We have previously discussed how there appears to an ever-expanding list of words deemed inappropriate or biased. It appears “taxpayer” may be the next suspect noun. While Republicans and Democrats alike have made pitches to protecting taxpayers, New Republic’s Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig wrote an article objecting that the use of the word in the 2016 budget is problematic and that we should start to view the noun as yet another loaded and coded word.
In a recent article, Breunig noted that the Republican budget uses “taxpayers” rather than the “people” to marginalize the many Americans who do not pay any taxes. The noun, she argues, “seems to subtly promote the idea that a person’s share in our democratic governance should depend upon their contribution in taxes.”
Here is the evidence cited:
In the 43-page budget, the word “taxpayer” and its permutations appear 24 times, as often as the word “people.” It’s worthwhile to compare these usages, because the terms are, in a sense, rival ideas. While “people” designates the broadest possible public as the subject of a political project, “taxpayer” advances a considerably narrower vision—and that’s why we should eliminate it from political rhetoric and punditry.
Though addressing people as “taxpayers” is common enough to appear politically neutral, it tends to carry more argumentative weight than it’s typically credited with. The House budget is full of examples of seemingly straightforward deployments of the term which are, upon closer inspection, clearly furthering a particular ideology.
One example that she cites is the use of the noun when discussing food stamps in the following passage:
Food stamps, public housing assistance, and development grants are judged not on whether they achieve improved health and economic outcomes for the recipients or build a stronger community, but on the size of their budgets. It is time these programs focus on core functions and responsibilities, not just on financial resources. In so doing this budget respects hard-working taxpayers who want to ensure their tax dollars are spent wisely.
Bruenig argues that “as the Republican authors of this budget know well, the beneficiaries of welfare programs tend to receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes, because they are in most cases low-income. The ‘taxpayers’ this passage has in mind, therefore, don’t seem to be the recipients of these welfare programs, but rather those who imagine that they personally fund them. By this logic, the public is divided neatly into makers and takers, to borrow the parlance of last election’s Republicans.”
I disagree with this view because politicians have long justified their expenditures to “the taxpayers” to assure them that their financial contributions to the treasury are being spent wisely and fairly. Even President Obama has repeatedly pitched his programs as protecting the interests of “taxpayers” as in his 2015 speech on the auto bailout.
What do you think?
JUST OUT: A report released by the Congressional Budget Office confirms the doc fix deal negotiated by Speaker Boehner and Nancy Pelosi is a budget buster. It could drive America $500 billion further into debt.
It’s irresponsible, unsustainable, and worse than we originally thought.
Even President Obama has publicly said he’s ready to sign this so-called doc fix. If Barack Obama is eager to sign it and Nancy Pelosi has blessed it, you know it can’t be good.
The House is scheduled to vote on the Doc Fix deal TODAY – and many lawmakers are still on the fence.
> > Don’t let your Representative cave into pressure and approve $500 billion of debt. Call them today.
Conservatives have a principled plan that solves the problems of Medicare. But Boehner and Pelosi are trying to take the easy way out: adding hundreds of billions to our nation’s already massive debt.
Make the urgent call to your lawmaker today and tell them to vote “NO” to the Doc Fix plan
Instead of talking about it, here is something you can do.JUST OUT: A report released by the Congressional Budget Office confirms the doc fix deal negotiated by Speaker Boehner and Nancy Pelosi is a budget buster. It could drive America $500 billion further into debt.
It’s irresponsible, unsustainable, and worse than we originally thought.
Even President Obama has publicly said he’s ready to sign this so-called doc fix. If Barack Obama is eager to sign it and Nancy Pelosi has blessed it, you know it can’t be good.
The House is scheduled to vote on the Doc Fix deal TODAY – and many lawmakers are still on the fence.
> > Don’t let your Representative cave into pressure and approve $500 billion of debt. Call them today.
Conservatives have a principled plan that solves the problems of Medicare. But Boehner and Pelosi are trying to take the easy way out: adding hundreds of billions to our nation’s already massive debt.
Make the urgent call to your lawmaker today and tell them to vote “NO” to the Doc Fix plan
I believe Ms. Stoker Bruenig is the one showing a bias.
“NOPE! Not the subject of this post.
Sure it is.
Socialism is the impetus behind deleting references to “taxpayer,” a word that exposes the lie behind their funding schemes.
They prefer “citizen” or “comrade.”
Paul
I live by the old edict of say what you mean, mean what you say. Be polite when you ask, mean it when you apologize. One needs nothing more beyond that. Imagine had Bush lived by those Texan mores!
Pogo
Unable to pin anything on the other side, you resorted to raising the specter of socialism and tried to build it into a fully-fleshed individual. NOPE! Not the subject of this post, only so in your victim mind and only in the spirit of diversion that afflicts those who think there is a war against Christmas.
Try again.
Are you familiar with Frank Lundz? He whose switching words from their established meaning underpinned the whole Bush administration and the Iraq war it birthed?
