Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Repulsive repeal of estate tax

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
WinterBybee Donating Member (44 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-06-06 04:29 PM
Original message
Repulsive repeal of estate tax
Repulsive Repeal of the Estate Tax
Reveals Real Bush Agenda, Media Bias

By Roger Bybee and Carolyn Winter

The proposed repeal of the estate tax by the Bush Administration and its allies, especially at a time of record deficits and massive roll-backs in taxes already granted to wealthy citizens and large corporations, poses a major threat to American democracy.

Ridding the US of the estate tax will open the door for the consolidation of an American aristocracy based on inherited wealth, easily able to steer government policy away from the needs and interests of the vast majority.

Ironically, one of the offspring of one of America’s wealthiest families, Richard Rockefeller, has passionately warned us about the impact of this cynical move. As he points out June 1 in The Portland, “The timing of this vote couldn’t be more bizarre. Our nation is at war and faces a multi-trillion-dollar national debt for decades to come. We are rebuilding our Gulf Coast after one of the worst national disasters in modern memory. At the same time, our country is experiencing unprecedented levels of wealth inequality.”

The vote on this will come before the Senate in June. The House has already approved a permanent repeal. But the repeal is encountering resistance from Mr. Rockefeller and other unlikely allies such as Bill Gates, Sr., Warren Buffett, and Paul Volcker. They all believe that as America’s wealthiest people, it is their duty to speak out against repeal and the resulting leap in the nation’s inequity and even greater deficits. They all agree that the estate tax encourages dispersion of wealth, rather than a build-up of concentrated wealth and power in the hands of a few. They see repealing this democratizing influence as particularly threatening at a time of mega-salaries that are far in excess of those only 25 years ago.

The repeal of the estate tax has been part of a tightly woven attack on tax policy as a progressive instrument to promote social justice, instead substituting a policy of reinforcing and enlarging the wealth held by the nation’s richest families. In effect, repeal will lay the groundwork for establishing an American royalty. Along with the utter lack of evidence to make the case for repeal, it is shocking that these radical tax policies can be seriously considered when the polls show the public favoring policies to strengthen public services, health (e.g., a Business Week poll show 67% support for a single-payer health plan), and education.


Bush policies work in the opposite direction, to shrink the possibility of effective government services that earn public support. When government is under-funded, the resulting services are limited or tragically incompetent (eg. Hurricane Katrina) and earn contempt or cynicism about the government’s capacity to assist ordinary citizens.

In this particular case, the proponents of repeal have spent millions of dollars to create myths, not the least of which is the misnomer “the death tax”. They have tried to make it appear that the estate tax is an attack on the family farmer and the small-business owner. This highly effective and carefully developed multi-million dollar campaign against the estate tax has been driven by 18 of America’s wealthiest families including the owners of Wal-Mart, Gall wines, Campbell’s soup, and Mars candy bars (combined net worth: $185.5 billion). Elimination of the estate tax will save these 18 families alone about $71.6 billion.

The 18 families and their Republican allies have tried to portray the estate tax as an unfair attack on the family farmer. Yet even the right-leaning American Farm Bureau and the Bush White House have been able to produce a single case to back of their claims, as elaborated by David Cay Johnston in his valuable book Perfectly Legal.

The threat is much greater than repeal of this one tax. The sustained Republican PR campaign—waged through their wide-ranging “echo chamber” of FOX News, rightist dailies, and talk-radio shows-- and their domination of Congress has allowed them to proceed with a tax agenda that continually favors a tiny percentage of wealthy Americans to the detriment of the average citizen. Just this May, Congress extended a tax cut on unearned income that will provide a whopping $3 to families earning under $50,000, $78 to those making $50,000 to $75,000 and $60,000 to the fortunate few hauling in more that $1 million (5/18/06 Citizens for Tax Justice release.) Thus, moderate-income families will gain enough for another Big Mac and fries or maybe even a couple of tanks of gas, while millionaires and billionaires will be able to purchase another new Lexus each year.

