Quote:

---

Multi-millionaire Nick Hanauer has an important message for those who think the rich are America's job creators. Problem is, he can't seem to get it out.

Hanauer, one of the first nonfamily investors in Amazon.com, shared this argument as part of a talk he gave at the TED University conference. Now, the organizers of TED -- a movement aimed at bringing attention to "ideas worth spreading" -- is refusing to share Hanauer's talk on the internet, calling it too "political," according to the National Journal.

In his talk, Hanauer argued that the rich, people like him in other words, aren't responsible for the bulk of America’s job creation and therefore shouldn’t receive tax breaks to help them create jobs. Instead, he noted that middle-class consumers are more likely to create jobs by spending and spurring businesses to hire. Excerpts from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/17/nick-hanauer-ted-talk_n_15244
35.html]

Quote:

---

Chris Anderson, head honcho at TED, has responded to Nick Hanauer’s claims that his TED talk was censored. TED, Anderson says, tries “to steer clear of talks that are bound to descend into the same dismal partisan head-butting people” and that Hanauer “framed the issue in a way that was explicitly partisan.” The upshot, though, is that he’s letting viewers decide for themselves. Watch the video below.

To my ears, Hanauer framed the issue in a way that was explicitly nonpartisan. The only mention of either party comes at the beginning: “If taxes on the rich go up, job creation will go down,” Hanauer says. “This idea is an article of faith for Republicans, is seldom challenged by Democrats, and has indeed shaped much of the economic landscape. But sometimes the ideas we’re certain are true are dead wrong.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/nick-hanauers-ted-ta
lk-on-taxes/2012/05/17/gIQAXCncWU_blog.html

---

What that boils down to, essentially, is that the conservative strategy of calling the rich "job creators" has worked, and now if the truth doesn’t favor Republicans or isn’t neutral, it’s considered politically controversial. How can proven information be politically controversial?