U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg was on Dave Rye’s show last Friday, and he repeatedly referred to the new cap and trade bill as the “cap and tax” bill. He did the same thing in a news release.
What’s up with this? From Republicans we get the “death tax” instead of the estate tax, the “Democrat” Party instead of the Democratic Party and now “cap and tax” instead of cap and trade.
Are Democrats guilty of the same thing? Please provide examples, if any. I have yet to hear a Democrat refer to the other leading party as the “Republic” Party.
So is this just something with Republicans? And why are we electing 4-year-olds to office?
Democrats suck at naming things. The Children’s Health Insurance Initiative literally begged for a PR-friendly name, like Kid-Care or something like that. What did they call it? SCHIP.
Play a mind game with me.
Jon is a member of the Republican Party. He is a Republican.
Sue is a member of the Democratic Party. She is a Democratic?
The distinction is worth making since both parties are Democratic.
It’s interesting that you only seem to notice wordsmithing from one side. I’m guessing it’s largely because you accept the assumption of one side and reject the assumptions of the other. A conservative, for example, might see a government mandated increase in costs and corresponding increase in government revenues as a tax (just like a fee is really a tax). Furthermore, while it’s correct to say that the death tax is a tax on inheritance, it’s also correct to say it’s a tax on the event of a death. It’s a matter of perspective.
What’s particularly interesting to me is that you seem unable to see the word-games played by liberals (er, I mean progressives).
-”Privatize” any Social Security lately?
-Enjoy any “tax cuts for the wealthy” (like, say the 10% tax bracket)?
-Scared of global warming, er, I mean “climate change?”
-Wondering about the jobs in the “Jobs Bill” that Senator Tester is so proud of voting?
-How about a little Employee Free Choice (mmm, those public ballots sure wreak of freedom from influence!)
-Gosh, a little “Single Payer” sure sounds good in lieu of “Government Funded”
-”Public Option” instead of “Government Option”
If you don’t think the left is using focus groups to determine how to say things, you’re not paying attention. Consider, for example, these two stories from the LA Times and the NY Times that directly discuss the “Cap & Trade” rhetoric that got you all upset:
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/11/nation/na-obama-language11
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02enviro.html
-
Oh, and Mark, SCHIP was named by Republicans in Congress, who originally created it and first passed it in 1997.
MT Sentinel,
Interesting links but not quite on point. The articles talk about using language that presents your position in the best possible light, something all of us do. My post is about changing the names of things that already exist in order to confuse or denigrate.
By the way, I don’t think that a fee is really just a tax. When I pay for upkeep on national parks I will never enter, I’m paying taxes. When I drive into Yellowstone, I pay a fee. That really is a distinction worth preserving.
Similarly, an estate tax is a tax levied on wealth left behind by someone who died. Death itself is not a taxable event — at least not for poor schmoes like me. Another distinction worth preserving.
Some of your examples of word games actually seem pretty straightforward to me. We might argue about who qualifies as wealthy, but “tax cuts for the wealthy” is pretty clear language. “Climate change” is useful because lots of people don’t seem to understand that global warming doesn’t always mean warmer temperatures. One (quite disputed) hypothesis is that warming could alter the Gulf Stream, making Western Europe much colder than it is now. “Single payer” is useful, too, if somewhat confusing, because the single payer isn’t necessarily the government. “Public option” is quite accurate language.
One last point: Republican is the same term as both adjective and noun. A person who is a Democrat (noun) belongs to the Democratic (adjective) Party. Both parties are democratic. Only one is Democratic. Calling it the Democrat Party is just childish.
Part of the wide misunderstanding of the Estate Tax is misconstrued purpose. Sometimes overall policy thrust detrimental to individuals is good for the larger body politic. The breakup of accumulated wealth, which creates undue influence over government and promotes aristocracy, is a better outcome for all of us than the loss of half or more of an estate by some wealthy families. When the Founders broke free of Great Britain, they also broke free of primogeniture, the rule of wealth, the House of Lords and the Royal Family. Without estate taxation, we invite it all back.
The notion of a “death tax” was a PR stunt – the term came from the Republican campaign of 2001, likely traceable to Frank Luntz. The idea is to create a false impression of the intent of the tax – that it affects anyone but the upper crust. The job of the PR people was to convert an isolated problem of extreme wealth into a matter of public concern affecting all of us. “Death” tax is dark and gloomy and ominous. Brilliant stroke!