This regressive move in tax policy has been assisted by the lack of vision on the part of most Democrats. Even at the beginning of this struggle, Democrats acquiesced to proposals that were only slightly less regressive than those posed by the Republicans. The Democrats in Congress have continually accepted the basic assumptions of much of the tax-cutting agenda. For example, they have not forcefully challenged the capital-gains cuts. How is it fair or sensible to tax unearned income at a lower rate than earned income? It is staggering that a democratic country chooses to reward wealthy people who sit around making trades, even selling stock short, over those who toil for a living.

At the same time, the major media have shamefully failed us on clarifying issues of tax policy, especially on the estate tax. This is clearly one area where the increasingly corporatized media have a deep conflict of interest in their news coverage. Policies that are favorable to media CEOs and their biggest stockholders clash directly with the interests of their reading public. The tax-justice issue probably generates more visible conflicts of interest by major media than most other arenas of public policy.

Without truly objective and probing coverage, tax policy becomes the victim of the spin aggressively marketed through the right-wing media machine. In reality, the estate tax affects a microscopic ¼ of 1% of all taxpayers, but it will add approximately $1 trillion to the federal treasury over 10 years. Clearly, stakes are momentous at a time of increasing deficits and debt for the country.

But without comprehensible reporting by the major media and a consistent, coherent message from the Democrats, the public loses its ability to focus on how the estate tax’s repeal will be ruinous both for our fiscal health and the foundations of democracy.

Roger Bybee and Carolyn Winter are Milwaukee-based writers and activists. They can be reached at winterbybee@earthlink.net.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-06-06 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. Franken was calling it the Paris Hilton tax today. A great idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudgeBudgie Donating Member (22 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. As a member of the middle class
I find death and estate taxes repulsive.

Hit me with my taxes up front - that's much more honest. Taxmen at funerals are about as disgusting as the Phelps's, in my book. Final expenses and grieving are enough of a burden on families as it is, much less the government getting a final stab at the old nest egg in a moment of weakness.

I am torn, though, with the concept redistribution of wealth in the upper income echelons - the greatest disservice to any person is a free ride. They are never given the opportunity to develop self-esteem from having earned their place in society.

In any case, I don't think you are going to find many sympathetic ears amongst your average Joe American like me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tjwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Put down the kool-aid, turn off fox news, and step slowly away.
Taxmen at funerals? The exact words of Shawn Hannity when he was talking about the estate tax.

An "average Joe American" like you should know that the estate tax is an issue that affects MAYBE the top 10 percent in income of Americans, and has absolutely nothing to do, and has no affect what so ever on middle-class America.

But you knew that already :eyes:

The rest of your post reads like a collection cut-and-pastes from (poorly written) right wing blogs.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Priorities in Order Donating Member (29 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Actually . . .
the estate tax affects fewer than 2% of Americans. The current exemption is $2 million for an individual and $4 million for a couple. Repealing the estate tax would cost $75 billion a year in federal revenue and over a trillion dollars overall. In order to make up that lost revenue either taxes will need to be raised or programs like Social Security and Medicare will need to be cut.

The arrogance of the Senate leadership has prevented the passage of estate tax reform legislation. Democrats have said they will support responsible reform, but not a permanent repeal. Take a look at this editorial from today's NY Times that highlights how this issue has divided the Republicans in the Senate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/07/business/07tax.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

In addition, Senator Frist has planned a vote for tomorrow on a bill to repeal the estate tax. Everyone should contact your Senators to let them know where you stand on this issue. You can learn more about the myths surrounding the estate tax and contact your Senators using the website of the coalition I work with, the Coalition for America's Priorities.

http://www.coalition4americaspriorities.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PegDAC Donating Member (906 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #4
26. What's even scarier to me
is if they also manage to abolish the Capital Gains Tax and the tax on dividends. I was listening to Sam Seder this evening discussing this. If this idiotic trifecta goes into effect, the Paris Hiltons and Walton heirs will accumulate endless wealth tax-free. Who do you think is going to pick up the slack? The working poor and the middle class, who are teetering on the edge as it is!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudgeBudgie Donating Member (22 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. no effect on middle-class America?
Federal estate tax law
Currently, if an estate exceeds $1.5 million, it is subjectable to an estate tax. Many middle class people who've had a lifetime to accrue savings and property are usually in this range.

