A lot of phrases used in public policy debates are inaccurate
and misleading. They often confuse and distort the issue at hand.
Lately, I’ve noticed that a number of phrases are annoying me more
and more, so I have decided to use this column to vent my spleen at
them. Here goes:
We are a nation of immigrants. As anyone who
even briefly saw the demonstrations earlier this year, this phrase
is extremely popular among the Open-The-Border-Like-A-Fire-Hose
crowd. Merriam Webster defines immigrant as “a person who comes to
a country to take up permanent residence.” In other words, an
immigrant is born in one country and then comes to live in another.
Since I and most of my fellow Americans were born here in the U.S.,
we aren’t immigrants. Since most of us aren’t immigrants, it
follows that we can’t be a nation of immigrants. One might
reasonably respond that what the phrase is intended to convey is
that we are a nation of people who are descended from immigrants.
But why not say that instead? My guess is that it isn’t as
effective at obscuring the difference between those who reside here
legally and those who don’t.
Fragmented health care system. This phrase is a
favorite of those who want more government-run health care. For
example, Regina Owens of the liberal Washington Citizen Action
complains that the U.S. puts “enough dollars
into our fragmented health care system to cover everyone. But
nearly one-third of our health care dollars go to administration,
and billions more feed excessive prescription drug prices and
‘boutique’ clinics.” But most systems in our society are fragmented
(or, more accurately, “decentralized”) in that they have a
multitude of suppliers and millions of consumers. And almost all
work very well in the sense of providing valuable products for a
good price — cars, computers, food, etc. Indeed, the problem isn’t
that our health care system is fragmented; rather it is too
centralized. Over 42 million people are in Medicare, and
about another 50 million are in Medicaid. Add to that the millions
more who are in health insurance plans chosen not by themselves but
by their employers, and the result isn’t that our health care
system is fragmented. It’s that it is not fragmented enough.
The cost of tax cuts. The mainstream media and
opponents of tax cuts (but I repeat myself) love to use this one
whenever Republicans endeavor to reduce our taxes. One couldn’t
escape it when President Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003, and it
reared its ugly head again recently when Congress tried to repeal
the death tax. According to Bloomberg News, a compromise plan on the death
tax “would cost $284 billion through 2016, or about 75 percent of
the cost of full repeal.” The crucial question that no one on the
left ever answers is “a cost to whom?” The response would likely be
“a cost to the government.” But since it is taxpayers who fund the
government, ultimately the phrase means that tax cuts are a cost
to taxpayers. If that makes sense to you, then you must
have failed Logic 101 in college. If the Bloomberg News had written
logically, the article would have read, “the compromise would save
taxpayers $284 billion through 2016.” However, that wouldn’t put
those tax cuts in as quite a negative light, now would it?
Faith in the market. This phrase is often used
in a disparaging fashion such as, “In the end, this libertarian
faith in the market is the great failing of [Richard] Posner’s essay.” Merriam-Webster defines faith
as a “firm belief in something for which there is no proof.” You
know, I had always thought that the vibrant economies of capitalist
countries when compared to those of the former Soviet Union and
Eastern Bloc, not to mention the economic toilets that are
modern-day Cuba and North Korea, were pretty strong proof that
markets work. But what do I know? I guess that is why you seldom,
if ever, hear the term “faith in government” to describe those
folks on the left. After all, there must be ample evidence that
government works quite well, right?
Well, that’s enough complaining for now. I could probably come
up with more phrases if I wanted, as could you. In fact, why don’t
you? If there is a phrase that annoys you, please tell me what it
is and explain why it is inaccurate and misleading. Email it to me
at dhogberg@nationalcenter.org.
I’ll post the ones I like on the AmSpecBlog.
David Hogberg is an analyst at the National Center for
Public Policy Research. He also hosts his own website, Hog
Haven.
