INTENTIONAL MISUES OF WORDS IS GIVEAWAY ON CLINTONOMICS

When we are dealing with concepts like freedom and equality, it is essential to use words accurately and in good faith. ... Beware of those who seek to win an argument at the expense of the language. For the fact that they do is proof positive that their argument is false, and proof presumptive that they know it is. ... Those who treasure the meaning of words will treasure truth, and those who bend words to their purpose are very likely in pursuit of anti-social ones. The correct and honorable use of words is the first and natural credential of civilized status.

British historian Paul Johnson, writing in his 1977 masterpiece, "Enemies of Society."

Many able commentators, on this page and elsewhere, have commented on the folly of President Clinton's economic program. Most have focused their fire on the fact that the numbers don't add up (which they certainly don't). Others have noted the devastating hit the middle class and energy-intensive industries will take through the "BTU" energy tax. Or the fact that we're spending untold new billions in a package advertised as "deficit reduction". Or the inflationary and anti-competitive impact of higher taxes on goods and services. Or the fact that we've tried this a half-dozen times since 1982 and never reduced the deficit. Or the ludicrous falsehood on which the entire Ponzi scheme is based, namely, that we can tax our way to prosperity.

Aside from Joe Sobran, few commentators have directed their fire at the most basic weakness in President Clinton's economic program: its fundamental immorality. The President and his coterie of glib verbalists (Stephanopolous, et al.) summon all their talents to sell a program that is, at its core, a pack of cooked numbers and lies, of half-truths and shaded statistics and the most bald-faced demagoguery in a generation.

The fundamental lie at the core of the President's program is two-fold: 1) that down this path lies "deficit reduction"; and 2) that a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats can choose to spend, save and invest your money better than you can yourself. Both are demonstrably false. And both contain the seeds of rising cynicism by an American public slowly waking up to the fact that we've just suffered the biggest double-cross in history.

The three powers in Clinton's administration Hillary, Bill and Prince Albert Gore have each spent their entire adult lives in the cloistered world of politically connected law firms, endless campaigns and government. Neither has ever struggled to meet payrolls, to grow a business or hire additional workers. These people flat believe in government. In truth, their entire scheme is about power expanding theirs, sharply limiting yours which is to say, your freedom, your inalienable birthright as a child of God.

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's, says the Lord in the New Testament. Consider: the Lord God Almighty asks for a flat ten percent, thought by many to be an exorbitant claim on incomes. But our modern Caesars claim thirty, forty, fifty, even sixty percent of marginal income dollars and this crowd of Arkies will take that figure higher still. And we haven't even heard yet from Hillary, the Lord High Priestess Arkie of Health Care. Expect $90 or $100 billion more, when she finally rolls out her "plan" to "fix" health care.

The unmistakable giveaway that reveals Clintonomics' fundamental dishonesty is the way the Clintonians are playing fast and loose with the plain meaning of words. In his magisterial work quoted above, we were warned against this insidious practice by Paul Johnson, the internationally renowned British scholar.

Thus, terms such as spending get redefined as "investment"; taxes as "contributions" and patriotism as a willingness to make the "contributions" the Arkies deem necessary. Thus we get lectures on our "patriotic duty" on taxes from a young man who spent the Vietnam years hiding out in England, scheming to stay out of the uniform to which his country had called him.

Of all the terms that must undergo redefinition in Arkie Newspeak, the most interesting is "the rich" which we used to think of as fourth or fifth generation inherited wealth and idle, unproductive wealth at that.

The "middle class", the campaigning Arkies told us, would get a tax cut; higher taxes would be solely for "the rich." Once the Arkies were safely past the voters, the middle class tax cut was jettisoned. And since November 3, that threshhold for "the rich" has steadily fallen, from $200,000 (during the campaign) to $100,000 (State of the Union address), all the way to $30,000 (in last week's printed details), where, it's now conceded, incomes will start feeling the pinch. And as Washington columnist Paul Gigot informs us, "the finer print reveals it is actually $20,000, because the Clinton plan defines income to include such `non-cash income' as fringe benefits and the imputed rental value of a family home." Presumably, if you can afford a light bulb, you're now "rich" enough to pay Bill Clinton's new taxes, BTU and otherwise.

All presidents go back on a campaign pledge or two. What is truly disturbing with this one is the astonishing speed, even eagerness, with which this cunning seduction artist is managing his various doublecrosses. And as Paul Johnson taught us, you can detect the whole scheme by the unmistakable willingness to misuse words and twist their meaning for an ignoble purpose.