For a few dollars more

Rep. Steve King (R-completely insane) says what we're all thinking. Provided "we" are a bunch of neo-monarchist, class-warfaring nutcases with absolutely no intent of governing America as anything but a money pool for the rich to play in.

KEYES: Obviously any type of deal is very fluid at this point, but in terms of what you would be willing to accept and vote for. For instance, say there were $3 trillion in cuts and just $8 in revenue increases, do you think that’s something you yourself could be supporting? [...] KING: I’m not for raising taxes. I won’t support anything that raises taxes. Revenue increases are a euphemism for raising taxes. Closing loopholes, one person’s loophole is the other one’s legitimate business expense. And tax deduction or tax credit as the case may be. That doesn’t get to the root of the problem. Let’s send a constitutional amendment to the states for ratification and then start talking business.

A few terms come to mind when considering Steve King. Things like "frothing madman" or "delusional Randian cultist." If someone asks you if you'd be willing trade a three trillion dollar deficit reduction plan for, oh, the change in your pockets, the appropriate answer is at least to give it it a good long think.

But this is what we're dealing with: this "debt ceiling" debate has gone from a regular (though unappetizing) government function to becoming the cornerstone of a new class war that preaches austerity for everybody, but not even eight damn dollars more in tax increases on the wealthy. Make no mistake, Steve King would be quite happy to raise taxes or cut aid to anyone but the wealthy: as he said, he considers the "eight dollars" question to be a "euphemism" for closing loopholes on "business expenses." Or tax deductions. Or tax credits. And all of that talk is just intolerable nonsense—never mind that the rich are paying a hell of a lot less than their share, historically speaking—of the sort that makes Eric Cantor walk out of the room in a huff, or the sort that, by God, we need a constitutional amendment to protect ourselves from.

These people are nuts. There's no grand plan involved, there's no supposed economic theories they can wave their hands at: they've just gone nuts. They are so devoted to this notion of protecting the rich and the corporate from even the slightest supposed injury that their entire duties towards governing, towards the country, towards the rest of the citizens—it all has vanished. The one and only duty is to protect the rich, and Steve King is proud—proud—to declare that he would rather bring the entire economy to its knees than compromise on that all-important goal.

I keep calling it class warfare, because it plainly is. In the case of people like Steve King, though, it's devolved into something more than that. It's gotten quite nearly to the point of being a form of monarchism or feudalism, where the elites and the landed gentry govern the land, write the laws, and literally everyone else in the nation are just serfs, lucky to get any scraps that might fall their way. He is insistent that these people pay nothing, but that we balance the budget right here, right now, on the backs of literally everyone else but them.

After years of having my own patriotism questioned for not waving a flag proudly enough during one of Bush's ridiculous speeches, or not sufficiently insulting the French or whoever the latest conservative enemy of the week is, I have to say: how does this count as "patriotism?" How does this represent even the thinnest hints of responsible governance? How can an asshole like Steve King pin an American flag to his chest and strut around spouting asinine odes to feudalism without being universally reviled by everyone who comes even momentary in contact with him?

What kind of tea party revolt is it when you intervene to protect the rich and tax the poor? What kind of hollow-headed idiots are these people?