Not that I’m keeping score or anything, but the Seattle Times has started publishing their editorial endorsements, and with the addition today of top-two fellatrix Sam Reed for Secretary of State and licensed mortician Allan Martin for State Treasurer, so far it is Republicans 4, Democrats 0. Or maybe it’s 3-1… I can never keep my Justice Johnsons straight.
Yeah, sure, the Supreme Court is technically nonpartisan, but as in all nonpartisan races we all know who the Democrats and the Republicans really are (unless they’re named “Johnson”). For example, Justice Mary Fairhurst, let’s be honest, she’s a Democrat, and perhaps the most liberal member of the court. Which is exactly why the Times endorsed her opponent, Michael Bond.
Perhaps Bond really is qualified to serve… I’m no lawyer, so I dunno. But every other paper in the state thus far—including those from such liberal strongholds as Yakima, Tri-Cities and Walla Walla—have endorsed Fairhurst. So despite the Times’ tortured effort to explain away their endorsement, the truth is that they oppose Fairhurst for the exact same partisan reasons that I support her. The difference is, I’m honest about my bias.
The dickwads at the Times are fucking crazy. The greatest danger to the Republic, according to Frank Blethen, is the estate tax.
Frank Blethen is a prime example of why we need an estate tax, so that children of privilege don’t grow up to become grown-up children with an inflated sense of entitlement.
Allan Martin, you’ve got to be kidding me.
Yet it is almost certain they will endorse Obama, right? Didn’t they endorse Kerry in 2004?
“Frank Blethen is a prime example of why we need an estate tax…”
Yes.
Good to see the Times executing some sound judgement for a change. I’m not sure what the whiners on the left like Goldy are squealing about as their little liberal bastion is far from endangered with some alternate party representation.
But then, that is the mindset that liberal fascist’s have. It’s all or none with them.
If the estate tax were small, say only 5% of the value of the estate that exceeds $1 billion, then I guess it wouldn’t be so bad. Any thing more than that is excessive.
PI @ # 6: In other words, if the estate tax applies to only a tiny fraction of the estate of a handful of individuals in the U.S., you would reluctantly agree to it.
By the way, I guess it’s time once again to point out the relationship between the Capital Gains Tax, the tax on dividends and the Estate Tax.
If you own a stock in a company, there are three ways you can get money out of the corporation and be taxed on the income you make from the investment.
First, you can be taxed on the dividends paid from the stock. Note that it is taxed at a much lower rate than income earned by someone for wages. Note also that it is the company that determines whether this benefit is paid to stockholders. Stockholders who control the corporation can avoid paying the taxes by having the company withhold payment of dividends. To somewhat control this practice, the IRS has rules against excessive accumulation of dividends.
Second, you can be taxed on the appreciation in the value of the stock. Note that some companies, like Microsoft, have traditionally paid little or no dividends, but the value of the stock appreciation is what motivates buyers of the stock. Of course, if you don’t sell the stock you don’t have any income upon which to pay stock. This type of income is taxed as “capital gains”, which again is taxed at a much lower rate than earned income.
Third, you can hold onto the stock and never sell it, passing it on to your heirs. Under the tax code, no income tax is paid (a gift is not “income”), and no capital gains tax is paid, as the recipient takes the stock based on a “stepped-up basis” – meaning that in the future, the heir only has to pay capital gains tax based upon the value of the stock on the day they received it. The appreciation of the stock during the lifetime of the decedent is – well, forgiven. Except for the Estate Tax, which steps in and picks up some of the appreciation based upon it’s rules.
Note that if you eliminate the Estate Tax, suddenly you give the decedent and his heirs a way to transfer wealth without having to pay any taxes at all. So if a closely-held company like the Seattle Times doesn’t pay dividends, the stock isn’t sold or transferred before death, and is passed by will to the heirs, they manage to do so without paying any money at all to the IRS – even though every other worker in the company has to do so on their earnings, from the newspaper delivery gall to the guy who greases the printing presses.
That’s the goal of those who want to eliminate the Estate Tax.
(Side Note: another way some take advantage of the “stepped up basis” is by making charitable donations of stock, rather than cash. When Bill Gates gives 100 shares of stock to his foundation, he gets a charitable deduction of the value of his stock at the time the gift is made, even though he never had to pay taxes on the nearly 99% appreciation of the value of the stock while he held it. The charity takes the stock on the “stepped up” basis, but it really doesn’t make any difference to them because they are a non-profit.)
rhp6033 said:
“PI @ # 6: In other words, if the estate tax applies to only a tiny fraction of the estate of a handful of individuals in the U.S., you would reluctantly agree to it.”
Yep, that’s pretty much my view on the subject.
So, let’s see….Two of the three candidates for State Treasurer have doctorates in areas which pertain directly to the job, and Blethen’s rag picks the other one.
