Now that the election results have shown that there is definitely an anti-status quo mindset among much of the electorate, what's the next step? I mentioned in my last post that there seems to also be some cognitive dissonance going on with people that will vote down taxes, but will also vote for the same people that want to raise taxes. Some might argue that people just want something for nothing. There are probably a few votes that can be explained that way, but not many. People know on one hand that high taxes hurt family budgets. However, they also seem to think that voting to cut government programs, no matter how wasteful, inefficient and demanding of ever higher levels of taxation they are, isn't "nice," and so they vote for people that are going to keep these programs running and either raise taxes or run deficits to pay for them. In order to change this, conservatives need to tailor their message to this reaction. They need to communicate this message (more effectively than I will here):
1. The taxpayers, which includes your neighbors, family and friends, already give the government huge amounts of money. It isn't "nice" of you to vote for people that want to be more generous with their money.
2. Government agencies with "nice" names often don't do what their names imply. The Department of Education has little to do with the successful education of children. The EPA does little to protect the environment. These are mainly political organizations for implementing controversial policies without a public vote.
3. It isn't "nice" to give people just enough public money and/or services to maintain them as the "working poor", when those people might get out of poverty if that money were left in the private sector.
4. If we don't make serious and immediate government cuts, the level of taxation and restrictions on freedom that will be required in the future will ensure that the lifestyles of our children and grandchildren won't be "nice."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Ernskin-Bowles budget commission fallout should be fascinating! We'll get to see who is serious about cutting the debt, based on who dismisses the commission report entirely. :)
ReplyDeleteYeah, I need to read more about that. However, one tidbit I heard puts a lot of punch behind the "we should ignore this" argument. I heard that the report assumes that government will continue to get 22% or more of US GDP. That assumption is ludicrous. That number is way too high. So why should I give a lot of credence to a report that is based on such a flawed assumption? It sounds like the report also assumes that we can't make a lot of major changes to any government programs or services that are already in place, and is just concerned with how to raise taxes or change a few rules here and there to keep the status quo. We are past the point of making those kinds of minor changes. If we are really going to reduce the debt, we need more radical solutions. So I'll wait for the official release and read it then (hopefully over my Christmas break---woo hoo!)
ReplyDeleteHmmm...actually, I just found a chart that says that goverment spending is >40% of GDP (up from 35% at the end of Bush's term). That 22% must be only revenues---and look at how much more than that we are spending! If the debt commission doesn't deal with that, it's not serious.
ReplyDelete