From his book, we’ll see how:
“• How the “estate tax” became the “death tax,” turning a relatively arcane
issue into a national hot button
• How Rudy Giuliani moved from a “crime agenda” to a “safety and
security platform” in his successful campaign for mayor
• How the Contract with America revolutionized political language
in ways its authors never intended
• How “drilling for oil” became “energy exploration,” frustrating the
entire environmental community
From the corporate world, we will explore:
• How effective language can be used to prevent a strike and promote
employee satisfaction
• How a large Fortune 100 company stalled and then stopped the
SEC from implementing popular “corporate accountability” measures
by reshaping the message and redefining the debate
• How “gambling” became “gaming” and how Las Vegas impresario
Steve Wynn discovered the value of his own name and attached it
to the most expensive hotel ever built
• How the CEO of Pfizer, the largest pharmaceutical company in the
world, has revolutionized the industry by applying the language of
responsibility and accountability and changing the focus from “disease
management” to “prevention”
And from the personal world, your world, you will learn:
• How to talk yourself out of a speeding ticket when you and the of-
ficer both know you’re guilty
• How to talk yourself into a reservation at a crowded restaurant and
onto a plane that has already closed its doors
po – you should read Robert Cialdini’s Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. The book is originally based on work he did at ASU. Because of his book I live a much simpler live and enjoy it much better. 🙂
“he Florida Governor is specifically controlling words, terms, and their commonly understood meaning in the workings of the government.”
In the case of “climate change”, the commonly understood meanings may be entirely BS.
In contrast, there are net taxpayers, and there are net tax-takers.
Different issue.
isaac and po, unable to address the socialist un-personing which is the subject of this post, change the subject to their own pet causes.
B-b-but …BUSH …the CRUSADES! cannot be far behind.
Anyone adding this as one of the signs of the apocalypse, MUST list right before it, (as Isaac mentions) sitting governors banning the use of certain words, like climate change, in their administration.
Lest we think you a hypocrite.
The formula of socialism is this:
A and B decide what C shall be made to do for D.
C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C’s interests, are entirely overlooked.
C the Forgotten Man. The taxpayer.
The socialist government “ignore(s) entirely the source from which they must draw all the energy which they employ in their remedies, and they ignore all the effects on other members of society than the ones they have in view.”
Deleting the word ‘taxpayer’ further solidifies the idea that the Forgotten Man is merely a milk cow, the invisible source of the State’s largesse.
Acknowledging the Forgotten Man is an affront to the State that thinks “you didn’t build that, you didn’t earn that.”.
We have a language, let’s us it. We keep taking words out of the language we are going to be talking in gestures. And I have a gesture, universally recognized, for the author of the original article.
issac – “As I stated earlier, there are more graphic examples of politicians subverting freedom through controlling language.”
Like removing the accurate term Illegal Alien?
I’m so tired of speech patrolling like this woman does. We have over-feminized politics. We need a woman’s sensitivities, but sometimes it just gets to be too much, as in this case.
Nick Spinelli, Don’t forget Mr. “Give Peace a Chance” moving to NYC.
Nick
I addressed JT, not you. JT opens himself up for a two way dialogue with his ‘What do you think?’. You are right. This is his blog. He asked any reader. That was what I thought.
Prairie Rose
The issue is not whether it is bi-partisan or not. The issue is the manipulation of semantics in a perhaps not so subtle manner but without coming out and specifically attaching meaning to words. The Florida Governor is specifically controlling words, terms, and their commonly understood meaning in the workings of the government. Why is open for interpretation but given his stance on the issues of Global Warming, having taken the ‘I’m not a scientist’ position and then hypocritically controlling accepted scientific terminology, this is many times more illustrative of JT’s concerns that the taxpayer/citizen condition.
Jim 22
This is probably more true in local elections, but perhaps not universal. The big boys and girls start out in the local elections and are more often than not picked there by financial backers. It costs less. They get to vet them earlier on. They get to influence and own them earlier on.
Again, we all pay taxes in one way or another. I would rather have a voter that understood the issues, understood the system, than a rich voter who pays a lot of taxes but votes for some ‘feel good’ jingoism that implies, falsely, that it will save him or her money.
In essence we all live in this country and are affected by each other. That is why we attempt to have a democratic system of government. The rewards of making a lot of money and paying taxes are one aspect among many and not by far the deciding one.
Implying that taxpayers figure more in the democratic system is nothing more than stroking those that pay taxes to get their votes. The Republicans do it. Obama does it. Any politician will do it. As I stated earlier, there are more graphic examples of politicians subverting freedom through controlling language.
In the 1970’s the Rolling Stones were making millions. The British top tax rate was 83%. Keith and the boys moved to France, saying “It’s like being told to leave the country.” Of course, now they would need to move to Monaco.
I like taxpayer. It always makes me think of the gazillionaires who should pay taxes but hide their money overseas to avoid being a–taxpayer!
That’s what the word brings to my mind!
@James Strnal:
Yes, because referring to people simply as “people” is so clearly beyond the pale.
issac – “Regarding the privilege to vote, a vote from a citizen, whether they pay income tax or not is next to meaningless in this country where the oligarchs pick the candidates, control their exposure and diatribe, and direct them once elected…..”
This might be true for the larger elections but what about local elections. Why should someone who doesn’t pay into the system have a say how the others stolen property will be spent?
issac,
“I’ve yet to see, on this blog, an item focusing on Florida’s governor’s banning of words and phrases concerning ‘Global warming’, as in that one specifically. If you work in the government you are not allowed to use these terms: global warming, climate change, or any of the typical terms used in the media to refer to the rise in sea temperatures, ice melting, etc.”
That’s silly, too. Attempting to control the language is a bipartisan effort for sure.