As arguments for repealing the estate tax go, Chuck Grassley certainly … has one. Actually, the senator from Iowa has two, one on principle and the other based on scolding people over how they use their own money. Guess which one got the most attention this weekend? 
 
 In comments published by the Des Moines Register on Saturday, Grassley explained why the Senate version of tax reform includes a traditional Republican repeal of the estate tax: 
 
 Grassley was adamant about the need for change, even if farmers and small business owners represent a tiny minority of estate tax payers. The reason, he said, is as much philosophical as practical. An estate tax effectively and unfairly taxes a person’s earnings twice, he argued: first when they earn it and again when they die. And, he added, it penalizes savers without touching spenders. “I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing,” Grassley said, “as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.” 
 
 If Grassley wants to stop boozers and womanizers, he’d have his hands full just focusing on his Capitol Hill colleagues. Nothing says “I’m a man of the people” like attempting to craft laws to punish people for their social activities, amirite? 
 
 This is everything right and wrong with the current Republican tax-reform effort in a nutshell. His first argument on the estate tax is dead-on correct. The estate tax’s true offense to ordered liberty is that it double-dips. Accumulated wealth exists from earnings already subject to taxation, and further taxation by passing the estate to one’s heirs is an injustice that in some cases needlessly complicates an already emotional process. It’s a form of double jeopardy, at least in principle. 
 
 In the very next breath, however, Grassley commits the same sin that has plagued the tax system for decades, which is Congress’ desire to commit social engineering through it. The point of limited taxation is that the money belongs to the people who earned it, not the government elected by those people. If I want to spend my money on dinner with a woman, the latest Roman-numeral cookie-cutter superhero flick, followed up by a few drinks at the local bar, that’s my business and not that of Chuck Grassley. (In my case specifically, it would also be my wife’s business, and I’d face a very different kind of taxation.) Those choices should neither be abetted nor punished through the federal tax system. 
 
 Conservatives have argued for decades to eliminate the kind of social engineering Grassley endorses here. A decade ago, we had competing tax proposals for either a flat tax or a repeal of the 16th Amendment and the use of a consumption tax to replace the current income tax. Now that Republicans finally have control of Washington, the best that they can do is merely an adjustment to the existing labyrinthine system — especially true of the Senate version — that leaves in place all of the manipulative capabilities for social engineering in both the corporate and individual tax systems. 
 
 Finally, while eliminating the estate tax is a theoretically principled step, it should have been waaaaaaay down the list for true reform. As the DMR points out, it doesn’t actually impact very many taxpayers anyway, thanks to a high threshold for its application (currently $5 million in estate assets for single heirs, $11 million for married). In Iowa, that would impact perhaps 10% of all farms before allowable deductions that would raise the threshold even higher. And the Senate bill doesn’t even repeal the tax — it only raises the thresholds to $11 million/$22 million. That also is an adjustment, not a reform, so Grassley can’t even stand on the principle he proposes. 
 
 Republicans had an opportunity to be bold; instead, they’re perpetuating the problem. In honor of that, I think I’ll get a case of Jameson’s, a shelf of new Blu-Ray films, and celebrate the victory of the swamp until the 2018 elections. As for the womanizing, Grassley has no worries. My wife is all over that one. ||||| Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) questions Neil M. Gorsuch during his Supreme Court confirmation hearing. (Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post) 
 
 As Republicans continue to sell the details of their tax bill, some are reaching for more colorful language to liven up complex policies that tend to put the average voter to sleep. 
 
 Case in point: Over the weekend, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) hashed over the plan with his home state’s largest newspaper, the Des Moines Register. Turning to the party’s idea of doing away with the estate tax, Grassley framed the current law as a hindrance to responsible saving. 
 
 “I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing,” Grassley told the Register in a story published Saturday. “As opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.” 
 
 The estate tax, often described by Republicans as the “death tax,” is levied only on the very rich, passing on assets of more than $5.5 million for individuals and $11 million for married couples. The current tax on estates is 40 percent of an individual’s wealth at death. 
 
 Grassley, a Senate Finance Committee member responsible for writing the tax proposal, was immediately slammed by critics over the comments. 
 
 The suggestion — that anyone not socking away their savings in the bank or investments must be profligately throwing their money away — played directly into the critique that Republicans are disconnected from the majority of working Americans. 
 
 [Analysis: Why aren’t you paying the estate tax? Maybe because you bought 311,000 bottles of whisky.] 
 
 “Darn straight, Sen. Grassley,” former Hillary Clinton spokesman Jesse Ferguson wrote on Twitter. “If we gave that money in middle class tax cuts, they’d just waste it on hookers and blow. right?” 
 
 Said Holly O’Reilly, a national “March for Truth” organizer: 
 
 Dear @ChuckGrassley You spelled “food and childcare” wrong. Pull it together. Sincerely, America 
 
 On Monday, Grassley said his point about the estate tax had been taken out of context and sought to expound on his thoughts. 
 
