Warren Buffett's Senate puppets: Doing his bidding on the death tax

By Wes Vernon

As the one-time mayor of Chicago, Harold Washington, used to say, "Politics ain't beanbag." It's a contact sport.

We recently saw another example of that just before the Senate went home for the August recess. Despite those of you who responded to this column's RenewAmerica Alert (See Frist to Reid: Minimum Wage? Put up or shut up — August 2, 2006) and to the pleas of others, the Senate fell three votes short of the 60 votes needed to pass the bill combining a minimum wage hike with lowering the death tax.

It is outrageous, of course, that the Senate's right to filibuster has been so badly abused. It used to be that the filibuster was used only on rare occasions. In those days, we were going through the 100-year pains of healing the wounds of the Civil War.

Now, the dam has been broken and the Senate's Democrats have turned the filibuster into "just another day at the office." Every issue is fair game for a filibuster. Every controversial measure is ipso facto a filibuster target, which means everything — absolutely everything the Democrats don't like — requires a 60-vote majority in the 100-member Senate.

From the liberal point of view, there is a rationale to this. Liberals are almost insanely outraged that anyone could possibly question the right to rule as their birthright. Their old FDR coalition has fallen apart, they've been losing elections, and so the only weapon at their disposal in the Senate is obstruction.

The wage hike/death tax bill garnered a convincing 57-vote majority in the 100-member Senate. The two main issues plus other elements of the bill enjoyed majority support. But no! The Warren Buffett caucus would not stand for it. (Warren Buffet caucus? Bear with me on this.)

The Founding Fathers' idea was that the Senate should be able to slow things down so that nothing is done on the spur of the moment without proper consideration. They did not intend that the filibuster should be used on a routine basis to throw sand in the gears of the entire legislative process.

In our last column, we named sixteen senators "on the fence" who might be persuaded to vote for the bill. Of those 16, only four (Nelson, D-Neb., Nelson, D-Fla., Byrd, D-W.Va., Lincoln, D-Ark.) cast their lot with the 57-vote majority. Baucus, D-Mont., was also expected to vote with the majority, but was absent so he could attend the funeral of his nephew.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist says he reserves the right to bring up the measure again in September. As Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid sputters, Frist says OK, the Dems wanted their minimum wage, let them put up, shut up, or go into the upcoming election explaining why they voted against it after screaming for it all year.

And for what? So that they could force the heirs of a family business to sell the family farm, or small business to pay a 55% death tax, so Warren Buffett's company can swoop down and grab the property at fire-sale prices. Thus he and his partners take advantage of the grieving heirs who are hardly in a good bargaining position since they absolutely must sell in order to pay the taxes. Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway buys the property and re-sells it at a tidy profit.

You understand, of course, that the leading senators in the Warren Buffett caucus never tire of shouting from the rooftops they are the party of the poor downtrodden. And to them, they're being perfectly consistent. After all, poor Warren Buffett is "disadvantaged" because he is only the world's second richest man. Poor fellow just can't keep up with Bill Gates.

Warren Buffett caucus members such as Senator Dick Durbin, for example, howl about how killing or lowering the death tax — a term he hates, but that's what it is — would allow "the rich" to get off scot free in their graves. How? Because their kids who helped them build the family business actually would be able to carry it on after they depart. Senator Durbin believes punishment should be meted out to those who have the foresight to plan ahead for their kids' future.

But how would he know any better? Durbin's bio shows he has spent his entire professional life at the public trough, either in government or academia. People who build their own businesses do so through hard work, and they are a major part of the backbone of this nation's economy. Having to meet a payroll in the private sector can give you an insight not available to those who have not had the experience. I don't know whether Mr. Durbin has been briefed on that.

But don't worry about the Durbins of the Senate. Their minds are made up, and they will not be confused with facts.

Two Republicans voted for the filibuster. They are Voinovich, OH., and Chafee, R.I.

As for the Democrats, the question is whether Senator Maria Cantwell, D.-Wash., can face constituents in her state who earn their living working in the timber industry which would have benefited from this bill — or whether Senator Robert Menendez, D.-N.J., can explain his vote to small business owners in his home base in Hudson County and elsewhere in the Garden State — or whether Senator Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., can explain her vote to union members in the Wolverine State who don't work for the minimum wage, but know that every time the minimum wage goes up, that adds pressure for hikes in their own wages.

Speaking of which: Columnist Robert Novak reports that many conservatives believe that Republicans who supported the minimum wage hike — even as part of a broader compromise package — have deserted their conservative principles.

There is, in fact, a good case to be made that hiking the minimum wage — earned by only a small fraction of the workforce — only makes it tougher for entry-level workers to get jobs. We're talking here largely about kids working their way through college or high school kids seeking summer employment.

The Wall Street Journal on August 1 carried an excellent article arguing that raising the minimum wage is a drag on the overall economy and does far more damage than good.

Under the headline, "If Only Most Americans Understood," David R. Henderson, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, writes, "Even many who favor raising the minimum wage admit it would destroy jobs." He cites as an example a recent New York Times op-ed by Michael Dukakis (yes, that Michael Dukakis) and Daniel Mitchell of UCLA's Graduate School of Management, wherein they acknowledge "it's possible some low-end jobs may be lost."

Having said that, this column stands by its judgment that combining the minimum wage hike with lowering the death tax is good strategy on the part of Senate Republicans.

If "politics ain't beanbag," let the 30-second TV ads begin taking lawmakers to task for playing the demagogue for a higher minimum wage and then voting against it. And all of this just so they can help Warren Buffett move in for the kill when family farms or businesses have to be sold to pay the death tax.

© Wes Vernon