I noticed you did not end your post with a “/s”
At first, I thought that was an oversight, but looking back, I think I would like to respond as if it were not.
To re-parse Congressman Mullins’ remarks in the most charitable way possible, I’m going to pretend he said:[quote]Because I am a prosperous business owner, I am a net payer of federal revenues, even after you take into account my Congressional salary.[/quote]
That is possibly, factually true. It would be the subject of an entire different conversation to test it, but for the purpose of this reply, I’m going to accept his (re-parsed) statement at face value, as factually correct.
I understand and actually respect that he does not wish to be thought of as a career politician. I can empathize with his personal narrative that his Congressional salary being revenue-neutral (or better) somehow ennobles his labors in Washington, raising them above the common fray.
His statement is still reprehensible, because of when and why he made the assertion.
He was at a town-hall meeting. A meeting of his constituents, where one of them (at least) was sufficiently unhappy with the way they were being represented at the Federal level to pull out the old saw (paraphrased)[quote]My taxes pay your salary; you work for me. And I’m not happy with the job you’re doing![/quote]
Does Congressman Mullins believe that, because he is independently wealthy, that he is relieved from the duty to represent the people of his district according to their wishes?
Does Congressman Mullins believe that, because he is a prosperous business owner, that he only needs to represent the interests of the people who actually voted for him?
Does Congressman Mullins believe that his privilege entitles him to ignore and/or combatively dismiss the protests of those of his constituents who dislike the way he’s doing his job?
That last question is the most important, because his conduct absolutely implies that the answer to that last question is yes.
