Here's this week's column from Roll Call.
Budget Spinning:
What It’s Called Is More Important
Than What’s Done
You really can’t help but be impressed at the extraordinary efforts the White House and Congress make during a federal budget debate to get people to think they’re doing something different than what’s actually being done.
The typical way is to give what they’re doing a new and totally misleading name so they can get people to agree to something they would never agree to otherwise.
The best example used to be the “death tax.”
Several years ago, when the opponents of the federal estate tax decided to make a serious effort to get it reduced or eliminated, they came up with the absolutely brilliant public relations strategy to build support by changing its name. Instead of the estate tax, they started to refer to it as the death tax.
That one change probably had more to do with it being adopted than any argument made by any politician, economist or tax attorney. The reason is simple. Even though it may only be a collection of cassette tapes, college textbooks, some videos in betamax format and several pairs of boxer shorts that long ago had outlived their natural lives, everyone has an “estate” of some kind when they die.
But few people think of it in those terms. For the average person, an estate is something only wealthy people have so a tax on it won’t really apply to them. They don’t care about it and won’t get involved in the debate. That limits Congressional interest and support.
But even if they don’t think they have an estate, everyone is sure they’re going to die. That makes a tax on dying — a death tax — seem to apply to everybody and broadens the issue in a way that “estate tax” could never do.
It also opens up the type of rhetorical opportunities that only a writer for David Letterman or “The Daily Show” could truly appreciate. A new department was created today to collect federal taxes from people who have died. You have to have your tax records checked before being allowed into heaven (you can pay by credit card or check if the angels find you to be delinquent). When they say only death and taxes are certain, they’re not kidding.
The reality, of course, is that the death tax doesn’t tax death any more than the personal income tax taxes life. In fact, consumption and sales taxes are really the ones that tax your death because they apply to coffins, funeral services and burial plots.
The death tax has now been replaced as the best example of an issue that says one thing but really means another. The more I keep hearing President Bush and others use the phrase “tax rebate” to describe the economic stimulus checks that will soon be received by millions of Americans, I have to admit that, while it’s close, we have an all-time new champion misleading budget phrase.
Let’s start with basics: Some of the people who receive a “rebate” check won’t actually have paid any taxes. In other words, the federal government can’t issue a tax rebate to them because they didn’t make any payments to begin with.
Second, some may say that the fact that the check is coming from the U.S. Treasury, the federal department charged with collecting taxes, justifies calling this a tax rebate. That’s nonsense. With the exception of a handful of mostly covert federal agencies that maintain separate accounts, all government checks come from the Treasury Department. Whether you’re a recipient getting monthly benefits, an employee getting a salary or a contractor getting paid for its services, if the funds aren’t direct-deposited in your account you get a check from the Treasury.
Third, with one very important exception, everything the government does is a tax rebate of some kind. Some of us get our taxes returned to us directly when we get cash benefits, salaries or payments. Others get that rebate in noncash ways such as highways, national parks, defense and public safety.
Ironically, the one time getting a check is not a tax rebate is what’s happening with these economic stimulus checks, that is, when the amount being “rebated” far exceeds the amount of taxes collected. The entire economic stimulus plan is being paid for with additional government borrowing. That means that no one receiving a check in the coming weeks is actually receiving any of his or her money back because those tax payments long ago were committed to other things. All they’re getting now is an additional piece of the national debt.
The tax rebate checks the president and others are referring to are nothing more than additional old-fashioned spending. What the White House and Congress did was enact a $150 billion entitlement. And they did it with the type of speed that we haven’t seen since the Great Society and the reaction to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
It probably would have been impossible to get a stimulus plan called an entitlement passed by Congress. Indeed, just calling it “spending” would have so decreased support for it that the vote might have been close.
But even though the bottom-line effect on the federal budget was exactly the same as a spending program, calling it a tax rebate somehow made the effort far more politically acceptable. The Bush White House could continue to use its anti-spending rhetoric when accepting it, Congressional Republicans could appear to maintain anti-spending credentials when voting for it and Congressional Democrats could avoid the politically sensitive charge in an election year of being big spenders.
