effective in treating 62 percent to 95 percent of cases of erectile dysfunction). The FTC called the claims âfalse and outrageous.â In all those cases, the product names were mentioned as one factor contributing to the deception.
Donât assume that just because a law is called an assault weapon ban or a product is called Smoke Away that they really do what their names imply. Always ask, âWhatâs behind that name? Does it really describe the thing they are trying to sell me? What would be a more accurate name for it?â
TRICK #2:
Frame It and Claim It
F EW BUT THE RICH NEEDED TO THINK MUCH ABOUT THE FEDERAL estate tax, because it never touched the vast majority of Americans. In 1992, for example, the tax fell only on the richest 1.3 percent of those who died. But thatâs when a group backed by some billionaire families, including the Gallo wine clan and the Blethen family, owners of
The Seattle Times,
began lobbying to repeal it. They seemed to have so little chance that few paid any attention. But then somebody decided that rather than call the estate tax by its proper and legal name, activists should instead refer to it as the death tax. The man who claims credit for this is James L. Martin, head of the conservative 60 Plus Association. He tells of establishing a âbeer and pizza fundâ to which he required his employees to contribute $1 every time they slipped and uttered the term âestate tax.â Other antitax crusaders picked up the name, and Republicans made it part of their political vocabulary around the time they took control of the House of Representatives in January 1995.
The term âdeath taxâ was an intentional misnomer: obviously, whatâs being taxed isnât death, but bequeathed wealth. Nevertheless, the tactic worked. In 2001 the Republican-controlled Congress approved a gradual phase-down and temporary repeal, which will become permanent if foes of the tax get their way.
Why did this tactic work? The Republican strategist Frank Luntz explains. âThe public wouldnât support it [repeal] because the word âestateâ sounds wealthy,â he told an interviewer for the PBS documentary series
Frontline
in 2004. But call it a death tax, he added, âand suddenly something that isnât viable achieves the support of 75 percent of the American people. Itâs the same tax, but nobody really knows what an estate is. But they certainly know what it means to be taxed when you die.â
Although the term âdeath taxâ was misleading, it framed the issue in a way that made people think of the tax unfavorably even before they considered any facts. A simple rule of persuasion holds, âFrame the issue,
claim
the issue.â Some supporters of the estate tax later regretted they had been so slow to frame the issue their way, as the âParis Hilton tax cut.â Indeed, in 2006 the Coalition for Americaâs Priorities ran TV and radio ads calling estate tax repeal a giveaway to âbillionaires and heiresses.â The radio ad featured a Hilton imitator praising the Senate as âawesomeâ for considering repeal: âSo what that gas is over three dollars a gallon? Likeâ¦use a credit card!â As we write this, Congress is still debating whether to repeal the tax permanently or just narrow it radically to a very few, very rich families. Either way, the âdeath taxâ misnomer was a powerful weapon that the other side was slow to counter.
Democrats had better luck framing an issue when they attacked President Bushâs Social Security plan. Bush proposed to create an option for younger workers to divert up to 4 percent of their wages through the payroll tax to personal accounts, which would be invested in government-approved mutual funds. Critics, among them the AFL-CIO, called this âBushâs plan to privatize Social Security,â as though the entire Social Security program would
Donât assume that just because a law is called an assault weapon ban or a product is called Smoke Away that they really do what their names imply. Always ask, âWhatâs behind that name? Does it really describe the thing they are trying to sell me? What would be a more accurate name for it?â
TRICK #2:
Frame It and Claim It
F EW BUT THE RICH NEEDED TO THINK MUCH ABOUT THE FEDERAL estate tax, because it never touched the vast majority of Americans. In 1992, for example, the tax fell only on the richest 1.3 percent of those who died. But thatâs when a group backed by some billionaire families, including the Gallo wine clan and the Blethen family, owners of
The Seattle Times,
began lobbying to repeal it. They seemed to have so little chance that few paid any attention. But then somebody decided that rather than call the estate tax by its proper and legal name, activists should instead refer to it as the death tax. The man who claims credit for this is James L. Martin, head of the conservative 60 Plus Association. He tells of establishing a âbeer and pizza fundâ to which he required his employees to contribute $1 every time they slipped and uttered the term âestate tax.â Other antitax crusaders picked up the name, and Republicans made it part of their political vocabulary around the time they took control of the House of Representatives in January 1995.
The term âdeath taxâ was an intentional misnomer: obviously, whatâs being taxed isnât death, but bequeathed wealth. Nevertheless, the tactic worked. In 2001 the Republican-controlled Congress approved a gradual phase-down and temporary repeal, which will become permanent if foes of the tax get their way.
Why did this tactic work? The Republican strategist Frank Luntz explains. âThe public wouldnât support it [repeal] because the word âestateâ sounds wealthy,â he told an interviewer for the PBS documentary series
Frontline
in 2004. But call it a death tax, he added, âand suddenly something that isnât viable achieves the support of 75 percent of the American people. Itâs the same tax, but nobody really knows what an estate is. But they certainly know what it means to be taxed when you die.â
Although the term âdeath taxâ was misleading, it framed the issue in a way that made people think of the tax unfavorably even before they considered any facts. A simple rule of persuasion holds, âFrame the issue,
claim
the issue.â Some supporters of the estate tax later regretted they had been so slow to frame the issue their way, as the âParis Hilton tax cut.â Indeed, in 2006 the Coalition for Americaâs Priorities ran TV and radio ads calling estate tax repeal a giveaway to âbillionaires and heiresses.â The radio ad featured a Hilton imitator praising the Senate as âawesomeâ for considering repeal: âSo what that gas is over three dollars a gallon? Likeâ¦use a credit card!â As we write this, Congress is still debating whether to repeal the tax permanently or just narrow it radically to a very few, very rich families. Either way, the âdeath taxâ misnomer was a powerful weapon that the other side was slow to counter.
Democrats had better luck framing an issue when they attacked President Bushâs Social Security plan. Bush proposed to create an option for younger workers to divert up to 4 percent of their wages through the payroll tax to personal accounts, which would be invested in government-approved mutual funds. Critics, among them the AFL-CIO, called this âBushâs plan to privatize Social Security,â as though the entire Social Security program would
Similar Books