States also levy estate taxes; for example, http://www.dor.mo.gov/tax/personal/estate/">in Missouri, a decedent's estate in excess of $10,000 is taxable.

I propose you get your facts straight, and stop straw-manning and labeling brashly.

And I am all for redistribution from hoarders, but my main beef is the timing of the taxation, not the taxation itself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
azmouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. How do you feel about the 'birth tax'?
Every child born today has somewhere around $28,000 of national debt tied around their neck.

It's the duty of the very wealthy to give back to the country that helped them get so wealthy. They should accept paying the Estate Tax with gratitude for the opportunities this great country has given them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-08-06 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #6
28. They have theirs
Edited on Thu Jun-08-06 10:55 AM by formercia
Those who ran corporations have cut as many employees loose as they could and shifted the workload to those that remain. Now they want to cut loose the rest of the country that provided them their wealth. The Nouveau Riche don't want to pay for infrastructure improvements and maintenance except for what directly applies to them and the road that leads to the airport where their private jet is based.
I see them come into Bar Harbor in their jets, limos and class A motor homes, while the lady that changes their sheets has to commute to a trailer out in the sticks because the housing is beyond afford-ability. So, what do they do? In the summer it sounds like little Odessa with all if the attractive young people from Eastern Europe that come to fill the jobs for little pay. They have outsourced their country, created their islands of wealth and now want to dynamite the social bridges that connect them to the rest of us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Salviati Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. First of all...
Money is taxed multiple times already, so this whole issuel of "OMG!!! DOUBLE TAXZATON!!!" is a bit of a red herring as it is. Secondly, 56% of the value of the average estate over 10 millon dollars is unrealized capital gains that has NEVER been taxed at all. The repeal of the estate tax would mean that it would never be taxed.

http://www.cbpp.org/6-17-05tax.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #2
10. Yes, the poor millionaire's children can only keep FOUR (4) million
instead of all those millions that they did NOT earn. It's not a death tax, it's a way that does not keep the Rich, FILTHY Rich ... Four million will let Junior live a good life, I wish I were Junior. :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PegDAC Donating Member (906 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #10
27. I know I'd be a happy camper! n/t
:D :D :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. If you are affected by the estate tax, you are not an average Joe.
You are either woefully misinformed on this topic, or you are being disingenuous. Welcome to DU. If you stick around, we can help you with the first part, anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. geez what a friendly thread
I didn't read anything here that required this level of nastiness to certain posters.

Your estate is not just the accumulation of $5000 life insurance policies as the rest of your friends and family die off.

If you really do the scrimp and save thing and get lucky with your investments, your realizable home value, and whatever other assets head your way as you age and are left other people's policies and goodies, that doesn't make you a Carnegie and it's very easy to get to 1.5 million if you're just above the median that Joe Average sets and relatively lucky avoiding financial disasters.

I've heard absurdities here that say estates as low as 100K should be taxed. Sorry, I'm just not that progressive. If you want social engineering to keep accumulation of wealth from happening, taxes are certainly not the best solution since people with REAL money really aren't impacted by it one way or another.

This isn't a "gimme" to the super rich at all. This is a gimme to self-identifying upper middle class people who think they might have a chance at making it into that category - and deluded or not, those people also frequently self-identify as republican.