It’s hard not to wonder what could be ahead. A tax on mattresses could be referred to as the sleep tax. And given how many people read columns on the budget, everyone would get a budget column rebate to offset the tremendous amount of time they spend on these issues.

Maybe the "death tax" rhetoric wasn't that important...
According to Kwame Anthony Appiah (writing in the Washigton Post - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/11/AR200804... - and citing Michael Graetz and Ian Shapiro), the use of the "death tax" label didn't have much effect. Instead, it was a fairness argument that won the day.
"How, in the first Bush administration, did the movement to repeal the estate tax prevail? Not just because it was craftily renamed the "death tax." The number of Americans who told pollsters that they opposed the "death tax" was just a few percentage points higher than the number who said they opposed the "estate tax." As Yale scholars Michael Graetz and Ian Shapiro have shown, it mattered more that proponents of repeal made a moral argument (however specious): that the tax was unfair because, for one thing, it involved taxing earnings twice.
Many taxes tax earnings twice
Sales tax for example. We pay that using earnings that have already been subject to payroll taxes. Perhaps we should eliminate sales taxes.
it was Frank Luntz
It was PR flak Frank Luntz who devised "death tax" for his client the RNC, as a means to sell the American public the illusion that estate taxes were a cruel, heartless, grab by Big Government from the dear recently departed.
In fact estate taxes don't kick in until your estate amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars. They are a luxury tax that affects few Americans in any great way, but those Americans want the government to protect their inherited wealth, so Luntz figured out a way to confuse the public into believing the issue was a death tax.
Thanks, Frank! You're the greatest. I'm sure you'll personally kick in the revenue for government services that will no longer be coming from this source. You know, like medications for seniors. Right, Frank? Oh, right; you'll just let them die. Then we won't tax their estates. If any.
Semantics and the Elephant in the Room
Ah, the "Economic Stimulus Tax Rebate". There's a great little tome out there called "Don't Think of An Elephant" (Lakoff), and it's all about how semantics (sound bites) frame the debate. The Republicans and conservative think tanks are masters of sound-bite framing (because Americans have the attention span of fleas, this works). It is Orwellian language, and very effective.
Anyway, "Death Tax" was a brilliant stroke. Others in the sound-bite Hall of Fame (besides the newly-minted "Tax Rebate") include 'tax relief', 'partial birth abortion', "pro-life", "starve the beast", "tax and spend liberal", "moral majority", "Patriot Act", "Mission Accomplished", "Axis of Evil", "War on Terror", "No child left behind", and my personal favorite, "Food insecurity" (instead of starvation).
It's a quick read, and you budget geeks need it. Frame the debate. Play the semantics game. The Democrats were so far behind on this . . . but a couple years ago they all read Lakoff's book (it became required reading among Dems) and started using the same tactics. Hence we now have "gay marriage or freedom to marry", "anti-choice" (versus pro-life -- a term I just saw recently as a way to reframe the abortion debate), "debt society", "exit strategy", "common good", "subprime crisis", "welfare reform", "universal healthcare", "fiscal responsibility" (we're not going to raise taxes, we're gonna be fiscally responsible!)
Anyway, we need to lean on sound bites such as "fiscal responsibility", and "balancing the budget", and "forward budgeting" (ie., not leaving a huge debt to the kids). You budget geeks need to frame the debate, and that's why I come to this blog site (because the three of you are attempting to do just that -- put it into a better, more balanced perspective). Use the sound bites.
Read Lakoff's book. Let's talk about framing the debate to educate Americans so they can hold these candidates (all of them) accountable for more than useless campaign rhetoric. It's the only way we can build a stronger American economy.
Great post, Stan. Well
Great post, Stan. Well said.
I am shocked -- SHOCKED -- to learn that politicians employ misleading euphemisms to advance their agendas.
For more, see my Official 2007-2008 Political Glossary
It's a must read!