Mr
O'Reilly,
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.