especially if the idea is to achieve a step up basis for heirs

Money that is subject to RMDs, money in tax deferred accounts, don't get a step up in basis. When an IRA is inherited, the heir has to take [taxable] distributions from it, and drain it within 10 years (except for certain cases, like a spouse who draws according to their own RMD). When a Roth IRA is inherited, it also has to be drained similarly, but are tax free (due to being Roth).

So eliminating mandatory RMDs will delay taxes, but will not eliminate them.

Going back to the OP’s original question, who on this board agrees with Ms Decker and supports a possible Berkshire dividend and why?

In general, I do not like dividends at all. Receiving a dividend is functionally equivalent (from the investor point of view) to selling small amounts of stock periodically to realize income. But dividends don't allow you to time the realization of income, instead the company is deciding when you receive that income. And when the company decides, that complicates your tax planning and timing. Further, dividends can't be balanced against capital losses, while capital gains can be. So in summary, a dividend is far less flexible.