I understand your frustration with uninformed, uninterested voters, who think that economic matters are boring and do not want to hear about them.
I understand, because I am just as frustrated with you, and almost all other conservative commentators, who continue to use the language of the left on economic matters.
How do you think they can focus on economic issues if you, the deliverers of the truth, do not have it clear enough to then make it personal and understandable for the average American?
Stay with me for a minute, while I am trying to clarify a simple concept.
A major myth of the left is that taxation is an infinite source of income. To them, more taxes always means more government revenues.
You understand that it is not so. Perhaps not in detail, but you know that society's resources are limited.
Technically you can refer to the "Laffer curve", which was basis for the Reagan-Thatcher economic recovery in the 1980's.
What that means is that after a certain point, which in most industrialized nations was reached in the early 1960's, more taxation means less government revenues. I.e.: Too much of a good thing is really bad for you.
I have written books and modeled such economic behavior, but I will not bother you with further details.
Fix that in your mind: More taxation means less revenue. This is an immediate effect, not years down the road. A very recent example is from California, just one month after passing Prop.30 raising taxes on the rich (See "California revenues in free fall" at: http://conservativebyte.com/2012/12/despite-tax-increase-california-state-revenues-in-freefall/). Yes, there are other collateral reasons, such as businesses leaving, etc. but the effect happens also in a closed system. It is an economic truth with today's size of government.
Yet, just last night you said again that: Republicans could have compromised months ago by allowing Mr. Obama to get "more revenue" by raising taxes.
This is the opposite of the truth, just stated in the previous paragraph. I could have made a hundred examples from your talking points or from other Fox commentators.
I have to conclude that, either conservatives and news anchors do not understand simple economics (hard to believe), or that we continuously and unconsciously reinforce the message of the left by using their language, their talking points.
The Left successfully portrays itself on the side of the poor. They show uninformed voters that they are on their side and want to raise taxes to give them more (the Santa Klaus analogy you used). Whether they do that in good faith or not, it is not the point. The point is that we repeat and spread their message.
We, conservatives should show the uninformed voters that the left will reduce government revenues and by doing so the left acts against their interest: "government will no longer be able to be Santa Klaus."
Please, start informing America that more taxes means less revenues (technically, until government is again reduced to the optimum level – See Economic Optimalism and the STING curve).
Please, review your language carefully when talking about increasing taxes and government revenues.
Please inform your colleagues and your guests. It has to be a methodical self-review of language.
We need to reach uninformed voters where they are and where it touches them personally.
They may start listening, if they hear that every time taxes increase, not only they are going to possibly lose their jobs (if they have one), but also they are likely to receive less government goodies, perks, unemployment check, free food, cell phones and every other form of government money they currently receive.
The well intentioned, church-going people, may also start sympathizing with conservatism, if conservatism shows it is on the side of the poor and the jobless.
Thanks for listening.