Mickey Mouse, the Estate Tax and Me

By Abigail Disney
Column featured in USA Today on August 31, 2010

Once upon a time there was a cartoon character created by an inventive man named Walt Disney, my great uncle. Plucky, irascible and spirited, this character delighted families across the country and was the first in a long line of successes for the company Walt started with my grandfather, Roy O. Disney.

But the character's name might surprise you: Oswald the Lucky Rabbit. The Disney brothers' first success wasn't all that lucky for the company. The cartoon's distributor wrested the rights to Oswald away from Walt and Roy almost as soon as he had become popular. This loss was a huge setback for both men, and my grandfather vowed never to let himself be taken advantage of again. He soon registered a copyright on a new character named Mickey Mouse. It was 1928, and it was neither the first nor the last time the Walt Disney Co. benefited from a federal system of protections, laws and taxes that created fertile ground for building a business empire.

In addition to the copyright protections for Mickey, the Federal Communications Commission regulated the airwaves that carried the Disneyland television series and, of course, the Mickey Mouse Club. The transportation and federal highway system built in the wake of World War II took millions of visitors to Disneyland. The Marshall Plan helped rebuild devastated European markets into which Disney poured its products, turning a quaint American company into a global brand.

Taxes are on everyone's mind lately for good reason. Not only will Congress have to make some tough decisions about the Bush tax cuts soon, but if lawmakers do nothing, the estate tax will automatically be reinstated after a year's hiatus — in its 2001 form. A great deal of misinformation is flying around out there about this, but most agree that the tax is flawed and needs to be modified.

One thing I do know is this: In a far stricter tax environment, my grandfather still managed to accumulate and pass on ample funds to make three subsequent generations very comfortable indeed. And as an inheritor I am here to tell you, the estate tax is not as much of a bogeyman as you've been led to believe.

The truth in numbers

Let's start with the facts:

• First, the estate tax is not a double tax. Have you met a multimillionaire who earned that much money pulling down a weekly paycheck? People who make enough to be affected by the estate tax — fewer than 1% of Americans who die in any given year — amass their fortunes by investing. Investment income is taxed differently from earned income, often not at all until it's sold. People like me, who inherit assets such as Disney stock, can spend our lives watching those assets grow, and when we pass them along to our children, they have not been touched or diminished at all by the tax system. The only thing I have paid taxes on is the interest from these assets, not their increased value.

• Second, opponents of the estate tax claim family farms will have to be broken up to pay the tax, but good luck finding an example of this. Further, if the exemption is kept at $3.5 million (where it stood last year) and indexed for inflation, the likelihood of this ever happening is reduced to nil.

• Third, the estate tax incentivizes people like me to do good with our wealth because there is no estate tax on donations to charity. My filmmaking and foundations rely on a tax code that supports a vigorous non-profit sector, a vital part of our society that is bigger and stronger because of the many millions of dollars that flow into it as a result of the estate tax and other tax provisions.

To those who believe the estate tax is unfair, I say that there is no tax more fair than this one. I recently signed the Call to Preserve the Estate Tax organized by United for a Fair Economy because the estate tax is an expression of our deepest American values: that we live in a meritocracy, not an aristocracy; that every generation is a fresh start; and that we choose to build a society in which wealth and opportunity do not accrue to people simply for being born wealthy.

Walt and Roy embody those values: They started without two cents to rub together and made a million wishes come true.

I have seen the business environment in Liberia, for example, a country with no tax revenues. I suspect even my brilliant grandfather would not have been able to build a successful business there. I have been to places like Sudan and Congo and know what it looks like when there is no 911 to call, no schools and where governments are disinterested in working toward the collective good.

The cornerstone

Here at home, I have watched the gap between rich and poor driven to historic highs by a tax policy that has exacerbated our deficit and eviscerated our basic capacity to provide schooling, emergency services, and clean water and air for one and all. The estate tax is the cornerstone of a progressive system that leaves wealthy heirs with ample funds while providing the government with the resources it needs to build an environment for the common good. By preserving it, we not only restore billions in revenue to the national treasury — we also restore our most cherished collective ideals as a nation.