If Frank were interviewing three candidates for an opening for a reporter, and two of them had journalism degrees and the third was a plumber, which one would he choose?
Hmm, tried to post something three times, didn’t take. I’ll try another thread.
That’s all these fascist righties want, confusion, fear and misdirection of the ignorant masses. Oh, and money and power.
Sorry Pud, but fascists take away rights and freedoms – you know them, the monsters you conned America to put in office, like Your-President-Not-Mine. We have no intention of taking away your right to be a sorry piece of hatemongering shit. However, we do intend to giggle like a pack schoolgirls at your twisting and whining in political irrelevance for the rest of your days.
Of course – since Seattle is soooo much republican territory, the Time is just going with the prevailing sentiment….NOT.
They are endorsing the incompetent republicans and will try to pretend they are non-partisan.
Since the times also considers themselves to be the premier paper in that state – I guess they also have not noticed that Washington State:
Has 2 Democratic Senators
A Democratic governor
Has voted for a Democrat in the last 4 presidential elections.
and that the House congresional delegation is primarily democrats – except for Reichert on the west side – and he is going down too.
@8: A typical republican viewpoint. The estate tax is supposedly good because it lets really rich people give their kids unneccesarily large amounts of money that the parents got from their parents ….unless, like Bill Gates they got really lucky and were cutthroat in business to make their own millions – of course Gates and his dad don’t support the estate tax….only trogolodyte republicans like politically incoherent and Blethen do….
Gee – people with a net worth of over a million can’t start to pay some taxes? they don’t even pay the payroll tax (SS) over 150K/year – freeloaders and yacht lovers NEED that extra money!
From today’s Rasmussen Poll
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows the race for the White House is tied once again– Barack Obama and John McCain each attract 44% of the vote. However, when “leaners” are included, it’s McCain 47% and Obama 46%.
McCain is currently viewed favorably by 55% of the nation’s voters, Obama by 53%.
michael bond came to our dems endorsement meeting and asked for our endorsement. he was rejected. he was kind of creepy too.
@3 Yes, as I recall, the Seattle Times did endorse Kerry in 2004 — which says something about how bad Bush is, when even the Seattle Republican Times refuses to endorse him! As for your prediction the Times will endorse Obama … what are you smoking? Obama supports the inheritance tax, and that disqualifies him from a Times endorsement.
If the inheritance tax is eliminated, then the stepped-up basis that heirs get should also be eliminated. Let’s take the Seattle Times as an illustration. The Blethen family’s stake is probably worth around $450,000,000. But because the paper has stayed in the same family since it was founded, no income or capital gains taxes have ever been paid as it passed down through the generations, which means the Blethen family’s original capital investment is probably something on the order of 20 bucks. Yet, in the next round of inheritance, the next generation of Blethens will get a tax basis of $450 million after the inheritance tax is paid, which means if they sell their 51% share of the company for, let’s say, $500 million they would owe capital gains tax on only $50 million and there would be $449,999,980 of capital gains that would never be taxed. That’s extremely unfair to wage earners who get only about $10,000 of deductions and have to pay higher taxes because ultra-rich families like the Blethens pay nothing. If the inheritance tax is eliminated, then the only fair thing to do is also eliminate the step-up, so the heirs would have to pay capital gains taxes on all but the original investment of 20 dollars. Under this very modest reform, their tax basis would be calculated the same as every other investor’s, and they would still enjoy an extremely favorable tax rate compared to wage earners.
Silly wabbit, Trix are for kids! I’ve had mine today, but you haven’t!
I oppose inheritance taxes. I don’t see any reason to tax estates. I think the inheritance tax should be eliminated and inheritances should be considered ordinary income of the heirs. The only difference between income you inherit and income you work for is you didn’t earn it. It’s still income, and it spends the same at the grocery store or yacht dealer.
@18 What’s silly about it? Heirs are the only people who get free basis under the tax code. What makes heirs so special? Why shouldn’t they be treated like everyone else?
Silly wabbit! Socialism is for dummies!
Beep! Beep!
As someone who worked closely with a candidates campaign a few years ago I found out first hand that the Times editorial board is for show only in vetting candidates. The editor make the endorsement pick and simply uses the editorial board as cover. In some cases they don’t even go through the motions of interviewing the candidates. The Times endorsements are a farce.
Aside from being a licensed mortician, Allan Martin is also the former Chelan Country Treasurer and the current Assistant Washington State Treasurer.
Fairhurst is not liberal; she is statist.
@23: He is a republican hack – that is all I need to know. The republican party in Washington state and their platform are wingnut adventures in anti-abortion,antieducation, anti-taxes, anti-environment, pro-BIAW and pro-bush land.
@21 Oh, that’s right, people like you think requiring the idle rich to pay the same taxes as working stiffs is “socialism.”
