Senators Stake Out Absurd Positions on Fiscal "Responsibility"

I just wanted to take a minute or two to heap scorn on the Senators who voted to cut taxes for millionaires [1], but especially on those who claim allegiance to "fiscal responsibility."

Matthew Yglesias [2]:

I’m especially fake-surprised to see Senator Lincoln leading the charge for this, since she’s a charter member [3] of Evan Bayh’s “practical caucus” which fake-believes that fiscal discipline is so important that it’s necessary to curtail progressive priorities. Apparently, deficit reduction is more important than affordable health insurance but less important than giveaways to multi-millionaires. Indeed, Lincoln’s alleged commitment to fiscal responsibility looks even more dubious in light of her support for the2001 Bush tax cuts [4].

Ezra Klein [5]:

Yesterday, Evan Bayh broke with his party on a vote besides the budget: He was one of nine Democrats to support the Kyl-Lincoln estate tax bill reducing the estate tax on rich families at a cost of $250 billion over 10 years. The tax change is not paid for, and so that $250 billion is borrowed.

In his statement [on the budget resolution], Bayh says that "the money we will borrow will fund important priorities like affordable health care, energy independence, job creation, and education improvements, rather than tax cuts for the most affluent." On first read, I assumed he was paying a compliment to the priorities of the budget. Now I realize he was explaining the reason for his opposition.

Tim Fernholz [6]:

...all the folks freaking out about how the Obama administration's very reasonable plan to lower the tax deductions to Reagan-era levels would hurt charities haven't said a peep about how removing the estate tax would hurt charities much more.

It's nice to see our conservative and moderate senators taking time to focus on the people who have been really hit hard by the economic crisis -- the heirs of estates ranging between $7 million and $10 million.

Ben Furnas [7]:

While opponents of the estate tax claim rolling it back protects small farms and businesses, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities points out [8] that “only 0.2 percent of the additional cost of the proposal, relative to [the Obama proposal], would go toward tax cuts for small businesses and farms.”

The rest of the cost, approximately $249.5 billion, would go to the inheritors of estates worth over $7 million. Paris Hilton, get excited.

Let’s make one thing clear: the estate tax affects a vanishingly small number of American families. Under President Barack Obama’s budget, over 99.7% [9] of people who pass away wouldn’t pay a dime.

Apparently, however, this isn’t enough for some Senators, who would gut revenues needed for investments in health care, education and energy in order to reward the inheritors of massive estates with $249.5 billion.