The facts are what they are – in order to get a campaign promise to the voters passed Congress, the Bush Administration had no choice but to accept the Democrats ultimatum with regards the 10 year sun-setting. Otherwise, no bill. 10 minutes of fact checking on your part would have shown you the facts, which you obviously choose to ignore. The 10 year provision was purely and simply a Democrat invention designed as a stop-gap, defensive play – and it worked. To say otherwise is so much hot air and is inconsistent with the facts as they played out, at the time.

And, as far as your spin on the “cheap” aspect of estate planning and life insurance, you conveniently ignored my point entirely and chose to use a argument which skirted the entire issue, which any reader with a living brain stem can clearly see through. Having to buy anything to keep what is yours just because of death is immoral and stupid; whether or not it’s “cheap” is beside the point. Clearly, you feel that the Federal ‘gummint’ is a better manager of that wealth than the family or heirs it was just taken from. I, Sir, beg to differ.

In closing, I’d say you are following in the cardinal rule of present-day journalism: never let the truth get in the way when drubbing the opposition that you don’t agree with.

Second, let me give you a little advice. If you indeed do want to know whether someone has “something of value to say,” it generally pays to read past the first sentence.

I never finished the article because I was so distracted by your lapse in judgement, you may have something of value to say, but who’d know.

The “financial soufflé” you speak of (estate tax reductions) wasn’t the “brainchild” of the Bush Administration. Presidents don’t generally write legislation. Rather, it was required due to the Byrd Rule under the Congressional Budget Act. Otherwise, this very carefully compromised bill (Grassley and Baucus were the chief architects) would have been subject to filibuster rules and would never have been passed – precisely what Senate Democrats wanted anyway. You will recall (maybe you won’t, considering the absent-minded inaccuracies in the piece) that Jeffords had jumped ship and given control of the Senate, narrowly, to the Democrats, making any tax cut legislation difficult. To characterize the 10-year sun setting of the estate tax rules passed during the Bush years, necessary under law to avoid a 3/5th majority to avoid a filibuster, as a “concoction” is a gross distortion of the facts and a manipulation of what truly happened. It’s too bad you don’t have an editor – if I was your editor, I would have sent this back to you with a large blue X through it. Maybe you should get one.

With regard your comments concerning “wink wink”: many Republicans are on record as stating that estate taxes in any form are unfair and represent double-taxation. The Cato Institute, The Heritage Foundation, and other organizations with interests in tax reform have published thoughtful, accurate pieces that show the inequality of taxing estates at death, something you clearly see as beneficial, probably because you cling to the age old Democrat talking point about revenue neutrality while they wring their hands and worry about where they are going to get more of our money .I was also repulsed by your comment, concerning the reintroduction of estate taxes, that it “sounds pretty generous to me”, which was flip and sarcastic. Perhaps this is because you, like me, aren’t in the bracket that requires a 45% donation of family wealth upon passing, and, unlike me, feel that those who have that amount of wealth don’t deserve it anyway. It’s their money – they earned it, and they should get to keep it. Being required to buy a life insurance policy, just to keep your hard earned money, isn’t only nonsensical, it’s immoral.