If we are really worried about fiscal spending and revenue then we need to pay more on income as it's earned, and less on stupid wars and pork. I don't believe we should abolish the inheritance tax, but it certainly needs some realistic modification.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. You define an average Joe as having just below $1.5 mil?
I'm sorry, you can't have it both ways. Average Joes are average wage-earners for whom it is certainly NOT very easy to get to $1.5 mil in assets. $1.5 hundred thou, maybe. If you have accumulated $1.5 mil in assets, you might be a nice guy, you might be a regular guy, but you are not an economic average Joe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudgeBudgie Donating Member (22 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Never said I was affected by it...
But it never hurts to plan for the future, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #2
16. Wow, you're THAT rich?
I don't think you qualify as an "average Joe" if you're going to be paying A CENT in inheritance taxes.

You're up there with the Rockefellers. And funny enough, even one of the Rockefellers thinks it's a disgusting gift to the rich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudgeBudgie Donating Member (22 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. In a perfect world
Edited on Wed Jun-07-06 02:53 PM by FudgeBudgie
I think the estate tax on the wealthy should be based on individual cashflow, as in the amount of capital a person possessed versus the amount they invested and spent in American interests.

You would punish those whose assets stagnate (or are too expatriate), and reward more the people who contributed to the economy.

Not only does this fit in with the capitalist economical model, but it ensures that exorbitant wealth is being put to good use, and redistributed if not.

Why take money from a family that already puts their money into society?

edit- grammar
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Maybe you should define "American Interests"
"I think the estate tax on the wealthy should be based on individual cashflow, as in the amount of capital a person possessed versus the amount they invested and spent in American interests."

Which American interests exactly are they investing in? Katrina relief? Universal Health Care? Unions?

If you mean investing in Haliburton, big oil companies, the salaries of CEOs that makes hundreds more than their lowly employees while shipping jobs overseas, then I'm not so sure that needs to be rewarded, nor am I sure it's in the American Interest. It's not in mine. Not that we'd be punishing or rewarding anyone anyway based on whether they contributed to the economy - the people who hoarded the money are dead.

It's in the American Interest to pay some estate tax if you're about to inherit an insane amount of money that you yourself did nothing to earn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudgeBudgie Donating Member (22 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. So what is the point of taxation then
since it seeks to redistribute money to those who "did nothing to earn" it from those who did?

You didn't address the point of my post, anyways, which is to address a workable means of applying a fair estate tax - you just took an opportunity to wag your finger at the 'big bad oil companies and CEO's' and bemoan askance envy of little rich bitches.

In any case, going into the whole capitalist manifesto is beyond the scope of this argument, but I think you are indeed missing the big picture as to how a capitalist society should function - "to the diligent go the spoils". Entitlement advances nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. The point of taxation
is primarily to provide for the general welfare of our citizens, as well as partake in humanitarian missions.

"Entitlement advances nothing," odd statement for you to make in this context.

People are entitled to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. "Life" would include basic health care, food, shelter.

The belief that you are entitled to inherit massive fortunes tax free as some sort of birth right advances nothing. It's certainly not a case of "to the diligent go the spoils." It's more like "to the privileged go the spoils."

A workable means of applying a fair estate tax? Simple. A ceiling on the tax free amount that can be passed from parents to children. Sound familiar? What exactly was the problem with that - too many children born into millionaire families couldn't afford it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudgeBudgie Donating Member (22 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Excellent points! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 02:36 AM
Response to Reply #2
29. You want to pay more so that parasitic children of wealth pay less?
Why? Way to devalue work in favor of choosing the right parents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Priorities in Order Donating Member (29 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. More heiress ties . . .
I've also heard the current legislation in Congress to repeal the estate tax referred to as "the Paris Hilton Benefit Act." Plus, if you like that reference take a look at the ads put out by the Coalition for America's Priorities opposing a repeal of the estate tax.

