Part I discussed the debate currently going on in Washington over how best to avert the nightmare set to begin on January 1. The sticking point is ‘tax cuts for the rich’, which is a concept conservatives need to do away with because it bows to the ideological structure of the modern liberal and the class warrior. Part II discussed one way to recast the language of the debate in a more honest, more accurate manner which will be more conducive to a conservative victory on the matter. Now, let’s see how this new language plays out.
This new way of discussing our economic roles is inherently more flexible because it doesn’t tie one into a single role by defining that role by one’s socioeconomic status. It’s possible to be in more than one of these classes at once, allowing for a much simpler transition from argument to economic model and back again. With the growing prevalence of investments, either directly or through retirement programs (e.g. 401(k)s, IRAs), many if not most people exist as both job holders and job creators. Most of us play bit parts or supporting roles as job creators, with the main parts being given to those with more to invest in growing their businesses. They provide the means, taking some of their earnings and granting the use of them to others to create employment. Many exist in all three classes, holding jobs in the public sector and either recommending or implementing policies that will kill jobs, while investing their earnings.
Conservatives must stop surrendering the language. It’s no wonder that it’s taken the fiscal disaster of Obama to convince people that conservatives might be right when they’ve allowed the Democrats to set the ideological agenda. Now is a brief window in history in which conservatives can profitably attempt to alter the terms of the debate in the hearts and minds of the people, now while they understand the utter ruination radical liberalism brings, and they must strike while the iron is hot, or retreat back into the wilderness.
Cast in this new language, this debate amounts to job creators fighting job destroyers while the job holders look on. Not everyone in government is a job destroyer, and this election cycle seems likely to return a good many job destroyers to private life, in favor of those who either are now or have been in the past directly involved in employing people. In the mean time, Mr. Krugman (job destroyer extraordinaire despite, or perhaps because of, his Nobel prize), wants to prevent a tax cut for the rich. Just one problem: no one’s discussing tax cuts for the rich, they’re discussing preventing the largest tax hike (read: mandatory increase in business expenses) on job creators in history. This would both drastically decrease their available cash for creating new jobs and make it harder to retain the jobs they’ve already created.
The economy is in such bad shape that in Atlanta people are shooting each other over twelve cans of beer. Why, Mr. Krugman, why, Mr. Obama, why, liberals, did you think this was a good idea?