www.roanoke.com

In the end, only one argument for repeal of the federal estate tax remains standing once the facts are known. Sentiment and ideology are its foundation, rather than practicality, and it boils down to this:

It's just not fair. "The death of a family member should not be a taxable event, period," said Rep. Kenny Hulshof, R-Mo. After a long, often misleading repeal campaign, polls indicate most Americans accept that simple appeal to fairness. When the House on Wednesday passed Hulshof's bill to permanently kill the tax, the 272-162 vote included regrettable support from Democrats such as 9th District Rep. Rick Boucher.

The Senate should take a more sober look at the bill. Against its superficial "fairness" stand compelling arguments for restoring a revised estate tax after 2010, the year it temporarily expires under legislation passed in 2001.

• The cost - $745 billion in revenue over 10 years - is staggering, especially in light of huge projected deficits and spending needs. The figure rises to $1 trillion when increased interest payments are included.

• Contrary to the propaganda, repeal is not necessary to protect family farms and small business. Only 2.1 percent of inherited estates, averaging nearly $2.7 million in value, were large enough to pay the tax in 2001. Some analysts say repeal could actually hurt middle-class heirs more than it helps by subjecting them instead to higher capital gains taxes and cumbersome reporting requirements.

Another bill, rejected by the House, would have increased exemption levels to protect even the highest end of the middle class. In keeping with the temporary changes begun in 2001, Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., proposed exempting $3.5 million ($7 million for a couple). That would subject just three-tenths of 1 percent of estates - only the wealthiest Americans - to the tax.

• The estate tax is necessary to check a political and economic threat foreseen by the founding fathers. Huge family fortunes could create a permanent aristocracy capable of turning democracy into oligarchy. A dominant class built on unearned wealth also could undermine key components of healthy capitalism, including a strong national work ethic, upward mobility and aggressive recirculation of capital.

Boucher and others may have thought they were protecting their constituents' best interests. They were not. The Senate should not repeat the mistake.