It's always interesting to observe how the Republican position on matters of great import is portrayed in the media, and the way in which the GOP attempts to respond to what is typically a negative slant.

So far, both sides have been true to form in the ongoing debt debate.  The media has depicted the Republicans as intransigent and blame-worthy, while the GOP has shown itself to be fairly inept at playing what should be a super strong hand.

Take the issue of  Democrat insistence on "increased revenue" as a prime example.  Republicans have largely, particularly early in the debate when many opinions were being formed, allowed that term to become synonymous with tax hikes.  As we know, most people (especially Republicans) conflate tax hikes with an elevation of income tax rates and/or a boost in user fees—both anathema to conservative orthodoxy (because they generally slow economic activity).

From the get go, Republicans should have embraced, co-opted, and properly defined (conservative style) the "increased revenue" mantra of Obama and the Dems.

Increased revenue is about economic growth/expansion.  And that, as history has repeatedly shown, is always the byproduct of major tax reform—the kind that simplifies the system, lowers rates, broadens the base, and provides substantial incentives for investment and entrepreneurship.

Despite the media's best efforts to split Republicans by associating "increased revenue" with things taboo to those on the Right, thinking conservatives/Republicans need to recognize that there is absolutely nothing wrong with more revenue when it is derived the correct way.

There's a very simple value argument.  People/business are much more willing to provide incremental labor/goods and services when, for example, they can keep a much larger percentage of what they earn.  Ultimately, many more taxpayers and tax-paying entities result—each paying a somewhat lesser percentage of total income.  The bottom line, though, is substantially more dollars to the government.  Classic win/win.

If you prefer, forget the macro/micro-economics and think of it in more simplistic terms.  We constantly make decisions in our everyday lives to pay more/less money for one thing over another because of perceived value.

Say I typically allocate $500 per month to feed my family and $500 to savings.  If presented with an opportunity to spend an additional $100 for another $200 worth of groceries, I may very well do so because the chance to upgrade the quality and/or quantity of groceries for the family for such a relatively small amount might be more valuable than another $100 of savings.

How about leisure?  Perhaps I'd be willing to spend $2,000/year on golf greens fees, but only if the value is right.  If my only choice was to play four rounds at $500 per, I might very well decide to allocate zero dollars toward golf; however, if I could play 40 rounds at $50 per, I could be easily convinced to use the entire $2,000.

People and businesses across the economic spectrum apportion resources all the time based on perceived value.  When incentives (e.g. tax policies) are properly structured, all parties—individuals, businesses, and government—can be satisfied.

The propensity to spend and invest is greatly enhanced when the perceived value is high.  The great error in judgement continually made by Dems is that the "wealthy" will continue to spend and invest at similar or greater rates when the value of doing so has been diminished by higher taxes and inappropriately onerous regulations.

Conservatives, remember, the issue is limiting the size and scope of government, not the number of dollars it collects.  When we expand the economy, the government collects much more revenue, but that revenue represents a considerably smaller percentage of GDP.

The republic remains viable as long as that percentage, not raw dollars to the Treasury, is managed assiduously.