BCT Editorial – 3/3/05

This page was last updated on March 5, 2005.

Succinct; Editorial; Beaver County Times; March 3, 2005.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Some pundits contend that a major reason Republicans have been able to beat Democrats has been their ability to reframe the public’s perception of complex issues by rebranding them, and the fewer words the better.”

[RWC] If any “pundits” are making this claim, they must be liberal pundits. After all the years of liberalspeak we’ve endured, I find it incredible the masters of redefining the English language accuse Republicans of this activity.

Remember, these are the guys to whom abortion is choice, discrimination is affirmative action, taxes are contributions, and so on.

“The best example of this is the inheritance tax, which many people were indifferent to until Republicans and their allies starting calling it the ‘death tax.’ The new name changed people’s attitude toward the tax, even though only a small percentage of the wealthiest among us are affected by it.”

[RWC] I used to do marketing and referring to the inheritance tax as the death tax was merely truth in advertising. The tax is paid whey you die, right?

“Now, Democrats have come up with a short-and-sweet phrase that has a good chance of stopping President Bush’s effort to reform Social Security: ‘Raise the cap.’ Those three words resonate with many Americans. Why not raise the cap above the current $90,000 to keep Social Security solvent?”

[RWC] There are a few problems with this paragraph.

First, “raise the cap” translates to “increase taxes.” Does the Times really believe “increase taxes” will be a popular rallying cry?

Second, the Times conveniently forgot to mention the max taxed earnings cap increases every year. Today’s $90,000 maximum taxed earnings cap is 30 times the original $3,000 of 1935 and now increases every year by law. It more than doubled in the last 18 years alone and increased nearly $14,000 since 2000!

Third, raising the cap won’t keep Socialist Security solvent. The SS tax rate has increased to 6.2 times (12.4%) its original 2% and the earnings cap has increased to 30 times ($90,000) its original $3,000 and Socialist Security still isn’t solvent. What in the 70-year history of Socialist Security leads these nincompoops to believe more tax increases – either by rate increases or by raising the earnings cap – will do the deed? Indeed, the Socialist Security actuaries have already indicated even completely eliminating the max taxed earnings cap doesn’t permanently fix Socialist Security; removing the cap merely pushes back the day of reckoning.¹

“Of course, like the so-called ‘death tax,’ ‘raise the cap’ does not do justice to the complexity of the issue.”

[RWC] Actually, both phrases describe the corresponding issues well. “Death tax” exactly described the situation. It was not enough to tax a person when he was alive; government had to take even more wealth from him – or his heirs – upon his death. “Raise the cap” clearly says, “increase taxes.” It takes a liberal to believe “increase taxes” will become a popular rallying cry.

I find it humorous the editorial chose a topic that reinforces the fact that Republicans tend to cut taxes while Democrats tend to increase them. Someone at the Times really needs to read their editorials before publishing them.

“But that’s beside the point. In the poisoned atmosphere of U.S. politics today, doing what is best for the American people takes a back seat to sticking it to the other side.”

[RWC] I assume the editorial writers referred to themselves.

1. Social Security Tax May Mean More Money; Laura Meckler; Associated Press; February 18, 2005.