 “My point regarding the estate tax, which has been taken out of context, is that the government shouldn’t seize the fruits of someone’s lifetime of labor after they die,” he said in a statement. “The question is one of basic fairness, and working to create a tax code that doesn’t penalize frugality, saving and investment. That’s as true for family farmers who have to break up their operations to pay the IRS following the death of a loved one as it is for parents saving for their children’s college education or working families investing and saving for their retirement.” 
 
 [Democrats fume over ‘absurd’ GOP tax bill full of last-minute handwritten edits] 
 
 Under the Senate tax plan passed early Saturday morning along partisan lines, the exemptions are raised to $11 million per individual and $22 million per couple. The House version of the bill does the same but also axes the tax completely in 2024. 
 
 In Grassley’s home state of Iowa, the estate tax has been particularly fraught with controversy. Republicans have often argued that the 40 percent government tax creates a cost-prohibitive situation for farmers hoping to pass their farms on to heirs. 
 
 “Death should not be a taxable event and families should not have to fear the Internal Revenue Service and more taxes making it more difficult and costly to pass on the farm or family business to the next generation,” Rep. David Young (R), a Des Moines-area congressman, wrote on Friday in a newsletter to constituents. 
 
 But according to the Register, the actual numbers do not support that narrative. Citing 2016 data from the IRS, the newspaper determined 5,219 tax returns were affected by the current estate tax. Only 682, or 13 percent, of the tax filers owned farm assets. 
 
 The paper also referred to a 2015 report from the Congressional Research Service noting that only 65 farm estates in the United States annually are touched by the estate tax. 
 
 Grassley and other congressional Republicans have long maintained that even if farmers are not affected by the tax directly, the planning involved is an additional strain. 
 
 “[M]any are forced into spending large sums of their hard-earned dollars on lawyers and accountants to avoid its impact instead of reinvesting in their business,” he told the Register. “This means that while many don’t end up paying the tax, it still has a negative effect on the economy.” 
 
 This post has been updated. 
 
 More from Morning Mix: 
 
 Billy Bush says there were 8 witnesses to Trump’s ‘Access Hollywood’ comments 
 
 James B. Comey, Sally Yates and Eric Holder defend FBI after Trump’s Twitter attack ||||| Grassley: Ending Estate Tax Recognizes Investors Over Spenders 
 
 Enlarge this image toggle caption J. Scott Applewhite/AP J. Scott Applewhite/AP 
 
 Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, commenting on the GOP tax overhaul, tells The Des Moines Register that ending the estate tax is about rewarding people who invest over those who spend everything they earn on "booze or women or movies." 
 
 A promise to end the so-called death tax has been a bulwark of Republican electoral politics for decades. A House version of the bill would do just that by 2024; however, the Senate's version of the tax overhaul, which narrowly passed the chamber early Saturday, would keep it, but instead double the current exemption to $11 million from $5.5 million per individual. For married couples, the current exemption is already at $11 million. 
 
 "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," Grassley, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, told the Register on Saturday. 
 
 The senator's remarks elicited a harsh response on social media, with one Twitter user commenting: "I'm sure those folks would love to invest, but they're a bit preoccupied just trying to make ends meet." 
 
 The elimination of the estate tax benefits a tiny fraction of taxpayers. The nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that for 2017, fewer than 2 in 1,000 estates will owe any estate tax, or about 0.2 percent. 
 
 Grassley has been an especially strong proponent of ending the estate tax, claiming that it hurts Iowa families trying to pass their farms from one generation to the next. But in an editorial published over the weekend, the Register wrote: "a review of federal tax data and nonpartisan research on the subject shows that family farmers and small business owners represent a tiny share of estate tax payers, and that the taxes they owe rarely force them to sell land or quit farming." 
 
 The Hill writes:
– Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley is taking flak over comments he made about why the GOP aims to scrap or least mitigate the estate tax. In speaking to the Des Moines Register, Grassley said the tax often derided by Republicans as the "death tax" is unfair because it taxes earnings twice, first when people earn the money and again when they die and try to pass it on to their heirs. Then came the more controversial part: "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." As NPR notes, that triggered a flurry of online criticism from those who viewed Grassley's remarks as elitist. This tweet is typical of the reaction: "I'm sure those folks would love to invest, but they're a bit preoccupied just trying to make ends meet." The Washington Post notes that it also caught the attention of former Hillary Clinton spokesman Jesse Ferguson, who tweeted, "[I]f we gave that money in middle class tax cuts, they’d just waste it on hookers and blow. right?” But it wasn't just Democrats taking issue. At the conservative Hot Air site, Ed Morrissey says the comment "is everything right and wrong with the current Republican tax-reform effort in a nutshell." Grassley's first criticism of the "double dip" problem with the estate tax is spot-on correct, he writes. "In the very next breath, however, Grassley commits the same sin that has plagued the tax system for decades, which is Congress’ desire to commit social engineering through it." The House tax plan would eliminate the tax entirely in 2024, while the Senate version would double exemptions to $11 million for individuals and $22 million for couples.