Man, talk about the wrong way to argue something . . .

I understand the argument literally and I think logically they are right on the merits, but man does it read kind of funny. It just seems that arguing that guys with assets valued at nearly a billion dollars are not the sympathy gainers you might hope for. The closest the editorial comes is basically requireing you to infer from the discussion that if the team moves, some hot dog vendors (or maybe those guys who let you park at their house for $20) will lose their livelyhoods.

Regardless of the right or wrong (and there's a fair argument to be made on both sides, I happen to think confiscating property particularly business property so the government can pay corn farmers a subsidy is um, well, malarky) you need to pick oh, SYMPATHETIC examples . . . not you know bazillionares . . .

Besides . . . why weren't these guys worried about this a touch sooner? There are all sorts of things they could have been doing up to now to minimize the estate tax due. So while I favor a lower estate tax I really can't cotton to someone with the ability to hire top flight counsel and advice coming up to the end of the road and shouting "Unfair! I don't get to keep stuff I didn't necessarily earn!" If you want to keep it you better have stewarded it and then planned to move it along.