I understand Evan Bayh's
decision to vote against the budget. In a Senate with 59 Democrats, the opportunity to emerge as the marquee swing vote is undeniably attractive. It brings with it real power over policy and real celebrity in Washington. And there's even a legitimate argument that Bayh developed in his statement today. He praises the budget for funding "important priorities like affordable health care, energy independence, job creation, and education improvements, rather than tax cuts for the most affluent," but then says that "under this budget, our national debt skyrockets from $11.1 trillion today to an estimated $17 trillion in 2014...I cannot support such results."Fair enough. But then why
vote -- on the very same day -- for the
Kyl-Lincoln bill lowering the tax rate on estates over $7 million from 45 percent to 35 percent and
reducing charitable giving? That's $250 billion more debt over 10 years. It's in direct conflict with Bayh's statement on the budget. It makes him look insincere.The obvious answer is that it's important to wealthy contributors in his state.
But Bayh doesn't face reelection until 2014. No one will remember -- much less contribute -- based on a vote in 2009. Nor is there a presidential run in his near future. And I simply refuse to believe that Bayh thinks it an important point of principle -- more important than debt reduction or health care -- that extremely wealthy Americans pay 35 percent, rather than 45 percent, on their estates. Literally the only compelling justification I can come up with is self-interest: Bayh has a net worth
estimated between $3 million and $14 million. That's the sort of thing that sensitizes you to the downsides of the estate tax real quick. But even that's not totally satisfying. Calls to Bayh's office went unreturned. And so I wonder.
Correction: Bayh is up in 2010, not 2014 as I mistakenly thought. It's not a particularly contested reelection. He has no serious challengers, a massive advantage in fundraising ($10,000,000
on hand, and that was in 2008, before he'd really started fundraising for reelection), full name recognition, solid approval ratings, and is running in a state that Barack Obama won. So I don't think it's plausible to argue that supporting Kyl-Lincoln is crucial to his reelection. But he might.
I understand Evan Bayh's decision to vote against the budget. In a Senate with 59 Democrats, the opportunity to emerge as the marquee swing vote is undeniably attractive. It brings with it real power over policy and real celebrity in Washington. And there's even a legitimate argument that Bayh developed in his statement today. He praises the budget for funding "important priorities like affordable health care, energy independence, job creation, and education improvements, rather than tax cuts for the most affluent," but then says that "under this budget, our national debt skyrockets from $11.1 trillion today to an estimated $17 trillion in 2014...I cannot support such results."Fair enough. But then why vote -- on the very same day -- for the Kyl-Lincoln bill lowering the tax rate on estates over $7 million from 45 percent to 35 percent and reducing charitable giving? That's $250 billion more debt over 10 years. It's in direct conflict with Bayh's statement on the budget. It makes him look insincere.The obvious answer is that it's important to wealthy contributors in his state. 