"Tax me" may be the least popular sentence in America, but it's what I am asking, and I hope that our leaders are listening.

Abigail Disney is a filmmaker and philanthropist. Her series Women, War & Peace will air on PBS Wide Angle in 2011.

As year-end approaches, the debate over the expiring Bush tax cuts is getting messy and harder to tolerate. Part of the reason is that there are more than just the usual suspects trying to advance clearly terrible proposals.

Sarabeth Guthberg at 1115.org had me squinting at her blistering critique of claims made by political advisor/economist Mark Zandi. (He had it coming.) As a key advisor to House Speaker Pelosi, Zandi is trying to rally support for permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts benefiting the "middle class," and a one-year-but-not-really extension of the tax breaks for those earning more than $250,000 per year (roughly the top 2%). He says it's necessary because the recovery is still too fragile, and that even the richest Americans "may be sensitive." (And, we wouldn't wanna make anyone cry, right?)

Experts from different sides of the board, including Paul Krugman and Alan Greenspan, have sounded off, saying the Republican proposal to permanently extend all of the Bush tax cuts is a bad idea. The tab for such a move would run up to around $3.7 trillion over 10 years.

Guthberg summed up the costs of 10-year extension of the Bush tax cuts benefiting those being defined as "wealthy," and those defined as "middle-class" by the Obama administration:

"For the first 98% of Americans, extending the tax cuts for 10 years will cost $3 trillion. By a rough calculation, that’s $2,500 each year per taxpayer.

For the next 1.9% of Americans, extending the tax cuts for 10 years will cost $320 billion. By a rough calculation, that’s $14,000 each year per taxpayer.

For the last 0.1% of Americans, extending the tax cuts for 10 years will cost $360 billion. By a rough calculation, that’s $300,000 each year per taxpayer."

And, the Washington Post put together a nifty bubble chart to show us what the 10-year per taxpayer costs would look like across income levels.

In spite of the massive price tag on the Obama proposal to extend tax cuts for the first 98% of earners, the overall economic impact would be stimulative, as low- and middle-income people will continue to create demand for goods and services. The $680 billion it would cost to extend the tax cuts for the top 2% would unnecessarily contribute to the GOP's precious deficit and further shift the costs of public services onto said middle class, which would be particularly tough on middle to low-income families.

The passage of President Obama's proposal on the Bush tax cuts would be a small, but positive step. It's not our endgame, but we can still use the momentum of a modest victory to press forward for greater tax fairness.

Looking for a laugh? Watch Stephen Colbert's commentary on the Bush tax cuts.

Chart h/t Washington Post

Back to story

Photo h/t wsws.org

This August, President Obama signed into law a bill that would save more than 300,000 jobs in teaching and public service. Amidst this Great Recession, that seems like a no-brainer, but it turned out to be one of the more controversial bills of the summer. Republican demands that the bill be deficit-neutral led to the shifting of $26 billion (half the House's intended allocation) away from food stamp and green jobs program to fund the initiative.

This resulted in an outpouring of negative media coverage: public employees called “fat cats” and federal aid to states labeled “another sloth-encouraging bailout." One headline even likened this effort to preserve teaching jobs to theft: “Robbing Renewable Energy to Pay Teachers.”

All this haggling was over $26 billion. $26 BILLION! That's, by any standard, a sizable amount. But, compared to the nearly $137 billion Congress has allocated to the largely unpopular Iraq and Afghan wars in this fiscal year, or the $680 billion it could cost to extend the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% of households over the next decade, it's peanuts.

With unemployment at 9.5%, foreclosure afflicting a projected 1 million households this year, almost one in eight Americans receiving food stamps, and still-soaring healthcare costs, one might wonder why our budget isn't sufficient enough to address these issues. Approximately 58% of the 2010 discretionary federal budget is sucked up by defense, and a multitude of other very important programs end up being treated like parking meters – funded with what pocket change remains. It's no news flash that there's plenty of waste that needs to be cut out of the defense budget.

