Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.

Editorials
Saturday, September 2, 2000

Repeal of estate tax
benefits only the rich

The issue: President Clinton has vetoed repeal of the estate tax.

Our view: The bill would benefit only the few wealthy people who are currently subject to the tax.

---

BARRING an override, President Clinton's veto of a bill repealing inheritance taxes give the Republicans an election issue, but Clinton is right on this one. The only beneficiaries of the repeal would be the very rich. The result would be to increase the already immense concentration of wealth in this country.

There is considerable popular support for this measure, but most people probably don't realize that only 2 percent of estates each year are subject to the tax.

This year, the first $675,000 of an individual's assets are exempt from estate taxes, which a married couple can double. Under current law, that $675,000 exemption will rise to $1 million by 2006. Farmers and small businesses already have higher individual exemptions of $1.3 million. Not many people leave estates bigger than that. In 1997, only 43,000 estates paid the tax.

Clinton said the bill he vetoed would threaten the nation's budget surplus while handing the richest 3,000 families an average tax cut of $7 million apiece.

The White House said the projected $105 billion cost during the 10-year phaseout would explode to $750 billion in the decade after full repeal, rapidly consuming budget surplus dollars.

A more reasonable Democratic alternative was rejected by the Senate in July. It would have increased to $2 million by 2009 the value of estates exempted from the estate tax and from $1.3 million to $3.38 million the exemption for family-owned farms and businesses. This would have extended the exemption for persons of moderate wealth while leaving the richest still subject to tax.

Sponsors of the repeal won broad support on Capitol Hill -- including that of Hawaii's Rep. Neil Abercrombie -- by arguing that the tax inhibits business expansion, threatens breakups of farms and forces millions of taxpayers to pay lawyers, accountants and insurance companies so they can avoid the tax.

But Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle insisted the notion that many heirs are forced to liquidate their parents' property or sell their businesses to pay the estate tax is "one of the biggest myths that exists in the country today."

Republican candidate George W. Bush supports repeal of the estate tax, but he ought to rethink his position. Bush's stand tends to confirm the charge that he is the candidate of the wealthy.

---

Reassessing Hirohito

The issue: A historian says Emperor Hirohito took an active role in planning the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Our view: The myth that Hirohito was a figurehead may have helped make the U.S occupation successful.

---

FOR five decades the world has accepted the view that Emperor Hirohito was a figurehead who should not be blamed for Japanese aggression and atrocities during World War II. Now that interpretation of history has been challenged by an American scholar.

Herbert P. Bix, a professor at a Japanese university, says in a book titled, "Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan," that the myth of the passive emperor was created by Hirohito himself and U.S. occupation authorities. This may have been a case in which a myth served good purposes.

Bix declares that the emperor was closely involved in planning the Dec. 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor and issued the army's order to "burn all, kill all, steal all."

In the days leading up to the Pearl Harbor attack, Bix writes, "Emperor Hirohito met repeatedly with his chiefs of staff, questioned his aides about the country's air defenses, reviewed the organization of the fleet, examined war plans and maps and received reports on the status of all the units moving into position on the various invasion fronts."

Hirohito, Bix says, was a shy, retiring man, but he "matured into a controlling war leader."

It is the shy side of the emperor's personality that he exhibited in public in later years, but appearances can be deceptive. This public behavior may have been crucial to the success of Hirohito's efforts to ensure the continuity of the imperial dynasty.

Also crucial was the attitude of the U.S. occupation authorities. Gen. Douglas MacArthur decided to respect the emperor's position as a symbol of the state and to govern the country through him. Putting Hirohito on trial as a war criminal -- as were other leaders -- was viewed as risking popular protests and lasting resentment.

Bix argues that the American policy of portraying Hirohito and the people as pawns of the generals allowed the Japanese to avoid the facts of their nation's role in World War II. He says it also helped to establish the principle of impunity for heads of state.

These are undesirable effects. But consider what would have happened if Hirohito had been tried as a war criminal. It probably would have meant the end of the emperor system. This might have been acceptable if decided by the Japanese themselves, but probably not as the decision of the occupying powers.

The shock and resentment many would have felt could have vastly complicated the task of the occupation authorities and produced unstable conditions. Japan's spectacular recovery and emergence as an economic power might have been aborted.

Now that Hirohito is safely dead and the trauma of Japan's defeat a matter of history, perhaps the people can face the facts of the emperor's war guilt. It's time they did. But in 1945, they probably couldn't have.

---

Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited Partnership

Rupert E. Phillips, CEO

John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher

David Shapiro, Managing Editor

Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor

Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors

A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor