Not everyone in Sugar Land is sweet

By MOLLY IVINS

AUSTIN - My, my, my, our Texas boys in Washington are certainly distinguishing themselves these days, aren't they?

Our boy Tom DeLay, the House minority whip and former exterminator from Sugar Land, added luster to our reputation for gentle manners and civilized behavior by shoving a con- gressman from Wisconsin on the House floor and apostrophizing him as "a gutless chickens--."

Now they know: Not everyone from Sugar Land is sweet.

DeLay's spokesman said after- ward that the Texan got so upset because the fellow from Wisconsin questioned his integ- rity and Delay is not accustomed to having his integrity questioned. Well, actually, if he's not, he should be since it's been going on for quite some time now.

In fact, the newspaper article the Wisconsin fellow was carrying on about is more than 2 years old. That's the story about DeLay having had a bunch of lobbyists in his office rewriting federal regulations.

Then there was the story about DeLay's putting the arm on lob- byists for contributions; that's why they call him "the Hammer" in Washington, D.C. And the stories about Delay's brother-the-lobbyist and how DeLay carries water for him. DeLay, as a former extermi- nator, also thinks that pesticides are wonderful and that we should bring back DDT, al- though this has led more people to question his sanity than his integrity.

Our boy Dick Armey from Ir ving, the House majority leader, was also in the news, illustrating a nice point about argumenta- tion.

As the Republican leadership vowed to extirpate the National Endowment for the Arts both root and branch, Armey said: "I object to those who say that without a government agency, we are cultural idiots." I cannot swear that no one has ever referred to Armey as a cultural idiot, but I do know that is not the line of reasoning used by those in favor of the NEA.

This is a perfect example of a rhetorical trick that gets us into many stupid arguments and en- trenched positions - that is, when a person on one side of an issue defines not only his view but that of his opponents, as well. When you redefine what your opponents believe, it's amazing how often it sounds like drivel. I know; I have stooped to this trick myself on occasion, but it is a nasty device.

By misstating what people who disagree with you think about almost anything, you can make your position look ever so much more reasonable and inviting. But this is not a helpful device; it just gets people stuck in knee- jerk positions and draws atten- tion away from the merits of the arguments on either side.

The other day, a Talking Head on television declared: "The feminists have been lying to us for 20 years; they say women should be just like men." Oh, piffle. I have been a feminist for 35 years and have never heard anyone say any such thing.

What feminists say is that women should get equal pay for equal work; and believe it or not, that has been a long, hard struggle. We also believe that women should have more oppor tunities than was common in the past - opportunities to be doc- tors as well as nurses, pilots as well as stewardesses, executives as well as secretaries, and cer- tainly full-time mothers if they choose to be.

Back in the District of Columbia, Our Boy Bill Archer from Houston, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, is about to come on-stage in a big way. Speaker Newt Gin- grich has decided to start a major offensive to get both the capital gains tax and the estate tax eliminated, which will put OBB in the spotlight, making what I believe is a sorry case. The usual disinformation is already circulating.

"Why should the government take 55 percent of everything you make in your lifetime?" demanded an indignant John Sununu. Good question, except that the government doesn't do that. Estate taxes do not even apply to those who leave under $600,000; to get into the 55 percent bracket, you have to leave millions, and people who have millions to leave use "estate planners" to avoid paying taxes.

The argument on capital gains, unearned income, is even more bizarre. Two-thirds of the money that comes from the capital gains tax is paid by people who are rich even by Republican standards. Finding them arguing furiously for their right to un- earned income is a curious sight indeed.

It always reminds me of Henry George's 19th-century proposal for a single tax on real estate: George argued that because the only reason real estate ever increases in value is because of the community (as the community grows, so do real estate values), all real estate profits properly belong to the community.

The Republicans argue that the capital gains tax discourages investment. We've noticed how discouraged investors are lately. Scarcely a nickel can the poor stock market find because of that nasty capital gains tax.

Well, as I often say to people from Washington who question what we send up there: You should see what we've got back home.

Creators Syndicate, Inc.