It is absolutely absurd that our elected leadership would buckle to Republican demands for deficit-neutrality in funding public services and clean energy development. Neither the ongoing Iraq and Afghan wars, nor the $2.5 trillion Bush tax cuts of the past decade were paid for up front. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) names both of the above, if continued, as two primary drivers of the coming decade's deficit. A June CBPP report explains:

"Together with the economic downturn, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years.

The deficit for fiscal year 2009 was $1.4 trillion and, at nearly 10 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), was the largest deficit relative to the size of the economy since the end of World War II. If current policies are continued without changes, deficits will likely approach those figures in 2010 and remain near $1 trillion a year for the next decade."

So, when the GOP calls for paygo on public education, safety and health, this is what that translates to: Trillions of dollars for senseless wars and tax breaks for the wealthy? ABSOLUTELY! The well being of the American majority? Come on people, turn your pockets out.

It's high time our federal spending priorities be reassessed, and it's got to start with one simple question: Are we helping those who need help? The way Congress is currently doing things gives the impression that they're not only blind to the escalating strains that the recession is having on people, but also the devastation their big business alliances are wreaking on the planet.

How the Estate Tax Benefits Small Businesses

Don't let opponents of the estate tax frighten you.

Small business owners like me have for too long served as poster children for a misleading campaign led by the super wealthy to weaken or abolish the estate tax. I'm the proud owner of Maine's Borealis Breads, and I want to make something crystal clear: The estate tax impacts neither me nor the vast majority of small business owners. In fact, I support a stronger estate tax.

In 2009, a married couple could leave $7 million tax-free to their heirs. Most small business owners' annual incomes are too little to accumulate enough wealth to pay the estate tax. In 2009, individuals earning less than $82,000 declared 95 percent of all small business income, according to the Congressional Research Service. It should then be no surprise that the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates that fewer than 100 American small business or farm estates were expected to pay the estate tax in 2009.

A provision in the tax cuts passed under President George W. Bush made 2010 the first year since 1916 that estate taxes were not levied, resulting in the loss of billions of dollars in federal revenue. For generations, even with the estate tax in effect, families have been able to pass their small businesses and farms onto their descendents. These same generations of small family businesses have enjoyed and benefited from the unprecedented opportunities found in America.

So if the estate tax has no real impact on an overwhelming majority of small businesses, why then do its opponents so adamantly assert that it does? I believe the answer to that question is that opponents are trying desperately to convince average Americans that they'll be affected by the estate tax. In reality, the estate tax is deliberately designed to affect only society's wealthiest households. [...]

Read the full op-ed by Jim Amaral on OtherWords.org

Nation Under a Microscope: Pain & Hope at the Local Level

By Antionetta Kelly, UFE Intern via the Hampshire College Civil Liberties and Public Policy program

Working as an intern at United for a Fair Economy (UFE) has helped me realize that taxes, economic policy and government play vital roles in improving our communities. UFE warns against and strives to dilute concentrated wealth and power. They work on a national scale to promote progressive economic policies that can enable all levels of government to invest in the common good, and support a grassroots economic justice movement that can bring those policies to fruition.

When we zoom in to see what's happening at the local level, in too many areas we're finding that community development remains stagnant, including in our own, Boston. Here, local decision-makers continue to place the interests of monied special interests above the needs of most residents – especially those in underdeveloped neighborhoods. Here's a snapshot of what we've been dealing with:

In 2009 – despite revenue growth in several tax categories – local officials contended that Boston was in an economic crisis, yet responded with tax breaks for large corporations and threats to lay off hundreds of teachers, public safety and other city workers.

Even more disheartening, the city has forfeited opportunities to generate significant revenue through property sales. Last year, the City of Boston sold twenty-five lots at far less than their assessed values. In one instance, a property assessed at $99,400 (currently at $114,400), was sold to a city employee for only $5,000! And, in spite of this period of austerity, our local officials have approved hefty tax breaks for corporations, relinquishing tens of millions of dollars in corporate tax revenue.

