On the other hand, this sorry staternof affairs may be changing. Whetherrnor not congressmen hsten to statesmen,rnthey undeniably pay some attention tornwrought-up voters. The words they arernhearing about the estate tax grow angrierrnand angrier, and you know what angerrncan mean in pohtics.rnSmall wonder so many are ticked.rnThe bull market on Wall Street has propelledrninto the ranks of the rich a lot ofrnAmericans who consider themselves,rnwell, non-rich. The value of a 401(k) account,rnthe instrimient on which morernand more Americans stake their financialrnfutures, pushed up the value of the owner’srnestate.rnAnd consider the rates: 37 percent forrnstarters, rising to 55 percent. More thanrnhalf You get to give the feds more thanrnhalf of what you own—this, for the highrnprivilege of dying. No, you can’t take itrnwith you, but you used to be able to leavernit behind, suitably distributed amongrnloved ones. Today the feds start their selfapportionmentsrnfrom estate of more thanrn$650,000 ($1 million in 2006).rnTom Riley writes in Philanthropy magazine:rnIn 1996, only about 3 percent ofrnAmericans who died were subjectrnto estate tax. But that number isrngrowing rapidly. F’ederal Reserverndata suggest that over 6 percent ofrnU.S. households have a net worthrnsufficient to subject them to the estaterntax if they [sic] were to die today,rnand every uptick in the marketrnadds new households to the club.rnBy 2004, the number of estate taxrnforms filed with the feds is expected tornrise 52 percent—to 143,000. Particularrnvictims include the owners of small businessesrnand family farms. The farm aspectrnmay have helped more than anythingrnelse to grab attention for this issue. Americansrnare notoriously sentimental aboutrnthose farms on which only the merestrnhandful would actually live, given thernchance. To accuse the federal governmentrnof enmity to rural America—this isrnto say something pungent and powerful.rnThe estate tax dates back to 1916. Republicansrnand Democrats alike supportedrnits short-term use during war-time.rnAh, but leave it to Franklin D. Rooseveltrnand his collaborators to bump the toprnrate up to 77 percent, where it remainedrnuntil the early 70’s. Well, granted—55rnpercent isn’t as bad as 77 percent. Butrntwo points warrant consideration: first, asrnpreviously noted, the entrapment of middlernclass families in the toils of a tax designedrnfor Rockefellers, Harrimans, andrnFricks; and second, the raspberr)’ directedrnat Edmund Burke and his intellectualrnkinsmen for arguing in behalf of perpetuating,rnrather than dispersing, inheritedrnwealth. Congress’s decision for the latter,rnrather than the former, is driven by spite.rnNever mind how hard you work. Forgetrnprudence and forbearance! Bat awav allrnthose Burkean “flies of a summer”: thernkids, the grandkids. Let ’em make theirrnown pile! Morally, intellectually, thisrnmay not be despicable advice. Whetherrnit is the advice a government office menrnand women is entitied to dispense is surelyrna different matter. The government’srnnose is stuck so far down in our pocketsrnwe sometimes forget there was ever arntime when government protected, ratherrnthan thwarted, honest accumulation.rnCan anything be done? That’s the oddrnpart. Yes. Congress moves in that direction.rnCalifornia Rep. Christopher Cox’srnbill to abolish the death tax has about 200rnsponsors and virtually unanimous, as yournmight suppose, business support. An alternativernis the ten-year phaseout proposalrnsponsored b}’ two House Ways andrnMeans Committee members, RepublicanrnJennifer Dunn of Washington andrnDemocrat John Tanner of Tennessee.rnNeither lawmaker could be called anrnacolyte of Newt Gingrich.rnWhat’s this? Prudence asserting itselfrnin Washington? The “contract of eternalrnsociety” making the rounds for signature?rnMr. Burke, Mr. Burke, for an old deadrnguy in ruffles, you are so . . . so . . . stylish.rn—Bill MurchisonrnIMPEACHMENT AND KOSOVOrnare behind us, and now we can get backrnto the important issues of “Social Security,rnaffordable health care, welfare reform,rnthe environment, and education.” PresidentrnClinton can get back to “runningrnthe countrv’,” presumably for “the sake ofrnthe children,” so that “at the end of thernday,” we can “prepare for the 21st century-“rnWhew! Most Americans seem to havernsurvived the “constitutional crisis” andrnthe “trauma of impeachment” with, itrnwould seem, nothing much damaged exceptrnour language.rnSo what comes next? That is almostrntoo easy to guess. The item that Clintonrnseems most excited to tackle is education.rnHis solution to that “problem” is a mar’elrnof simplicity: 100,000 new teachers.rnIn fact, Clinton seems obsessed withrnthe number 100,000. He wants 100,000rnnew cops on the beat, and he wants to issuern100,000 vouchers for new housing,rnwhatever that means.rnJust think of that number. If LarryrnKing really did interview 30,000 guests inrn30 years, it would take him another 70 tornreach 100,000 interviews. The equatorialrncircumference of the Earth is onlyrn25,000 miles, so that is four new teachersrnfor every mile of the equator. If the averagernheight of the new teachers were fivefoot-rnnine, their height stacked head tornfeet would be about 110 miles, or overrn396 times as tall as the Sears Tower. AsrnJerp,’ Lewis says on his annual telethon,rn”That’s some kinda number!” —as ifrnnumbers, in and of themselves, have anrnintrinsic meaning.rnIn reality, however, what would be therneffect on American education of 100,000rnnev’ teachers? Indeed, what is the statedrnpurpose of such an addition to our forcernof public pedants?rnThe best place to begin is, of course,rnwith some facts. Reliable current statisticsrnregarding education are difficult tornobtain because corrections to reportedrndata continue long after the initialrncounts. A reasonable, conservative extrapolationrnfrom data in The World Almanacrnindicates that, in school yearrn1999-2000, there will be in our public elementar)’rnand secondarv schools approximatelyrn47.7 million students presidedrnover by some 2.8 million teachers, for arnnational average stiident-teacher ratio ofrn17 to one. An additional 100,000 teachersrnwould only lower that ratio to 16.4 tornone, which might not sound like a badrnthing to do, except for the heavy price tornbe paid by local districts because of morernfederal control over schools.rnBut now comes a twist in Clinton’s numerology:rnHe also wants to lower the student-rnteacher ratio to no more than 15 tornone “in the early grades.” Taking this tornmean kindergarten to eighth grade,rnwhere there will be some 34.1 millionrnstudents in 1999-2000, if the studentteacherrnratio were to be a classroom maximumrnof 15 to one, then the overall ratiornwould certain!}’ have to be a good bit lessrnthan that. But even at the impossible averagernof 15 to one, these 34.1 million studentsrnwould require 2,273,000 teachers.rnThis would be more than 78 percent ofrnall teachers, both elementary and secondary.rnIf the proposed 100,000 newrn8/CHRONICLESrnrnrn