Time to Confront the Right Wing Taxation Assumption

There is a growing sentiment among lefty bloggers that we should shift the debate on TABOR and its deviant relatives, and force the Neocons to defend their premise, that taxation is bad.

Here are just a couple of posts from the last three days:

In Effect: Conservative Expert Provides Less-Than-Expert Testimony

The Xoff Files: The $5-billion question on TABOR

Whats Left: Calling it like they see it (Who notes that the conservative Wisconsin State Journal  has had it with these clowns.)

These are just three examples of some of the most recent posts.  Then there were these comments to one of my  posts, Barry Paulson and the Unarticulated Premise:

...A better tactic for the opposition, IMO, is to demonstrate how gobsmacking insane it would be to run a household budget using the TABOR formula. I can picture the campaign commercial right now: John Gard trying to explain to a couple with three kids and a mortgage why their budget baseline should be the husband's salary as a grocery clerk in high school.

and

...Good points Sven.  I think it's long overdue for Democrats to step up and claim the title of fiscal responsibility. It seems like today's Democrats are scared of the old "Tax and Spend" label that Republicans used so effectively. ...On the local level, I'd love to see Democrats ask the R's exactly what would they cut? Police service? Fire service?

Comments

[nonheroicvet]

Democrats have been practicing political correctness for so long we have forgotten how to fight in a way that the average voter understands.

Republicans/neocons want big government - they just don't want to pay for it. Lets call them what they are - LEECHES, PARASITES, WORSE THAN ANYTHING RONALD REAGAN COULD IMAGINE.

[Sven]

"force the Neocons to defend their premise, that taxation is bad..."

I wouldn't approach it quite like that. The enthymeme in the wingnut "taxes are bad," "small government is good" argument is that "liberals think taxes are good" and "liberals like big government." The unspoken, fallacious argument is that liberals view taxes and "big government" as values and ends in themselves.

But the damning inference that underlies such rhetoric isn't really about taxes at all; most people this side of Ayn Rand aren't philosophically opposed to taxes per se, and the wingnuts understand that. The inference they want people to draw is that "liberals lack common sense" and "liberals are irresponsible" and "liberals can't be trusted with your money." THAT's the premise that needs to be challenged.

And that's why I think we should grab Bride of TABOR and beat the wingnuts over the head with their own club. Coloradoans may have fell for the notion that TABOR was a "common sense" solution 16 years ago, but it's now glaringly apparent that it was one of the most deeply irresponsible notions ever put to paper, much less engraved in a constitution.

Another campaign commercial: A man picks up a shifty-looking hitchhiker, who begins ranting and raving about poor driving skills. The hitchhiker grabs the wheel steering the car into a firey collision with a telephone pole.

Fade to black. "THE REPUBLICAN APPROACH TO AUTOMOBILE SAFETY...
THE TAXPAYER 'PROTECTION' AMENDMENT: THE REPUBLICAN APPROACH TO GOVERNMENT."