Meanwhile, our communities continue to deal with unacceptable high school drop-out rates, municipal unemployment of 8.2%, and too many neighborhoods reeling from the effects of concentrated foreclosures. In spite of that, our local officials have asked us to make sacrifices regarding public services like libraries and schools because of insufficient funding. Just before his 2009 re-election campaign Mayor Thomas Menino asserted that there wasn’t enough money to fund teaching, public safety and community outreach jobs, and when union workers in these areas refused to accept his proposed wage freezes, he threatened them with hundreds of layoffs and building shutdowns. More recently, there have been proposals to close several library branches, and claims that funding isn't available to provide enough summer jobs for local teens. 

Our local government could do more to extend employment opportunities to marginalized communities, or at the very least, enforce the policies that are designed to support those efforts, like the Boston Residents Jobs Policy (BRJP). The BRJP mandates that developers hire 50 percent Boston residents, 25 percent people of color and 10 percent women; however, those quotas have been consistently brushed aside. 

These types of policy decisions – ones that prioritize special interests over the residential majority – undermine our city's economic well being. The social consequences can be extremely severe – increased unemployment, wider-spread foreclosures, diminished public safety, escalating crime and violence, increased community health risks, a widening racial divide, and ultimately, the creation of economic deserts. And, the longer the causes go unaddressed, the more difficult it will be to reverse the cycles of poverty.

Boston's current socioeconomic situation isn't unique. Budget deficits are an epidemic, affecting communities in every part of the US. But, there is so much our governments -- local, state and federal -- could do to alleviate the pains millions of Americans are experiencing as a result of this recession. We can no longer allow corruption or cowardice to steer our economy in the wrong direction. It's up to us and our communities to make that change.

As Justice Louis Brandeis once suggested, state legislatures are our nation's "laboratories for democracy." Well, local governments are our nation's vanguards. Both the innovations and the power of a democratic system come from the ground up, and progressive social change will only come about when communities rise up against injustice.

Dishonoring MLK's Legacy

What do Beck, Palin, and the NRA have to do with the 1963 March on Washington?

"This year's anniversary of the historic 1963 March on Washington promises to be memorable.Though big commemorations aren't typical for 47th anniversaries, thousands will be in the streets on August 28 commemorating the march, including many people advancing a social agenda that would make Martin Luther King Jr. roll over in his grave.

Flamboyant talk-show host Glenn Beck has called for a national rally on the anniversary at the exact same location as the historic protest, the Lincoln Memorial. Beck's rally theme is 'Restoring Honor.' According to his website, this "celebration of America" won't be political. Well then, why have Sarah Palin scheduled to deliver the keynote speech, and why is the National Rifle Association endorsing this right-wing spectacle?

From what I can gather, these folks think that America can restore its honor by strengthening individual virtue, especially if enough people come to Washington on Aug. 28 to listen to inflammatory speeches. Or pick up copies of Beck's new book 'The Plan,' which he'll launch at this absurd event.

What do Beck, Palin, and the NRA have to do with the 1963 March on Washington, where Dr. Martin Luther King delivered the landmark "I Have a Dream" speech? Nothing. Beck has admitted not realizing that the legendary March occurred on Aug. 28. He credits "divine providence" for having his rally/book launch converge with such a historic event. Beck now proclaims that he is working "to finish the job" that was at the heart of King's poetic vision. [...]"

Read the full op-ed by Dedrick Muhammad on OtherWords.org

N.Y. Governor Sings Into Law Limits on Charitable Deductions

"New York Gov. David A. Paterson has signed into law a revenue bill passed by the state’s legislature that limits charitable deductions for “high earners”—a move that has nonprofits and a prominent New York philanthropist worried about a related significant loss in contributions to charity.

The law puts new limits on tax deductions for people with state-adjusted gross income above $10-million annually—about 3,500 taxpayers in New York. Those residents are now able to write off only 25 percent of their charitable contributions on their state income taxes rather than the previous 50 percent.

The provision in the budget plan runs for three years, including the current 2010 tax year.

The charitable-deduction pro­vision could provide up to $100-million in revenue during the current fiscal year for the state, which has had a budget crisis and has sought additional funds. But nonprofit organizations and donors think the change will lead many wealthy people to give less money to charity.

