Washington’s two Senators

It is difficult not to notice that the two Washington Senators were amongst the ten Democrats who joined the Republican Caucus in voting for a Lincoln – Kyl Amendment to lower the Estate Tax, the first of the two votes I note here.  The other senators here I can explain broadly in the predictive manner as being rougly predictive with “Ten democrats voted with the republicans on something.  Name the Democrats” — a measuring stick that might capture Cantwell from time to time, but wouldn’t be predictive with Murray.  With that, I’m forced to say there’s something concerning Washington State and the protection of legacy estates.

Here, some commenters at prospect weigh some possible influences, but hit an error at the end:

Cantwell’s protecting her own estate, and especially those of other Seattle high tech types who were paid in MS stock during the tech boom.
What’s her RealAudio stock worth?
That’s good old-fashioned self-interest.
Posted by: Davis X. Machina | April 3, 2009 10:54 AM

And Murray is also protecting Cantwell’s estate? That’s some serious Senate collegiality right there. Or is it that she fears that her constituents will punish her for not giving Bill Gates’ estate a big tax break?
Posted by: Michael Bérubé | April 3, 2009 11:00 AM

Actually, Bill Gates doesn’t want the estate tax repealed and has given most of his wealth to his foundation. Bill’s father, William H. Gates, Sr., wrote a 2004 book about why the estate tax should stay in place, “Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes” (Beacon Press). My son interviewed Gates, Sr. about his book in ’04 on WTUL, the Tulane U. radio station, and it was obvious from the interview that keeping the estate tax is a big priority for the Gates family.
Posted by: Donald Miles | April 3, 2009 12:52 PM

Right you are, Donald. I should have asked whether Murray was afraid that her constituents will punish her for not giving Bill Gates’ estate a big tax break that Gates himself does not want.
OK, fixed now.
Posted by: Michael Bérubé | April 3, 2009 12:56 PM

Gates is in a class with just a few peers. He can give away almost all of his wealth and his kids will still be very well set. But there are literally thousands of Microsoft millionaires in the area that this bill could effect, otherwise liberal folks that give a lot of money to local democrats. That’s where Cantwell and Murray have their base.
Posted by: Mark Centz | April 3, 2009 1:16 PM

I don’t care about the Microsoft millionaires. You look at the demographics of Washington and Cantwell and Murray are F#@$ing their middle income base, even when BillG Sr. would give them all the air cover in the world.
Having attended BillG Sr.’s pro-estate tax events at Microsoft, I can tell you they didn’t need to do this for Microsoft folks.
Where this is coming from is the Seattle Times. With the P_I dead, and Blethen, the reactionary who owns the Seattle Times, making his dwindling inheritance a one-issue election every time, they are seeking to defuse the Times. What cowards
Posted by: dollared |
April 3, 2009 1:51 PM

The family business that those Washington Senators might be protecting: Nordstroms.
Posted by: Wapiti |
April 3, 2009 2:36 PM

The family business that those Washington Senators might be protecting: Nordstroms.
Posted by: Wapiti | April 3, 2009 2:36 PM

My guess is the Washington Cantwell and Murray are pandering to is the ranchers and farmers in Yakima, the Tri-Cities, and Spokane.
Posted by: JZ |
April 3, 2009 5:11 PM

“My guess is the Washington Cantwell and Murray are pandering to is the ranchers and farmers in Yakima, the Tri-Cities, and Spokane.”
My guess is those ranchers would rather endure a hoof and mouth epidemic, on the heels of a mad cow outbreak, than vote for a democrat.
Posted by: mocasdad | April 3, 2009 9:36 PM

Yes, I think it becomes silly when the poster explainins the vote as coming from the political clout of Eastern Washington — which I’ll believe has basis when the state finally elects a Senator Doc Hasings.  And, yes, “mocasdad” pretty well covers that.  Though, I suppose you can suggest that the farmers and ranchers of Eastern Washington should pay heed to Cantwell and Murray’s vote, as per the explanation for Jon Tester of Montana’s vote.:

Why did Tester vote for it? I would bet that his rural constituents believe that they are the “small farmers” who would supposedly be hurt. That belief is very firm among most farmers, no matter how far from the truth it may be for them.
Oh, and have you ever seen the direct mail that registered Repubs get? On visiting my elderly widowed mother recently, I picked up her mail for her, and was appalled at the lies and outright crass evil falsehoods she gets – they go on for several pages stirring up fear with lies. Yes, I censored it – I threw out the most obvious right at the mailbox. But it was a drop in the bucket.
Posted by: tejanayanqui | April 3, 2009 1:53 PM

So, on that basis, Eastern Washington should be giving Cantwell and Murray wide margins for re-election, right?

Leave a Reply