Silly wabbit, ever hear of trickle-down economics?
Beep-beep!!!
23:
A licensed mortician? All politics aside, that’s pretty fucking creepy. But in today’s economy, ya gotta do what ya gotta do, I guess. How much do you want to bet that some of his fellow R’s call him “Bones” or something similarly gruesome?
And as long as we’re on that subject, get a laugh (or a barf bag) at this:
http://www.myspace.com/CountyMedicalExaminers
Imagine, if you will, if Quincy was into death metal…..
I dont know how Bill feels about it, but Pop Gates is very much in favor of the inheritance (death) tax, and has been quite outspoken about it.
Quick question:
How many Liberals in Seattle still subscribe to the Times after the 2000 attempt to destroy the union at the Times by Mason Sizemore, then the endorsement of George W. Bush in 2000 AND 2004 and now, in 2008 after 8 years of the culture of crime and corruption, they endorse 4 Republicans and ZERO Democrats?
If you’re a Democrat and you subscribe to the Times please cancel your paper — TODAY!!
You want change in how the media reports the news? You can absolutely, positively change how they report the news and who they endorse. JUST STOP GIVING THEM YOUR MONEY!!
When you cancel tell them exactly why. You won’t support a paper that supports Republicans for office. That’s what I did in 2000 when they endorsed Bush.
Now when they call to get me to subscribe again, I tell them I’d be happy to when Frank Blethen pulls his head out of his ass and stops endorsing Republicans.
Really, stop fucking subscribing to the paper or quite fucking bitching about it.
Goldy, if you subscribe the Times this goes double, no, triple for you.
@21
I assume, then, that you do not partake of the tax payer services of our socialist police force, firefighters, road crews or air traffic controllers?
@ 29:
The Estate Tax is supported by Bill Gates, Bill Gates Sr. and Warren Buffet.
Oh, yeah, and for you “Original Intent” dolts, so did our founding fathers. Especially Benjamin Franklin.
At votingforjudges.org, the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys rated Michael Bond as “not qualified” and Mary Fairhurst as “qualified.” “Qualified” is not a ringing endorsement. But “not qualified” is a pretty strong statement against a candidate for the state’s highest court.
The Seattle Times endorsement reads well and only points to obvious problems associated with Fairhurst’s reasoning which sides against the people whom she clearly has no interest in protecting. The majority on the Washington Supreme Court have lost touch with basic common sense as reflected by the decisions not just cited by the Times, but other newspapers in the state. Unfortunately, those newspapers chose the easy way out and just slapped her hand instead of holding Fairhurst accoutable. The Times was intellectually honest with its readers and made its endorsement based upon the Fairhurst judicial record. Look at Woo v Fireman’s Fund, as well as the most recent case involving school teachers, our chilren and privacy. The Times endorsement is correct. It is not about Republicans or Democrats… its about common sense and understanding the Washington Constitution. Vote for Michael Bond and make history instead of tolerating what is being forced upon you against your better judgment.
32 In fact, Warren Buffet has publicly stated that one of the reason he’s giving so much of his money to the Gates Foundation is that he doesn’t want his own offspring to inherit so much that they spend the rest of their days after he’s gone being lazy, indulgent, self-absorbed assholes.
35 That being said, the Blethen family at least has a multi-generation tradition of bring up the kids to become hardcore ink-stained wretches. It remains to be seen with this generation whether Frank has brought his children up not only to move into the family business, but to run it with the same ruthless business practices and jaundiced view of society that he has.
cwreader:
The Washington Supreme Court is not chosen nor should the voters make their decision predicated upon ratings from the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys… the Supreme Court is accountable to the people, not prosecuting attorneys. Instead of relying on ratings, please consider reading some of the decisions written by Fairhurst and the ratings will ultimately find their proper place in evaluating qualifications of candidates worthy of consideration to serve on the Court.
Goldy:
With all due respect, Mary Fairhurst may in fact be the most liberal on the Washington Supreme Court, and she is likely a Democrat. However, that really is not the issue here. The question is whether Fairhurst has in fact participated in or has written the best possible judicial decisions for the people of Washington in connection with key issues that the state Supreme Court addressed. The sad reality is that her decisions, as cited by the Seattle Times, have not been in the interest of the people. The Fairhurst record has supported the interest of government at the expense of its citizens.
The most recent Washington Supreme Court case involving 15 teachers, school children, privacy and a 6-3 decision against our children, is just one example reflecting that Fairhurst does not deserve a second term on the Court. Frankly, I do not see that decision as a liberal or a conservative voice, just the wrong voice at the wrong time and in the wrong state. Had this been the Minnesota Supreme Court that made this dreadful decision, it is likely that Humbert Humphrey, Eugene McCarthy and even Harold Stassen would turn in their graves.
