"The thinking was that the rush to grab tax-free income down the road would raise a $6.4 billion windfall. ... Government mistrust is another factor. A TD Ameritrade survey found that 36% of ideal candidates for conversion suspect that Washington will somehow change the rules later to help reduce the national debt, partially at Roth IRA holders' expense", JR Brandstrader at Barron's, 18 January 2010, link: http://online.barrons.com/article/SB126360927771630223.html.
What fools these experts are. I expect, one way or another, Roth IRAs to be taxed. LS apparently selected IRS shills as her "experts" in this piece. Having read a few of his articles, I think Slott a clown. Taxing salary twice? We tax: estates and social security. You pay sales taxes on items bought with after-tax income. Why not Roths? We may get increased taxes on the rich, i.e., those making over say $250,000 a year. Why not tax Roth accounts over say $1 million by "imputing "distributions to their holders? See my 2 January 2009 and 5 May 2010 posts: http://skepticaltexascpa.blogspot.com/2009/01/hogan-v-mcquarrie-on-roths.html and http://skepticaltexascpa.blogspot.com/2010/04/vampire-squidking-canute-of.html.