I hate watching talk shows when conservatives are on. Few of them know how to argue well. They’re too concerned about their reputation. They have to come across as “statesmen.” They want the media to like them. That’s never going to happen.
I practice all the time on how I would argue a particular topic. Writing four or five articles every day helps to sharpen my rhetorical skills.
So how should constitutionalists and other sane people approach some “info-babe,” as Rush Limbaugh likes to call low-information women interviewers, on the topic of taxing the rich based on the premise that “the rich can afford to pay more in taxes”?
Here’s the liberal narrative that even the wealthy have fallen for:
“Stephen Prince, who is 61, lives in a gated golf community near Nashville, Tenn., and owns a condo in New York. Not only can he afford to pay more, he says, but he also believes people in his bracket need to pony up to support essential programs such as education and roads.”
I can see an interviewer using Mr. Prince’s statement in an interview with an anti-tax advocate. I would say, “Mr. Prince, then pony up and shut up. No one’s stopping you from paying more in taxes. You may want to flush your money down a high-priced government toilet, but there are a lot of wealthy people who don’t.”
I would then take over the interview by asking the interviewer this question: “What is your net worth and how much do you make in a year?”
Soledad O’Brien is a big-name talker who wants to raise taxes on the rich because “they can afford it.” Her net worth is $5 million. She earns $1.5 million per year. By asking this question, you put her on the defensive. Your goal is to make her stutter and expose her hypocrisy.
If she refuses to say how much she makes, tell the viewing audience. You’re goal is to make your case to the people watching the interview. She’s your conduit to the people.
Looking into the camera with the red light on, say the following:
“Soledad O’Brien is rich. She makes more about $1.5 million dollars every year. She says the rich can afford to pay more in taxes. This means that she can afford to pay more in taxes. If she believes the rich should pay more in taxes, why shouldn’t the rich pay more for food, clothing, cars, computers, and houses? Why is it just for taxes?”
The next time Ms. O’Brien goes out to eat, she should have to show her pay stub. The restaurant would then calculate how much she can afford to pay. It might be $50 for her and $4.50 for the guy who cleans her office. “Are you OK with this, Ms. O’Brien?”
The same “the rich can afford it” principle should then be applied to the shoes she buys. She wants a new car? The dealership looks at her net worth and charges her accordingly.
So instead of taxing anybody, how about basing wealth confiscation on how much people can afford?
While we’re at it, why don’t we handicap everything we do? Every professional sports team would have to play “fair.” Baseball teams should have to average batting and fielding percentages. News shows would be required to follow a system of “facial justice”1 in hiring on-air personalities. Our neighborhoods would have to look like Levittown with rows of “little boxes” of different colors “all made out of ticky-tacky” that “all look just the same.”
The point is, taxation should not be based on what a person can afford. Our tax system is out of whack because the government is in the wealth confiscation business to empower itself. Elected officials inherit the power to take money from some people so they can give it to other people. No private citizen or group of private citizens could ever do this legally. But government can when enough people get elected by people who want other people’s money.
“Ms. O’Brien, would you be morally justified in stealing money from your neighbors so you could give that money to other people? Yes or no? Do you believe that you and a group of your friends could take money out of a neighbor’s checking account so you as a group could give that stolen money to other people? Yes or no? But you do believe that it’s OK to elect people to confiscate the wealth of your neighbors. I don’t see the difference.”
Of course, don’t ever expect to be invited back for an interview.
- See the novel Facial Justice by L.P. Hartley: “The dystopian society that emerges after World War Three is based on a collective sense of guilt. Citizens of this new world, officially labelled ‘delinquents’ by their Dictator, are named after murderers and are obliged to wear sackcloth and ashes. Individualism is stamped out. Privilege, which might arouse envy, is energetically discouraged. Thus it is no surprise to find Jael 97 reporting to the Ministry of Facial Justice. Being facially overprivileged, her good looks have been the cause of discontent among other women, and she has considered having a beta (second-grade) face fitted.” [↩]