May 2001

Letter to the Editor

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to respond to the Letter to the Editor published in the April issue of The Trusted Professional. This letter lambasted coverage of the address by Congresswoman Nita Lowey at our Estate Planning Committee’s Annual Dinner Meeting held November 15, 2000, and insulted members of the Estate Planning Committee and others who attended our annual dinner.

At first reading, I was at a loss as to my appropriate response. Should I dignify and draw further attention to this disparaging letter with a response in my capacity as Chair of the Estate Planning Committee and host of the evening? Or should I let it pass as simply one person’s viewpoint? While I applaud the writer’s exercise of his right of free speech, I object to the negative characterizations expressed in his letter and have decided that it would be in the committee’s best interests for me to respond.

The Estate Planning Committee was fortunate to have had such a distinguished speaker for our annual dinner. We did not invite Congresswoman Lowey to address our group because we were “fully supportive of her positions,” as Mr. Dlugash charges. Because our annual dinner was scheduled to be held the week after the November election, we hoped she would address the prospects for tax change in light of the election, which she did. The president-elect had not yet been determined with finality, and the congresswoman’s remarks that evening should be viewed in that context.

Aside from the obvious political overtones to the letter, there are a number of inaccuracies, not the least of which is the characterization of our committee members as fully supportive of Congresswoman Lowey’s positions, when the December article actually quoted our members as complimentary of her speaking style. The published quotes praised her as “a wonderful speaker” and “a very popular congresswoman and her speech showed why she is.” Instead of unqualifiedly endorsing her views, our members were instead appreciative that a busy member of Congress gave of her time to address our group.

We invited Congresswoman Lowey as an opportunity to gain access to someone of influence in Washington, without concern for the side of the aisle on which she sits. It is important for us as a Society to have our voices heard by important policy and decision makers. We wanted to hear her views on various tax issues, and of equal importance, we wanted her to hear our views.

If as a Society we do not take advantage of opportunities to have access to public figures because someone may disagree with their views, we will never be successful in inviting people of influence to address us and hear our opinions. There will always be naysayers who will object to the ideas expressed, but we do not believe that it would serve the Society to place conditions on the political leanings of invited guest speakers.

Reasonable minds may differ on the social policies underlying the estate tax, and Mr. Dlugash does a good job of setting forth the case for repeal. But surely even he must recognize that the many politicians, taxpayers, and estate planning professionals throughout the country who oppose outright repeal in favor of an increase in the unified credit equivalent do so not out of self-interest, as he suggests, but rather out of principled belief that repeal (particularly if paired with a return of the defunct carryover basis rules) would not be in the country’s best interests.

We believe that spirited, reasoned disagreement is healthy. We do not, however, believe that a politically motivated attack on an esteemed member of the U.S. Congress and on the committee which invited her to speak serves the best interests of the state Society or of its hard-working members who are privileged to serve on the Estate Planning Committee.