'Charities have been hit from every side in the last three years, including seeing decreases in public funds,' said Abigail E. Disney, a New York philanthropist and film maker. [...]

Read the full column by Grant Williams in The Chronicle of Philanthropy.

"Both capitalists and workers might agree on one thing: it's time to restore the estate tax.

This was the message sent last week by United for a Fair Economy's Responsible Wealth Project. The Bush 2003 tax cuts temporarily suspended the estate tax for 2010, a move that benefits only the wealthiest fraction of American families and adds tens of billions of dollars to the federal deficit. 

In a media teleconference on behalf of United for a Fair Economy, labor leader Richard Trumka made the issue clear. 

"The estate tax is a progressive tax, and it is the only wealth tax we have," he said. 

Trumka, who is the president of the AFL-CIO, noted that if the estate tax bills currently pending in Congress were to pass only a fraction of one percent of estates would be required to pay any taxes. 

Small farmers and businesses owners simply aren't valuable to be taxed under the provisions of the estate tax. 

The revenue from the estate tax should be used to fund public investment in infrastructure, saving teachers' jobs and providing aid to states with budget shortfalls, Trumka explained. 

He noted that the federal deficit remains a long-term issue and should be handled as a structural issue in the future. 

"Our economy remains on the edge of a double-dip recession, and we urgently need to create millions of jobs and invest in our future, not give more tax breaks to the wealthy," Trumka said. 

"Anyone who pretends to care about cutting deficits while opposing the restoration of the estate tax is clearly residing on a different planet." [...]"

Read the full article by Joel Wendland on PoliticalAffairs.net

"As an 89-year-old successful businessperson who faces the "death tax" issue, I have to respond to the July 19 article by Curtis Dubay ("Harkin Heads Wrong Way on Death Tax").

One of America's problems is that the wealthy and powerful have distorted the tax debate. The tax issue is not whether taxes should be raised or lowered. The tax issue is who should pay the taxes. I am one of those who believe, "People should be taxed according to their ability to pay." 

In1928, the richest 1 percent of our population received 23.9 percent of the nation's income. We had a depression. The New Deal, World War II, the G.I. Bill and the Great Society restored our economy. Under President Eisenhower the top income tax rate was 91 percent. The nation and the general population prospered. We were the envy of the world. 

I went to Congress in 1975. In the late '70s the income of the top 1 percent was down to 8 or 9 percent of America's total income. The income was more broadly spread and the nation prospered. 

Then we made a terrible mistake. The politicians caught tax-cut fever, with a big part of the tax cuts going to the super-rich. That tax-cut fever exists even today.  [...]"

Read the full op-ed by Berkley Bedell on DesMoinesRegister.com.

"From running your dog at a city dog park and parking your car, to visitng the local community center, the use of government services can be like feeding a vending machine as residents find themselves nickel and dimed for services that once cost little or nothing. [...]

So where does the money go?

Turning a trip to a city park or public beach into a trip to a vending machine leaves residents wondering where their tax money goes, said Karen Kraut, director of the Tax Fairness Organizing Collaborative, a network of state level advocacy groups at United for a Fair Economy. It turns citizens into consumers, and creates resentment to use a public service where everything is a commodity, Kraut said in a telephone interview with WalletPop.

'In general nickel and diming is less courageous than raising taxes' such as the income tax, she said. The federal government should help states financially, and state legislators should be brave enough to pass progressive tax reform where the highest earners pay more, she said. Paying a $5 fee to go to a park hurts a lot less for a millionaire than it does the average person, Kraut said.

'It's a cheap out by politicians who can't support a broad-based tax increase,' she said. 'It's really a disincentive.' [...]"

Read about 10 public places where you may be nickeled or dimed in this blog post by Aaron Crow.