CNR @ 13,
I’m not a Republican any more than you and Goldy are. I believe people should do what they want to do with their estates. If Bill Gates and Warren Buffet want to leave it all to the government, then that’s OK with me, but they certainly shouldn’t dictate what others should do with their estates.
I was surprised at the WAPA rating, as I figured with my Marine Corps experience in criminal law, including a stint as Chief Military Prosecutor, these Prosecutors would soak me up. But the first question they asked me was “where do you draw the line between liberty and the need for order in society” and I said “that’s easy I draw the line on the side of liberty.” I am now convinced that the interview with the prosecutors went downhill after that.
And if you guys think what we need is more government intrusion, more attempts to conceal public records from view, more attempts to suppress free speach when somebody complains at what is going down, then vote for Fairhurst, by all means. She agreed recently that “information was contraband” and that strikes me as a bad turn of events.
It is a ruling that would make Mr. Cheney wish he had thought of it first.
She ruled that the government can start a condemnation of your land and give you no better notice than post an announcement on the agency web site — no letter, no newspaper notice, nothing tacked on the property — nothing but a vague announcement on a web site that somebody’s property in the neighborhood had to go. For those of you who spend all day surfing government web sites to see who is coming after you next, I guess that works.
She is not a liberal, liberals care about common folk.
@37
I can’t compare Fairhurst’s decisions to Bond’s. He has none.
@41
Well, if information is what you want, then compare them to what I have written on my blog and the work that can be accessed at my law firm website at http://www.gardnerbond.com.
One difference between me and Fairhurst is that she had no written record before she went on the bench and nobody knew how pro-government and anti-citizen she would be. She has a written record now.
If you look at my work, which was written before I began to think of being a judge, then you might see that I have cared about many things, including Native American issues and international environmental crimes.
And if you look really hard you’ll find my letter to the editor of The Nation in November 2003.
The Fairhurst record clearly favors the interest of government at a considerable price to average citizens of this state. I have yet to see one reasonably written argument here (or anywhere else for that matter) that justifies her re-election to Supreme Court.
If the most recent Fairhurst majority opinion involving 15 teachers and school children (which is just plain outrageous) had been released earlier, it is questionable whether various other papers would have further tolerated the Fairhurst record. Perhaps several newspapers should reconsider either their slight nod or hand slapping endorsement of Fairhust and do their readers as well as the state of Washington a favor and just withdraw their endorsement.
Fairhurst has been no friend of journalism because she has consistently voted against the basic right of a journalist to pursue a complete investigation into newsworthy matters, which includes the right to review and inspect government files, that are extremely relevant to reporting the facts to the people of this state.
Washington deserves better and the time for change is now.
The overlooked aspects of this year’s Washington Supreme Court election is how the Washington media has investigated issues associated with the power of the incumbency, the recent decisions of the court and of course, the bandwagon mentality of endorsements and campaign financing. Unfortunately, the media has created more interest in what really does not matter in choosing the most capable candidate to sit on the Supreme Court. One paper exclaimed, “…people like to back a winner” and that “her list of supporters is long and impressive.” The same paper expressed that “the public’s right to know is a pretty basic thing with us”, and then opined that “…Fairhurst would have to be viewed as a heavy favorite in the election. We’re not going to buck that trend.” If a newspaper is not willing to stand on principles that it claims to value; it is certainly not only fair to criticize their lack of commitment to their principles, but the vary foundation of their endorsement. In view of the most recent Washington Supreme Court decision whereby Fairhurst wrote the majority opinion that favored the privacy of 15 school teachers instead of needed protection for our school aged children, various papers clearly have the choice to withdraw their endorsement of Fairhurst. A withdrawal of an endorsement would not be unreasonable nor would it be too late to hold Fairhurst accountable for such an unwelcome judicial opinion.
There are other significant issues such as the people’s right to know which is far more important than a newspaper endorsement. The discussion of the Fairhurst voting record as the incumbent, and the need to hold her accountable for her decisions that have favored government and not the people has failed to capture the interest or the attention of the media… except the Seattle Times. The Seattle Times apparently is not afraid to buck the trend, hold Fairhurst accountable and make an endorsement based on a Fairhurst record of disappointment for Washingtonians of all ages. There remains a choice on August 19th that unfortunately has not made its way to the minds of all Washington voters based upon how this campaign has unfolded thus far that involves the ability to reach voters and the power of the press to investigate and report the truth.
Who serves on the Supreme Court must never be about money, special interest (including the Trial Lawyers Association) or newspapers that have a genuine fear to challenge or question the judicial decisions of an incumbent. August 19th serves as an opportunity for Washingtonians to remind the elected leaders of this state as well as the media that the Supreme Court belongs to the people. The choice is Michael Bond, not Mary Fairhurst.