Letter writers sink to unfortunate low - letter by Dan Lourie - commentary

Dan Lourie is a frequent contributor to the letters section of the Chronicle, and he has tangled with Peter Arnone before with less than spectacular results. Here is yet another foray into inanity as Mr. Lourie impugns and derides people in a glaring display of intellectual bankruptcy. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

-------------
Rightist mouthpiece Henry Kriegel’s (reproduced below.)

regressive attack on Sen. Baucus (read Mr. Krigel's editorial below and see if you can discern how he attacked Max Baucus. I just don't see it. So if this is the standard Mr. Lourie embraces as far as what constitutes an "attack, " I'm going to hold him to the same standard regarding his letter.) 

and the estate tax (“death tax” in Kriegel’s teaparty-ese) and Peter Arnone’s commie-baiting devolution (I wasn't able to locate this letter.) 

into the hateful, malodorous morass of Mc-Carthyism, provide more insight into the deranged right’s extremist propaganda than they advance the cause of moral, rational and equitable governing of our democracy. (We are starting to get a feel for Mr. Lourie's idea of respectful, civil discourse, aren't we?) 

They also demonstrate how a party’s thorough repudiation (Um, yeah. President Obama received 51% of the vote...) 

at the polls inspires irresponsible rants, not constructive musings on healing wounds and coming together as a civilized society. (Wow. Just wow. Mr. Lourie just finished using descriptors like "commie-bating," "hateful," "malodorous morass," "deranged," and "extremist propaganda." Yet his very next sentence calls for "...constructive musings on healing wounds and coming together as a civilized society." Is this not an impressive cognitive disconnect? How could any rational person rip someone up one side and down the other is the most vile, hateful way, and then in the very next breath call for civility?) 

Arnone was joined by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, deservedly ridiculed by fellow Republicans for contending that, at Harvard Law School, “there were 12 ... (faculty) Marxists who believed in ... overthrowing the U.S. government.” (Senator Cruz's actual words: "There were fewer declared Republicans in the faculty when we were there than Communists! There was one Republican. But there were twelve who would say they were Marxists who believed in the Communists overthrowing the United States government." Note that Senator Cruz was a law student at Harvard, he's not some backwoods yokel. And also note that this speech was from 2010, yet it's just now making rounds through the left-wing echo-chamber. Senator Cruz is speaking from first hand experience, and his observations are corroborated here.) 

Arnone should brush up on the definition of Communism, and Cruz might want to move past being a late night comedian’s punch line as the price for becoming known in his senatorial rookie year.

Kriegel’s pandering to those funding his already marginalized, out-of-touch, reactionary fringe group by opposing a reasonable and fair estate tax, seeks simply to enhance the ongoing proliferation of plutocracy. In 2010, Congress permanently set estate exemptions at $5 million (keyed to inflation,) eliminating estate tax for 99+ percent of the population, guaranteeing that all but the richest of the rich will be able to protect their holdings from taxes. Its purpose is less raising revenue than putting a (welcome) check on the massive, pernicious concentration of wealth in a few hands. (This is the purpose of taxation? To change peoples' behavior and "guide" society into certain kinds of outcomes? Did you notice how Mr. Lourie bristled at the idea there were numerous Marxists at Harvard, but is happy to advocate Marxist doctrines like using the power of the state to transfer wealth?)

I find it difficult to sympathize with election corrupting billionaires and those, like Kriegel, who do their bidding. Wouldn’t their wealth and energy be better spent (Like a typical Marxist, Mr. Lourie is always happy to tell people how they should spend their own money. And if they won't do so voluntarily, we have just seen in the previous paragraph that Mr. Lourie is overjoyed at the idea of government forcing people to do those things.) 

enhancing educational opportunities for all children regardless of economic status, providing universal access to quality health care for all Americans,  guaranteeing care, jobs and housing for returning veterans, and investing in job-creating infrastructure repairs? (In other words, rather than fight against government excess and creeping totalitarianism, why can't Mr. Kreigel simply adopt the leftist agenda? Wouldn't it make more sense for him to abandon what he believes in favor of what Mr. Lourie thinks he should believe? After all, Mr. Lourie wants to engage in "healing wounds and coming together as a civilized society," and what better way to achieve this than to eliminate dissent?

Whew. I'm exhausted. Mr. Lourie veers from topic to topic like a drunken sailor on shore leave weaving down the street from bar to bar. He starts with Henry Kreigel, then moves on to Peter Arnone and Senator Ted Cruz, then back to Mr. Kreigel, all in the space of 300 words. This is a tour de force of leftist talking points, scorched-earth rhetorical tactics, and the typical inability of leftists to follow a logical train of thought. Any thinking leftist has got to be wondering, "How do we shut this guy up? We can't keep having him embarrass us.")

Dan Lourie

--------------

Henry Kriegel's editorial: 

Few federal tax policies are as immediately revolting as the death tax. The idea that the government has the right to confiscate a set percentage of an individual’s assets after his death strikes us as downright immoral. It punishes grieving family members, adds stressful burdens both before and after death, and lets government step between the dying person and their bequest to the designated inheritors. Moreover, it's double taxation because the deceased person already paid taxes on the income used to buy his assets.

It's particularly troublesome to Montana ag and small business owners. The last thing Montana’s ranchers and farmers need is to have Uncle Sam confiscating almost half of their property instead of allowing it to transfer to their family. Thus, I'd like to take solace that the death tax may be reduced or abolished when Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, says things like, “We cannot let Montana families get hit with an estate tax hike next year ... I'm doing all I can to get the best possible deal to make sure family farms and ranches can stay in the family where they belong.” After all, Sen. Baucus’s chairmanship gives him the power to hold hearings on the elimination of the death tax, fight for legislation that eliminates the death tax, and make it a part of his policy agenda to eliminate the death tax. If he really was doing “all I can” to ensure the protection of Montana’s ranchers and farms from Uncle Sam’s greedy grasp, he should be doing these things.

But instead, Sen. Baucus has done practically nothing to abolish the death tax thus far in the new session of Congress.

In fact, Sen. Baucus voted for an increase to the death tax when he voted for the poorly-named American Taxpayer Relief Act at the beginning of the year. The provision permanently raised the maximum death tax rate from its previous level at 35 percent to 40 percent. Individuals are allowed to transfer up to $5.25 million to surviving family members, but they will get slammed at 40 percent taxes if the amount of their assets exceeds the $5.25 million mark. This can easily be the case with Montana family farms and, farmers – who are usually land rich and cash poor – can find themselves needing to sell the farm to pay the 40 percent tax.

For a senator that talks big about the death tax when he’s addressing his constituents, Sen. Baucus’ complicit non-action on this issue casts significant doubt on his credibility. If he truly stands by his words that he is “doing all I can” to make sure that the estates of Montana’s ranchers and farmers go to their family members after death, then why has he not done anything to match his talk?

Montana’s farmers and ranchers currently pay an arm and a leg in taxes on the income they already make. Taxing them again through the death tax is an immoral form of double or triple taxation on the same wealth they’ve already paid taxes for over their entire lives. Their family members don’t need to deal with the hassle and stress that comes from the death tax when they eventually die.

It’s time for Sen. Baucus to use his position as finance chair to put action behind his words and put an end to the death tax, not just for Montana, but for all Americans.