As it is the case most of the time, the article subtitled: “The Republican candidates’ tax proposals are exorbitant” is more about The Economist, than the economy. It exposes, yet again, its alarmingly socialist bias.
The point isn’t just what the article says, it is how it says it.
- We could talk about the article’s attitude of condescending arrogance toward conservatives, perfectly illustrated by the picture above;
- we could talk about the sources quoted, think-tanks with impeccable socialist credentials such as Citizens for Tax Justice and the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Centre;
- we could talk about the naked class envy displayed by the article, shown by its aggressive criticism of tax cuts on high income earners;
- we could talk about the general message of the article advocating ferociously against any decrease of general taxation levels and
- we could also talk about the most glaring omissions: addressing the spending cut aspects of the plans or mentioning alternatives from the other side of the political spectrum.
We could talk about all of the above, but none of them is as scary to me as the implications of the Orwellian language used in the article. Just look at theses quotes:
“Republican tax plans are jaw-droppingly expensive.”
“The plan is hugely expensive.”
“it would cost $6.8 trillion, or 2.6% of GDP over a decade”
“the gargantuan cost of the plans comes from tax cuts”
… and consider the implications.
Let’s look at the dictionary definition of the word ‘exorbitant’
(of a price or amount charged) unreasonably high:
as in “the exorbitant price of tickets”
synonyms extortionate, excessively high, excessive, prohibitive, outrageous, unreasonable, inflated, unconscionable, huge, enormous, steep, stiff, sky-high, over the top, rip-off extortionate, excessively high, excessive, prohibitive, outrageous, unreasonable, inflated, unconscionable, huge, enormous, steep, stiff, sky-high, over the top, rip-off
It is perfectly reasonable to call a tax burden exorbitant, but a tax-break?
Can we call a tax cut a ‘cost’? A tax reduction plan ‘hugely expensive’? Can we say that not robbing you yesterday cost me all the money you had on you? That the amount I left in your pocket is an exorbitant cost to me? That leaving you alone was expensive?
Only in the world of Orwellian double-speak. Only if we assume that the state owns everything that we earn and any amount it allows us to keep is a present from it. Only in such a world does the language of The Economist makes any sense.
The Economist did not invent the language; they just took it from the lunatic left which is using it for quite some time by now. They can talk unchallenged about gutted programs, claw-backs and about ‘squandering tax cuts on the wealthy’.
The left is, at times, confronted on the content of their messages but seldom on the underlying notion of slavery, the implications of the language used, the idea that we belong to the state, and that we are only allowed to exist at its mercy and benevolence.
I already learned to expect this sleazy language from communists, labour unions and the likes of Naomi Klein but it is scary to see it in a leading mainstream publication used in a matter of fact manner. What this means is that the ‘centre’ swung very far to the left.
How could we protect the ideas of freedom if we cannot even protect the language articulating them?
The brunt of the sleaze is in the language, and it is already mainstream.
The war is cultural