"I attended Yahoo's Annual Shareholder meeting on June 24, 2010 at the Doubletree Hotel in San Jose, California. About 35 non-employee shareholders and 50 Yahoo employees attended. What a change! No media circus, no hoopla about Icahn's or Microsoft's intentions, and no ill-advised grandstanding by Bostock--just a normal, professional annual meeting. In short, Carol Bartz is simply amazing. She has taken Yahoo from seemingly endless PR disasters to instant credibility. Even Bostock--whose dithering I despise--seems tolerable next to Bartz. In fact, "to dither"--which means, "to be nervously irresolute in acting or doing"--seemed to be Yahoo's motif before Bartz.

Bostock (pronounced, "Bah-stock") opened the meeting by introducing Yahoo's Board of Directors and Executive team. (I was happy to see Brad Smith, Intuit's CEO and Yahoo Board member, at the meeting. Intuit's consistent ability to deliver strong products makes it an excellent partner to have.) Bostock said that Bartz had acted "decisively" and the Yahoo team had "made enormous progress." He turned the podium over to Yahoo's general counsel, who handled the formal portion of the meeting.

Yahoo's general counsel did a fantastic job. After hearing Responsible Wealth's representative Lincoln Pain introduce a shareholder proposal ("Say on Pay"), Yahoo opened the floor for comments on the proposal, limiting statements to two minutes. Yahoo's approach to shareholder proposal comments creates a good balance between too much information and too little information. Too many companies won't allow shareholders to comment on proposals or go the other direction and allow shareholders unlimited time. [...]"

Read the full blog post on Gotshares.com 

"The question of death and taxes has risen to the fore in Washington as the demise of prominent billionaires has underscored a fluke which allows big estates to escape taxes, but only for this year.

Highlighting the conundrum has been the death of wealthy Americans including oil tycoon Dan Duncan and New York Yankees baseball owner George Steinbrenner, who can pass on their fortunes to heirs with no taxes. Duncan's fortune was estimated at nine billion dollars and Steinbrenner's at 1.1 billion by Forbes magazine. [...]

Some activists say the estate tax is progressive because it distributes wealth from the richest; but critics deride it as a "death tax" and claim it hurts farms and family businesses when an owner dies. [...]

Some wealthy Americans have been supporting a new estate tax, even if it may cost them a hefty sum.

A group of millionaires and heirs to major fortunes joined a call in July by United for a Fair Economy, a group fighting economic inequality, for a new estate tax.

Among those joining the call were hedge fund manager Julian Robertson and Abigail Disney, grandniece of Walt Disney. [...]"

Read the full AFP column by Rob Lever on Google News

"Imagine joining friends for a late-night game of Monopoly, but in this game, there's a twist: At the start of the game, one player gets an entire side of the game board, from Pacific Ave. to Boardwalk, including the Short Line railroad. Instead of pondering easy questions like whether to be the shoe or the thimble, you're now grappling with a more important question: Do you even stand a chance in such a lopsided game?

As you ponder the fairness of this board game, Congress is debating the very real future of our federal estate tax, a tax on inherited wealth designed in part to prevent one player from owning most of the board before the game even begins.

Recently, a new proposal was introduced in an effort to break through the stalemate that has led to the current tax holiday for the super wealthy. Because of the inability of Congress to reach agreement back in December, the year 2010 is slowly passing as the first since 1916 with no estate tax. Billions of dollars are now being transferred tax-free, while our national deficit grows. The heirs of the late Texas billionaire Dan Duncan stand to inherit, free of any estate tax, more than the average American earns in 4,000 lifetimes. No one questions the right of parents to pass on a legacy to their children, but how much is enough?

Despite its kitchen table status today, the Monopoly board game can trace its roots to Lizzie Magie, who created the game in 1903 as an educational tool to help people understand that free market economies, absent rules to ensure otherwise, naturally move toward monopoly control as wealth is increasingly concentrated into the hands of the few. It takes public policies, from anti-monopoly rules to progressive tax systems, to protect free markets from this self-destructive tendency. The fact is: any economic system is effective only to the extent that its more extreme aspects are reined in. [...]"