Another false impression deliberately conveyed is that the Estate Tax affects “family farms”. In Montana, one of the few “farmers” affected by the tax, a man who has never touched the business end of a shovel, is Denny Rehberg. He inherited his wealth, and was likely a little PO’d that his Dad’s estate was subject to the tax. He is self-interested, and ought to recuse himself from the debate. Not a chance.
“Cap & trade” or “Cap & tax” are two ways to tell you your electric bill is going to double. I don’t get lost in the fancy terminology BOTH sides use. I look toward the RESULTS of their actions. The second might seem misleading to David, but it seems more on point to what is actually going to happen to me. No confusion at all.
Actually David MTSentinel hit the nail on the head and you then weaseled away trying to avoid the obvious. You asked for examples and MTS gave them to you very clearly.
Ken, What examples did he provide? I’m talking about cases where Democrats have taken something that is known by a common, familiar name and changed the name to something else to make it look bad. None of his examples fit that criterion. If we are only talking about deceptive language then, sure, both sides do it. But using deceptive language and distorting the actual names of things are two different animals. Just give me one example.
His examples:
“Privatizing” does not sound deceptive to me. Both parties use it, I believe, to describe certain proposed changes in Social Security.
I’m not sure what “Jobs Bill” he is referring to. Does it have some other name that I would know it by?
“Employee Free Choice” may be deceptive, but it is the term both sides use to refer to that bill. I suspect that unions, not Democrats, came up with the name.
The other terms I dealt with in an earlier comment.
If all of this is so dang obvious, then help me see it.
David:
“Privatizing” was a mischacterization of what Bush was proposing. His plan called for “Personal Accounts” which gave consumers an option to put some of their social security into approved markets. It was just a different form of “lock box” – but Democrats did a great job of scaring people by mis-labeling it.
Tester has been calling the stimulus the “Jobs Bill” since he voted for it. I wonder why you didn’t post about his “changing the names of things that already exist in order to confuse or promote.”
“Tax Cuts for the Wealthy” dramatically misconstrues the tax policy – which cut taxes for everyone.
I think Republicans actually refer to the Employee Free Choice act as “Card Check” which is what it has been known as for years.
Either way, you’re acceptance of left-wing word games as “common sense” and right-wing word games as “confusion” and “denigration” speaks more to your inherent bias toward left-leaning rhetoric than anything else.
One last question. You’re National Parks analogy on the difference between a tax and a fee is pretty straight forward. But I think it’s also a bit oversimplified.
By your definition, where do you classify a property tax (is it a “fee” for the ownership of property)? What about a sales tax (levied on a specific consumer action that can be avoided)?
If the difference is that the funds are earmarked, then is the cigarette tax that pays for Children’s Health Insurance a tax or a fee?
Maybe you classify the difference as whether you make direct use of the funds you pay – in which case, does a gas tax become a fee when you drive on the roads it pays for?
My point isn’t to split hairs, but merely to suggest that there isn’t a clear bright line between the two. Language is a slippery thing. Cap and Tax is an accurate description from a different perspective.
But then, aren’t progressives all about acceptance of different perspectives?
Denny Rehberg’s dad, Jack Rehberg, is still very much alive.
Somebody tell Mark.
That would clash with his pre-conceived notion of who Denny Rehberg is though Dave.
Ouch! My apologies to Mr. Rehberg Sr.
Point stands – both about Denny and the business end of a shovel (has he ever held a private sector job?) and the people who havae to pay the estate tax have gone to great lengths to convince us that their problem is really our problme, And Denny is self-interested – in 2003, 88 Montana estates had to pay estate tax. As of this moment, Deeny and his family are among may several hundred families that would be liable for the tax.
But Denny says it’s about family farms. He’s using Montana farmers as a human shield.
Put it another way – right at this moment, 154,000 Montanans are without health insurance, thousands of others underinsured. Denny’s concern? That top 1% that might have to pay the estate tax.
I stand by my judgment of Denny – he’s an elitist who has enlisted ordianry people to fight hsi battles.
Sorry about spell checking.