heads up on this.

senators decision. Maybe later. My initial reaction is one of dismayed non-surprise. We live in a de facto oligarchy. These guys know who butters their bread and they know it ain't you and me.

...moderate senators? What makes this a reasonable idea to me? Huh? After the free ride the super rich got over the past eight years and the generally light treatment since Reagan, how has that helped use regular people?

I can't help think these folks are just afraid of the R.s and like enablers in bad relationships everywhere are willing to appease the abuser just to avoid any trouble. I think it is time to liberal-up and take on these rich interests.

Thanks for the thread, madfloridian.:thumbsup:

More Plutocratic.

I shudder to even think about it.

it needs to be pointed out to them they are responding, indirectly, to the GOP talk radio monopoly's assault on democracy, not to the needs of their constituents.

when these votes come up red states like theirs are blanketed with coordinated uncontested repeated bullshit from all the biggest talk radio stations in those states - and tens of thousands of ditto heads threaten their office staff

they need to know they are responding to misinformed automatons who follow blowhards who have been wrong about everything but dominate the airwaves only because they have a well protected monopoly

if those blowhards have positions that are so indefensible that they have to have call screeners to stop all real calls from critics then why should they be listening to their followers?

Though not surprised at our two here in WA.