Read the full op-ed by Brian Miller, Executive Director of UFE

"LAST WEEK, Abigail Disney, a filmmaker and an heiress to the Disney family, defended the estate tax eloquently: 'My grandfather [Roy Disney] would be the first person to tell you that he’d managed to amass his fortune not in spite of, but because of, the American system,’' she said. 'After all, without reliable and safe roads there would be no such thing as Disneyland; without high-functioning legal systems and a well-regulated business environment there would have been no copyright protection for Mickey Mouse.’'

It’s a simple, powerful point: Even if they’re talented and have made every right move, the extremely wealthy do owe something to a system that provides them with countless legal protections and business advantages.

It’s too bad we haven’t heard Disney’s sentiments echoed from the Democratic Party. But it’s not surprising, because the estate tax is a case study in a common Democratic affliction: an inability to stay ahead of Republican messaging and to project a clear, compelling lawmaking narrative.

Since the 1980s, a small group of the nation’s wealthiest families have worked tirelessly with conservative politicians and activists to repeal the estate tax, and have largely succeeded in hijacking public perception of it through misinformation: that it greatly burdens small businesses and farms, and that it’s double taxation (numerous studies have shown it isn’t, and many inherited assets were never taxed in the first place). [...]"

Read the full column by Jesse Singal on Boston.com

"In an age when so many politicians hardly dare think a thought that some fundraiser has not endorsed, the Junior Senator from our state of Virginia, Jim Webb, stands out as not afraid to say what he thinks.

He cares deeply about the frontline serviceman and servicewoman, and he certainly makes that known. Recently, he has spoken up on  the catastrophe that is our “justice system,” and I think he might actually spur some action with this bold initiative from an unexpected direction.

But anyone who speaks passionately and on many topics will sometimes wander onto shaky ground. This is what he has done, I believe, in his comments on affirmative action and related issues in his Wall Street Journal essay, 'Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege.' [...]

Throughout the article, Senator Webb made assertions with no facts to back them up.

The most striking example is his statement that 'a plethora of government-enforced diversity policies have marginalized many white workers.' He fails to back up what he must consider self-evident. Unfortunately, this statement is simply wrong. [...]"

Read the full column by Larry Yates, which includes wealth data from UFE's State of the Dream 2010: Drained.

Well, we can say that there is at least one good egg in the Senate. Bernie Sanders called out the hypocrisy of the born again deficit hawks who – just nine years ago – were telling us that “deficits don’t matter." Two wars, two huge sets of tax cuts and a spate of record setting debt accumulation later, we are now in a hole that only leaders as outspoken and honest as Sanders can get us out of.

His recently proposed Responsible Estate Tax Act would be a great way to raise much needed revenue in a way that would only affect multi-millionaires and billionaires. The so-called deficit hawks seem to have a problem with it.

Federal estate tax policy has been a contentious issue since the establishment of Bush’s tax policy in 2001. While its most adamant opponents deem it the “death tax,” supporters of the estate tax maintain that – besides being a sizeable revenue source –  it represents the fundamental American ideal of meritocracy. The estate tax helps to ensure that one achieves success by her own hard work, rather than by the fortune of his or her parents.

As I listened to United for a Fair Economy’s teleconference on the estate tax, I was amazed by Abigail Disney’s simple, yet powerful argument. She dispelled the myth that the estate tax impedes economic success. Disney – who paid a sizeable estate tax herself – pointed to her own family’s financial triumphs, noting that they were possible “not in spite of, but because of the American system of taxation." She reminded us that were it not for federal investment in highways, Disneyland would never have succeeded, or that if we did not have a strong court system Mickey Mouse’s trademark protection would not have endured.

The experiences of the Disney family serve as a poignant reminder of the ways that meaningful public investment can enable the culture, innovation, and values that define us as Americans. More importantly they show us that individual success and adequate government funding need not be described in opposition, but rather that they are woven together as the fabric of a nation’s prosperity.

The estate tax seems like a fitting way for the very wealthy to enable others to share in and expand this prosperity that America represents. It presents a symbolic bridge between individual success and our coveted democratic ideals. The adoption of strong estate tax legislation will not force us to choose between the individual and the nation, or the short term and the long run. Rather, it will serve all of the above.