http://www.coalition4americaspriorities.com/viewads.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #1
18. Or the "assisted living" tax as in this Garry Trudeau's assesment of W
"His entire life gives fresh meaning to the phrase 'assisted living.' "
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewHampshireDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
7. Andrew Carnegie--that big ol' commie--had this to say about estate taxes
Edited on Wed Jun-07-06 10:08 AM by NewHampshireDem

The growing disposition to tax more and more heavily large estates left at death is a cheering indication of the growth of a salutary change in public opinion. The State of Pennsylvania now takes -- subject to some exceptions -- one-tenth of the property left by its citizens. The budget presented in the British Parliament the other day proposes to increase the death-duties; and, most significant of all, the new tax is to be a graduated one. Of all forms of taxation, this seems the wisest. Men who continue hoarding great sums all their lives, the proper use of which for the public ends would work good to the community, should be made to feel that the community, in the form of the state, cannot thus be deprived of its proper share. By taxing estates heavily at death the state marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire's unworthy life.

It is desirable that nations should go much further in this direction. Indeed, it is difficult to set bounds to the share of a rich man's estate which should go at his death to the public through the agency of the state, and by all means such taxes should be graduated, beginning at nothing upon moderate sums to dependents, and increasing rapidly as the amounts swell, until of the millionaire's hoard, as of Shylock's, at least

" ---- The other half
Comes to the privy coffer of the state."

This policy would work powerfully to induce the rich man to attend to the administration of wealth during his life, which is the end that society should always have in view, as being that by far most fruitful for the people. Nor need it be feared that this policy would sap the root of enterprise and render men less anxious to accumulate, for to the class whose ambition it is to leave great fortunes and be talked about after their death, it will attract even more attention, and, indeed, be a somewhat nobler ambition to have enormous sums paid over to the state from their fortunes.


The Gospel of Wealth
http://alpha.furman.edu/~benson/docs/carnegie.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
checks-n-balances Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #7
25. Sam Seder just mentioned that this tax has been around almost 100 years!
We lived with it that long - why eliminate it now that we need it MOST???

Your post proved that the idea has been around for a long time - since the time of its proponent, Andrew Carnegie. Thanks for posting it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MNWild Donating Member (56 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
9. We need to get better at sound bite packaging
Paris Hilton Tax says it all to even the shortest attention span. I heard Sen Byron Dorgan (D) ND use the term on The Ed Shultz Show last week. I believe the statistics are that only the top 2% of estates ate subject to any taxation, and a very small percentage at the top of this 2% group pay 90% of the total estate taxes collected. In other words, the heirs of billionaires who in many cases have done nothing to "deserve" to be rewarded so lavishly, except to be born into an obscenely rich family, object to giving anything back to the system that allowed said family to accumulate such wealth in the first place. The arrogance of such a sense of entitlement is mind boggling. Everyone who apposes changing this tax should call it what it is. Every time anyone calls it the "Death Tax" someone should be correcting the speaker with "Don't you mean the Paris Hilton Tax?" It's the only way to make any inroads in this media climate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eviltwin2525 Donating Member (269 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. "Better a Death Tax Than A Birth Tax"
Repealing inheritance taxes, paid by the richest 5% (or fewer), would continue the shameless, disgraceful Republican practice of outsourcing the national debt ONTO OUR CHILDREN. Well, not THEIR children.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
m_welby Donating Member (508 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 02:57 PM
Response to Original message
20. the 'enterprise institute' is running disingenuous ads in my area
about it.

I find it repulsive. It is not a 'death tax' and it never has been.

I like the 'paris hilton' tax. makes sense to me.

...and 1.5 million is way outside of what any 'middle class' american is going to accrue in their lifetime, no matter how much they may fool themselves into believing otherwise.

I am middle class (and worked my ass off to get here) and no one I know will ever be affected by this, unless we win the lottery. And if I am then I have too much wealth to pass on anyway.

If there ever was an advertisement for why wealth should not be passed on from one generation to the next it's President 'coo-coo-bannanas' up there in the white house.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 05:21 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC