Inasmuch "on horror's head horrors accumulate" every single Trump day, I wonder why an atrocity out of the mouth of Senator Charles Grassley (of once progressive Iowa) pisses me off to the top of my bent. Over the top, actually, even though he's probably no worse than the others.
In an aha!! moment with the Des Moines Register, Senator Grassley defended his vote against the inheritance tax thusly: "I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it's on booze or women or movies." His very words. Out of his own ignorant head.
Why am I so enraged? Let us count the ways.
First, it goes without saying that Grassley doesn't know that most ordinary citizens have a hard time making ends meet. That they raid the kids' piggy-bank at the end of every month. That they regularly postpone filling that prescription or repairing the car until next month's paycheck arrives. That they can't invest in stocks because they're busy "investing" in bananas and oatmeal and potatoes, not because they're frittering their money away on playthings. Grassley is completely out of touch with reality -- with the way real people live.
But it's worse than that. It's not only that he's unconnected to his constituents -- he oozes contempt for them (and therefore for me). Wasting their money on movies, the poor ignorant slobs. If they had self-control and brains of Chuck Grassley quality, why they'd go out and buy a couple of hundred shares of a good growth stock and contribute to the American economy. He's worse than Marie Antoinette, who, bad as she was, never said, "let them buy stocks."
And therefore it follows in the universe of Grassley values that the tax system should penalize the improvident and reward the rich. (Which it already does in myriad ways, most obviously by taxing unearned income -- e.g. capital growth -- at half the rate of sweat labor).
And in Chuck Grassley's view, to reward the rich and penalize the poor is the higher morality -- because the rich will invest and the poor will do nothing but spend every darn penny. To those who have much shall be given, even if they don't need or want it.
And while I'm stoking my indignation, let me add that I'm offended by the Chuckster's sanctimonious "darn" -- he can thieve from the working class but he's too prissy to swear while doing so. And I'm also just slightly off my gourd that he includes "women" among the vices of regular Iowans -- as though (if I understand his point) all money is earned and spent by "men." I think that the dumb Chuck slipped -- let down his guard for a second -- and revealed that in his heart he doesn't acknowledge that women are wage-earners nor that they are wage-earners who vote.
And I am also pissed because the whole argument against the estate tax is fraudulent. The case for repeal has nothing to do with small farmers or small businessmen. It already excludes the first $11,000,000 of estates and therefore affects only a very small number of multimillionaires and billionaires who can well afford to contribute a bit to the general welfare. The sole purpose, and the intended effect of the repeal, is to satisfy the greed of a handful or plutocrats who want to pass their wealth to their heirs and therefore maintain a perpetual class of wealthy aristocrats. Just like France before the revolution, when the titled were exempted from taxation. Chuck -- do your realize that your sentiments are profoundly unAmerican.
So let me say to Senator Charles Grassley, with respect for the high office that you hold and with as much love as I can muster, Chuck, you are a moron, and you can take your insulting opinions, roll them up, and stick them where the sun don't shine.
Comments